Skip to main content

Full text of "A defence of the church-government, faith, worship & spirit of the Presbyterians : in answer to a late book intituled, An apology for Mr. Thomas Rhind : or an account of the manner how, and the reasons for which he separated from the Presbyterian party, and embraced the communion of the church"

See other formats 


H 


> 


6cs  *tlO*83 


sfkrrr**  £■  ^^^^< 


BHFilC 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/defenceofchurOOande 


^TiV^P 


C  HU  R  C  H-GOFERNMENT, 

FAITH,  WORSHIP  & 

SPIRIT 

OF     THE 


Jn  ANSWER  to  a  late  Book  Intituled, 
An  APOLOGY  for  Mr  THOMAS 
KHIND.  Or  an  Account  of  the  Man- 
ner how,  and  the  Keafons  for  which  he 
Separated  from  the  Presbyterian  Party, 
and  embraced  the  Communion  of  the 
CHVKCH 


By    JOHN  ANDERSON  M. A.  Minifterof  the 
in  DVM8ART0N. 


I  John  II.  19.    They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us : 


GLASGOW, 
Printed  by   HVGH   BROWN.      M.  DCC.  XIV. 


TO 

The  Right  Honourable 


? 


EARL   of    I  LAY, 

LORD  JUSTICE-GENERAL, 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland, 

One  of  the  Extraordinary  Lords 

OF 


AND 


Have,  upon    moe  Accounts  than 
one    Prefum'd    to    bhelter    this 
under  Tom-  Patronage, 


D  E  D  I  C  AT  1  0  N. 

THE  Great  Family,  whence  You  arc 
Sprung,  and  whereof  You  are  fb  Bright  an  Or- 
nament, has  always,  fince  the  firfl:  Dawn  of  the 
Reformation,  Patronized  the  Caufe  therein  De- 
fended, They  have  Manag'd  it  by  their  Wif* 
dotn>  Prote&ed  it  with  Their  Sword,  Adorn'd 
it  by  Their  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 
Sacrifice  at  once  for  Their  GOD  and  Their 
Country ,  To  be  tranfmkted  to  Pofterity  un- 
der the  united  Characters  of  MAR1TR  and 
PATRIOT;  This,  MT  LORD,  waS> 
next  to  the  Enjoyment  of  Heaven,  the  higheft 
Glory  Great  and  Virtuous  Souls  cou'd  attain  to# 

I  need  not  tell  Tour  Lordfhip  that  the  fame 
Caufe  is  ftill  in  Hazard.  Jt  is  Lampoon  d  in  the 
Tavern,  Declaim'd  againfl  from  the  Pulpt,  Scrib- 
bfd  at  from  the  Prefix  and  its  Ruin  Projedted 
by  the  dealers  in  the  Politicly.  Yet  all  the  Na- 
tion is  Perfuaded,  that  it  is  no  lefs  the  Inclina- 
tion, 


D  £  D1C  AT  ION. 


.ticnr  than  'tis  viiibly  the  lotereft  o£  the  Family 
;of  AtvGYLE  heartily  to  efpoufe  it:  Ancl 
all  the  Owners  of  that  Intereft,  that  is,  the  Wifer 
and  Better  and  far  Greater  Part  of  the  Nation, 
have  neceffarly  fuch  an  Qpinion  of  the  Perfbnal 
fuffieiency  of  the  Principal  Members  of  that 
Houfe,  as  to  found  the  greateft  Expectations 
thereon. 

YOUR  Muftrious  Brother,  The  DUKE,has 

rais'd  Himfelfto  an  Unrival'd  Glory,  and  Dit 
tinguifli'd  Himfelf  as  the  H EKO  of  the  Age. 

YOU,  My  Lord,  not  contented  to  ex- 
cel! in  thofe  Exercifes?  which  are  too  often  the  on- 
ly Accomplishment  of  Perfbns  diftinguifh'd  by 
Their  Birth,  nor  fatisfied  to  have  Adorn'd  Your 
Mind  with  that  which  is  call'd  the  Polite  Part  of 
Learning;  and.,  by  a  True  Tafteof  the  Belles 
Lettrefy  and  uncommon  Advances  in  the  Ma- 
themattchg  aftH  all  the  moft  valuable  Parts  of 
Philofbphy  |  to  make  Your  Converfation  both 
t Shining  and   Inltru&ive.     Not  fatisfiedj  1  fay 

t%  with 


DEDICATION. 


with  all  this,  You  have  befides,  that  you  might 
be  a  Publick  Good  to  your  Country,  ftock'd 
Your  Soul  with  fo  Exaft  and  Extenfive  a  Know- 
ledge of  the  Laws,  that  you  are  Diftinguifh'd 
on  the  Bench  by  your  Ability  no  lefs  than  by 
Your  Quality:  And  the  whole  Nation  finds  it 
felf  Happy  in  Her  Majefiys  Wife  Choice  of 
Tour  Lordfiip  to  bear  fo  great  a  Part  in  thofe 
Courts ;  on  the  Sentences  of  which  their  Lives  and 
Fortunes  depend, 

THO'  then,  My  Lord,  the  Weakness  of 
the  Book  are  Mine  only,  and  fo  can  no  Way 
affeft  Tour  LordJhip.y  yet  the  Subjell  of  it,  and 
the  Caufe  it  appears  for,  neceffarly  in  title  it  to 
the  Patronage  of  a  Perfbn  of  your  Character; 
You,  My  Lord,  know  that  the  Presbyterian  E- 
flablidiment  in  Scotland  can  never  be  overthrown,- 
without  breaking  through  whatever  has  been 
hitherto  held  Sacred  among  iMen.  And  Tour 
Lordjhip  knows t  there  is  no  Caufe  why  it  fliou'd 
be  attempted. 

THO' 


D  E  D  IC  AT  ION. 


THO'  the  High -Church  Fa&ion  with  whom 
ModeHy  and  Moderation  are  reckon  d  Scandal, 
has  taught  her  Profelyts  to  Charge  the  Presby- 
terians with  a  SP I  KIT  Diametrically  Offofite 
to  that  of  the  Gofpl .  Yet,  You,  My  Lord,  from 
Your  oun  Perfbnal  Acquaintance  with  Vrn 
know,  how  Falfe  and  Calumnious  that  Charge 
is.  As 'tis  Evident,  to  the  Obfervation  of  all 
the  World)  that  They  are  the  moft  ferious  Chri* 
ftians ;  So  Tour  hordjhip  is  abundantly  con- 
vinced, that  They  are  the  moft  Faithfull  Subjects 
Her  Majefiy  has  on  this  Side  the  Borden 

THEY  don  t  indeed  allow  of  a  WO  R~ 
SHIP  Fring'd  with  Ceremonies  of  Human  In- 
vention and  Impofition.  But^  I'm  perfuaded,  a 
Perfon  of  Tour  Lordjhifs  Reified  ion  mud  needs 
befenfible,  that  a  Minifter  of  GOD  never 
makes  a  more  Unfightly  Figure.,  than  when  Ap- 
pearing in  a  Party  -Colour'd  Drefs,  and  Pra- 
dtifing  Motions  and  Poftures  His  Heavenly  Ma- 
fter  never  enjoin'd  Him.  Tis  True  the  Presby* 
2  terians 


D  E  D  I  C  AT  ION. 


terians  don't  reftrid  themfelves  to  Forms'  in  Pray- 
ing to  Almighty- GOD ;  But,  i  fuppofe,  Tour 
Lordfiip  docs  not  think  a  Begger.ever  the  lefi 
Sincere,  tho'  he  don  t  always  ask  his  Alms  in  the 
fame  ftudied  Cant. 

'TIS  Confefs'd  likewife,  there  are  feveral 
ARTICLES  OF  FAITH  taught  by  the  Pre- 
sbyterians,  which  are  above  the  Comprehenfion 
of  Our  finite  Minds :  But  Tour  LordJhipf  who, 
every  Day,  in  the  Search  of  Nature^  find  fb 
many  Appearances  perfe&ly  Unaccountable  from 
the  Laws  of  Mechamfm,  without  having  Re. 
courfe  to  the  Firft  Mover  and  great  Author  of 
Nature,  can't  be  furpriz;d  to  find  Articles  in  Re* 
ligion  not  otherwife  to  be  Refblv'd  but  by  Be- 
lieving That  GOD's  Judgments  areVnfe  arch  able 
and  His  Ways  paft  finding  out.  Nor  will  Tour 
Lordjhip^  1  prefume,  be  ftraitned  to  Believe, 
that  the  whole  Chrijiian  Church,  which  has 
Taught  thofe  Articles  equally  with  the  Presby- 
teriansy  is  as  likely  to  be  in  the  Right,  as  an 

Upftart 


DEDICATION. 


Upftart  Se<9:  of  yefterday,   whole  Confidence  is 
their  moft  Ufefull  Quality. 

I N  a  Word,  My  Lord,  the  Presbyterians 
difown  a  PRELACT  among  the  Minifters  of 
the  Gofpel ;  And,  on  this  Score,  High-Church 
finds  in  Her  Heart  to  Damn  em  by  the  Lump, 
and  Mercifully  to  confign  'em  to  Everlafting 
Flames,  But  Tour  Lordjhip  has  a  jufter  No- 
tion of  the  Kind  Author  of  our  Being,  than 
to  Believe  that  He  will  Ruine  His  Creatures 
for  not  Submitting  to  a  Government,  which  its 
Freflheft  and  moft  Learn'd  Patrons  own,  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  ORACLES  OF 
TRVTH. 

I  have  therefore  adventur  d  to  Infer 5be  this 
Piece  to  Tour  Lordfhip.y  not  doubting  but,  how 
Weak  fbever  the  Performance  may  be,  that  yet 
an  Eff ay  to  Defend  fo  very  Good  a  Caufe, 
wherein  not  only  Truth,  but  Peace,  Charity 
and  Good  Neighbourhood  are  fbmuch  concern'd^ 
will  not  be  quite  Ungratefull  to   You. 

%  2  THAT 


DEDICATION. 

THAT  Tonr  Lordjhty  may  be  always 
BlefFed  with  the  Richeft  Favours  of  Heaven, 
is,  and  fliall  be  the  Daily  Prayer  of 


MY    LORD, 

Your  Lord/hip's 
mo/i  Humble,  and 
moB  Obedient  Servant 


JOHN     ANDERSON; 


K  i.   ) 


THE 


EING  Senfible  that  Books  always  oc  capon-  an  Ex  fence  of 
Money*  and,  which  is  much  more  valuable ',  of  Time  ;  / 
think  my  f elf  obliged  to  account ,  why  1  have  given  the  Pub* 
lick  the  Trouble  of  this. 

HOW  foon  the  APOLOGY  appeared;  that  Party,  which  is  dU 
ftinguijtfd  by,  the  Name  of  HIGH-CHI!  R  C  H,  Gloried  both  in  the 
Author  and  in  tht  Service-  He  had  done.  They  Spread  His  Book,  with 
great  Induftry  into  the  fever al  Parts  of  the  Nation,,  Recommended  u  as- 
a Perfect  Piece  in  its  Kjnd,  and  at  length  Boa  fled  it  made  Profelyts. 

I  bate  U  Grudge  even  an  Adversary  His  due  Praife.  I  frankly 
own ,  Mr,.  Rbind  has  done  as  well  as  the  SubjeB  was  Capable  of.  town 
His  Book  is,  of  its  Bulk,  the  moB  Comprehenfive  in  its  Subject^  I 
have  feen.  Some  Authors  have  attaqued  Vs  upw  the  Head  of  GO- 
VERNMENT,^ upon  our  DOCTRINE,  fome  upon  our 
WORSHIP,  and  fome  too  (  thor  thefe  not  always  rjsceffivly  Qualified,  ei- 
ther Morally  or  Intellectually,  for  fuch  an  Tinder  taking  )  upon  our  5PI* 
RIT  and  PRACTICE.  But  MvRhindi  has  widened  the  Com- 
pafs,  and  taken  all  Four  within  His  Circle,  hinting  at  every  Thing,  of 
a  General  Nature  ythat  has  been  wont  to  be  objected  to' my  art d  all  this 
in  fo  very Pointed  a  Stile,  'that,  had  His  Probation  hen  equal,  ifare 
had  been  an  End  of  the  matter \  and  the  World,  had  heard,  its  laji  of 
Presbytry  for  ever,; 

IT: 


II  The     PEIEFAC  E. 

IT  might  then  pofjibly  have  argued,  either  too  much  Indolence,  or  an 
III  Confcience%  to  have  neglected  fuch  a  Book  ,  without  either  Anfwering  or 
Confejjing  to  it.  Nor  is  it  quite  Improbable  that  Silence  wou'd  have 
height ned  the  Vanity  of  a  Party  abundantly  remarkable  already  for  that 
Quality.  I  cannot  deny  but  thtfe  Conftder at  ions  formwhat  Influenced  me 
to  write. 

BVT  thenf  That  which  Determined  me,  was  the  Consideration  of 
the  Defign  of  Mr.  Rhind'i  Book,  and  of  the  Efteflt  it  muft  neceffarly 
have,fo  far  as  it  Per/uades.  And  who  knows  how  far  it  may  dofo? 
Mankind  grows  Daily  more  Corrupt-,  and  Mr.  Rhind  is  very  far  from 
being  ftngular  in  what  He  has  advanced,  mo  ft  Part  of  Books  we  get  from 
High-Church  being  of  the  fame  Strain,  and  Breathing  the  very  fame 
Spirit. 

NOW  what  elfe  is  the  Defign  of  Mr.  Rhind'.*  Book,  But  to  over* 
turn  the  most  Sacred  and  Important  Truths  ?  And  what  elfe  can  the 
ErTeft  of  it  be,  fo  far  as  it  obtains  Credit,  but  the  Vlmosl  Contempt 
of  Serioufnefs  and  Piety,  which,  GOD  knows,  is  at  too  low  an  Ebb 
already  on  both  fides  ?  What  elfe  is  the  Defign  of  it,  but  to  Exafper- 
ate  the  one  Half  of  the  Nation  into  Rage  and  Fury  again  ft  the  other  ? 
And,  ftjou'd  it  gain  Faith,  how  Dire  muft  the  Confequences  be  ?  Then 
mutt  Love,  Peace,  and  Charity  be  for  ever  BaniflSd,  a  State  of  V- 
wiverfal  Hotiility  inftantly  commence,  Ferfecution,  in  all  its  moft  term 
rible  Forms,  take  Place,  till  not  only  'JPresbytry  be  aboliflfd,  but  the 
whole  Generation  of  Presbyterians  be  Extirpated  from  off  the  Face  of  the 
Earth,  which,  IfupPo/'e  will  hard/y  ever  be,  fo  long  as  there  is  a  Bible 
en  it. 

THAT  Unhappy  FArDeFoe,  fome  Ten  or  Twelve  Tears  ag§t 
put  all  England  in  a  Ferment  by  His  SHORTEST  WAY  WITH 
THE  DISSENTERS.  But  what  elfe  is  His  Shorteft  Way,  but  the 
Immediate  Vfe  of  the  Doclrine  laid  down  in  Mr.  Rhind'j  Book,  and 
indeed  generally  in  all  the  Cont  rover  ft  al  Books 9  and  of  times  in  the  Ser- 
mons, of  Hkh-Church?     For 

IF 


aemMfcwauaua 


The   PREFACE         HI. 


IF  the  Presbyterian  Payors  are  no  Minifters ;  If  their  Sacra* 
merits  are  null,;  If  all,  who  are  of  that  Communion,  are  out  of  the  Or- 
dinary Road  to  Heaven,  and  can  have  no  Rational  Hofe  of  Salvation ; 
Does  it  not  unavoidably  follow  that  it  is  the  Duty  of  Our  Civil  Govern- 
vurs  to  overturn  their  Settlement  ?  Is  it  not  plain  that  They  are  in  a 
Hate  of  Deadly  Sin  fo  long  as  They  leave  it  undone  ?  Were  it  not  an 
ACT  of  Great  Mercy,  and  Chrifiian  Companion  to  COM  PELL  us  to 
come  in,  tht?  it  were  by  the  Rough  Arguments  of  Heading,  Hanging 
andfuch  like,  rather  than  fuffer  us  to  go  into  Hell  Fire  Our  fe Ives,  and 
lead  others  thither,  with  the  Limbs  intire?  If  Presbyterians  are  not 
only  without  the  Church,  but  Enemies  to  it,  what  can  the  STATE 
in  Confcience  do,  but  Declare  them  to  be  denuded  of  all  thofe  Immunities 
and  Priviledges  which  the  Law  had  fecur'd  'em  in,  and  which  hither- 
to  They  have  enjoyed  in  Common  with  Their  Neighbours,  upon  the  Pre- 
emption of  Their  being  Chriftians?  If  Presbyterian  Parity  is  fs 
InconfiHent  in  its  oun  Nature  with  Monarchy,  Are  not  the  Civil 
Powers  obliged  for  Their  own  Security  to  crufh  a  Society  of  fo  Dan* 
gerous  a  Constitution  ?  If  the  Presbyterian  Spirit  is  Diametrically 
Oppofite  to  that  of  the  Gofpel,  what  Eternal  Animofities  mujl  there  be  'twixt 
True  Church  andfuch  a  Party  ?  Is  it  poffibh  but  that,  uponfuch  a  Sup- 
pofition,  there  mufi  be  Confiant  and  Mortal  Feuds  in  every  the  fame  Cityy 
the  fame  Congregation,  the  Jame  Family,  and  of  times  in  the  fame  Bed'? 
For,  what  fhouH  an  Epifcopal  Husband,  who  wouJd  notpafs  for  Hen- 
peeled  %  do  with  a  Wife  who  is  Incorrigibly  Presbyterian?  Shall  He 
Bill  cherifh  the  Serpent  in  His  Ro/om  till  She  fling  him  to  Death? 
Shall  he  hug  the  Charming  Tempter  tillfhe  Teaze  him  into  the  Devour- 
ing  Jaws  of  the  Old  Serpent  by  Her  Bewitching  Importunites  ?  MuH 
not  then  all  Things  run  into  Confufion  upon  fuch  Principles?  "*Ti$ 
True,  Almighty  Providence  may  refrain  fuch  Difmal  Effdis,  or  Good 
Nature  may  overcome  bad  Principles ;  but  fuch,  Pm  fure,  are  the  Na- 
tive Confequences  of  e^m,  and  are  Daily  put  in  P rati; ice  in  all  the  Po- 
pijb  Coumries  ;  too  jure  a  Sign  (be fides  the  Proof  of  former  Experience  ) 
that  not  Will,  but  Power  only,    is  wanting  to  &ft  the  fame  Tragical 

'J-  +  Scenes 

*  See  the  ui'<'/ogy  p.- 20/.  &c 


The  PREFACE. 


Scenes  /#  Britain.  And  what  lefs  fhourd  be  expected  from  a  Party, 
which  ju fifes  all  that  Carnage  the  French  Kjng  has  made  of  His  Pro^' 
teftant  Subjects  f  ? 

THIS  then  being  the  Natural  Produft  of  the  Principles  of  Mr; 
Rhind'i  Rook,  I  thought  1  owed  this  Service  not  only  to  the  Truth  but 
to  My  Country,  And  that  I  was  obliged  to  bring  my  Bucket ',  tho*  a 
(hallow  one,  to  Quench  that  Flame  which,  if  not  fupprefs^d  in  Time,  mujt 
needs  Con  fume  it  to  Afhes,  and  bring  m  to  the  fame  mijerable  State 
which,  Joiephus  tells  us,  the  Zealots  brought  Jerufalem  into  before  its~ 
Defiruftion,    This,  I  hope,  will  not  onlyexcufe  but Jaftify  my  Writing, 

BVT  then  the  next  Que f  ion  will  be,  Why  fd  largely?  Was  it  fa 
"very  hard  a  Matter  to  An/wer  Mr,  Rhind,  that  no  lejs  than  a  Book  a* 
bout  Four  Times  the  Bigntfs  of  His  cou*d  fervethe  Turn?  HisSingu* 
Unities  are  but,  few,  and  might  have  been  quickly  dif cuffed  y  nor  had  the 
Reader  been  at  any-  Great  Lofs,  tho*  they  had.  been  quite  negleffed. 
What  elfe  He  has  advanced  has  been  brought  into  the  Field  a  Hundred 
Times  before,  and  it  might  have  been  Sufficient  for  Anfwer  to  have  re- 
commended- the  Reader  to  former  Writers  on  the  fame  Subjects.  Be- 
fides,  He  has  very  often  through  His  Book,  and  upon  the  Spirit  of  t\\z^ 
Fresbyterians  always,  contented  Himfelf  with  meer  Affertion :  And, 
in  fuch  Cafes,  'tis  ft  ill  as  Honour  Me  to  .deny  without  a  Reafon,  as  it 
was.  to  affert-  without  a  Proof 

ALL  this  I  acknowledge  is  very  True 5  and  fuch  a  Conduct,  *tis 
plain,  had  brought  my  Book  within  a  very  Moderate  Compafs  :  But  • 
then  too,  fuch  a  Conduct  had,  funk  its  Vfefullnefs  proportionally  with" 
its  Bulk:  For  I  did  Intend  by  it,  and  (hall  be  jorry  if  the  Reader  find 
himfelf  dif Appoint ed^.fomewh at .  more  than  a  Simple  Confutation  of  the- 
Apology \  /  defigrfd  it  Jbou'd  he  of  Vniverfal  1)(e  in  this  Contro-  • 
ver/y  j     and.  therefore   have  not  barely  ,  Deny'd,    which  in  very  many 

Cafes  ■ 


■\  See  aherward  p.  69. 


The    PREFACE.  V, 


&afes  had  been  enough  for  our  Apologift,  and  wotfd  have  very  much 
fhortned  the  Work ;  but  I  have  Difproved  too :  Nor  have  I  put  off 
the  Reader  with  Anfwering  Mr,  Rhind,  but 'have  [aid  as  much  as  I 
thought  Sufficient  to  Satisfie  the  Argument  it  felf  bj  whoever  it  were 
managed. 

TLA1NLT  I  defignU,  In  the  Fir  ft  Place,  to  fay  as  much  as  was- 
medfiull  to  Vindicate  the  Presbyterians  from  thofe  Imputations  in  Faft 
which  fill  fo  many  Hundreds  of  the  Epifcopal  Sermons,  Books  and 
Pamphlets,  and  are  fomttch  the  Subjefi  of  their  Converfation.  •  If  in 
doing  this  I  have  mentioned  any  Facls  on  their  Side,  the  hearing  where* 
of 'may  b&G'rateing  to  them,  they  have  themj elves  to  blame  :  For  every 
me  mufi  own,  it  was  a  very  proper  Way  ,in  Me,  for  Difproving  the 
Re  of  on  s  of  Mr.  Rhind'i  Conduit,  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Side  He 
had  efpoufed  lay  every  Way  as  open  to  Exceptions  as  that  He  had  De~ 
Jpted*.,  Here  then  the  Old  Apology  takes  Place 

»•*--— Sclafc  • 
Refr3onfunij  non  Di&unreiTe,  quia  laefit  prius. 

Bitt  then,  which  will  fufficiently  diHinguifh  my  Managmentr  the  Reader 
may  Promife  Himfelf  to .  find  My  Afiertions  verified,  in  all  Cafes  need* 
full,  by  the  mofi  Authentick  and  Unexceptionable  Documents,  a  Piece 
of  Drudgery  which  Mr.  Rhind  has,  and  the  Writers  of  His  Parly  ge- 
nerally do,  excufe  themf elves  from.  2dly>  I  defign^d^to  fay  as  much  as- 
1  thought  needful!  for  Convincing  any  Man*s  Confidence  that  the  Pre- 
sbyterian* Communion  is. not  only  Safe  but  the  Reft,  both  as.  to  Go- 
vernment 9  Faith  and-  Worfiip,  -,  A/td  as  the  deader  will  find  all  the- 
Arguments  for  Prelacy  particularly  D'ifcourfed\  fo,  which  1 doubt  not' 
wtfl  be  fur  prizing  enough,  He  will  find  my  Reafoningsagainft  rem  For- 
tified by  the  "judgment  even  of  the  mofi  eminent  Divines  of  the  Chunk 
0/v  England  who  habitually  rtjetf  each  others  Arguments  for  Prelacy*, 
and  are  fo  very  unhappily  (i$uated,  that-,  they  carSt  poffibly  Defend  againfi- 
Popery  but  upon  Presbyterian  Principles,  nor  Impugn  Presbytry  to- 
upon.  Popifh  ones.  ..  1  hope  then  the  Reader  will  eafilj  Pardon  me  than 
■    '  '      '       "  '"  J ■/ 


Vl.  The    PREFACE. 


I  have  run  out  into  fuch  a  Length  when  my  Subject  and  Defign  was 
Jo  Urge. 

AS  for  that  which  is  called  STILE,  I  have  taken  jail  as  much 
care  about  it  as  was  needfull  to  make  my  Self  under  Hood.  Any  further 
Nicenefs  I  judged  Superfluous  upon  a  SubjeB  of  this  Nature,  which  I 
fufpeff  is  not  very  capable  of  Drefs,  unkfs  one  intend  a  Harangue  in* 
Jlead  of  a  Dijpute. 

Ornare  Res  ipfa  ncgat,  contenta  Doceri. 

My  greatefr  care,  next  to  that  of  the  Matter,  was  that  I  jhorfd  not 
be  Intricate  or  Perplexed,  as  Controverfies  are  apt  to  be :  And  this 
I  hope  1  have  obtained :  For  I  have  never  made  any  Blind  References 
to  Mtr.  Rhind'/  Book,  but  have  always  given  His  Senfe,  and  almosi 
always  in  His  oun  Words,  which  is  another  confiderable  caufe  that  my. 
Book  is  fo  large. 

TO  both  which  I  may  add  a  Third  viz.  That  I  have  inferted  J  owe 
few  Digreffiom,  tho1  not  I  hope  from  the  Purpofe,  yet  from  the  Thread 
of  Mr.  Rhind'i  Book.  That  upon  the  late  Vindication  of  the  Fun- 
damental Charter  of  Presbytry,  which  the  Reader  will  find  p.  32,1s 
but  Jhort :  And,  th(?  one  wou  d  think  that  Scots  Men  ought  to  be  very 
little  concerned  with  the  Englifh  Liturgy,  yet  that  being  the  Difputeof 
the  Day,  I  under ft and  that  the  Author  of  the  Country- Man's  Let- 
ter to  the  Curate,  againfr  which  that  Vindication  is  directed,  intends^ 
if  GOD  fpare  Him,  a  Second  Edition,  in  one  Volume  on  a  fine  Pa* 
-per  and  Type,  both  of  the  Dialogues  concerning  the  Englifh  Liturgy, 
and  of  that  Letter  &c ;  wherein  the  Subject  of  the  Liturgy  is  to  be  more 
largely  Difcourfed,  and  whatever  has  been  advanced  againft  the  Dialogues 
by  Mr.  Barclay  or  others,  and  againft  the  Letter  by  the  Vindicator, 
either  in  Reajon  or  Hiftory,  is  to  be  confider^d.  The  largefl  Digrefjion 
I  have  made,  which  the  Reader  will  find  p.  317.  is  that  on  the  Earl  of 
Cromerty'i  late  Book.  Be  fides  that  it  was  necefrary  in  Point  of  Self 
Defence,  Iperjuade  my  Self  His  Lordjhip  will  be  f leafed  with  it,  becaufe 

it 


PREFACE.  V 


it  may  help  to  ExaUmfs  in  a  Piece  of  Hifioryy   which  His  Lordfhif 
■  has  fo  much  contributed  to  the  Inlightning  of, 

AS  to  the  Conduct  of  the  whole  Book,  I  am  fenfible  how  much  I 
jhall  want  the  Readers  Indulgence .  But  this  Piece  of  J u Bice  I  crave 
That  He  wou*d  not  C  en  fur  e  any  one  Part  of  it,  4 ill  He  have  read 
through  the  whole ;  becaufe  what  He  might  perhaps  expeffi  to  find  in 
one  Place,  I  may  have  pofjibly  thought  ft  to  referve  to  Another,  where 
I  fancied  it  might  Band  to  greater  Purpofe  or  with  a  better  Grace, 
Further,  I  mufi  advert ife  the  Reader,  that,  having  ufed  the  Word 
WHIG  in  fome  few  Places,  I  meant  it  in  the  Original  Scotch 
Senfe,  as  fignifying  a  Presbyterian,  except  when  by  the  Context  it 
appears,  that  it  is  to  be  under  food  in  that  more  Comprehensive  No- 
tion Vfe  has  now  affixed  to  it, 

I  hope  the  Reader  will  be  Mercifull  as  to  the  Errors  in  Print- 
ing. Such  as  are  of  any  Moment  are  but  few,  and  both  thefe  and 
the  lefitr  Efcapes  in  Spelling,  Pointing,  or  Dividing  of  Syllables  I 
zxpeB  will  be  Excu/ed  upon  the  Account  of  My  Diflance  and  ne- 
cefiary  Ab fence  from  the  Prefs. 

APT  E  R  all  I  have  faid  p.  15.  there  are  fome  wou*d  fill  per- 
fuade  me  that  not  Mr.  Rhind,  but  another  Perfon  of  a  much  higher 
<  Character  is  the  true  Author  of  the  APOLOGY.  But  "'tis  the 
fame  Thing  to  me  whether  it  be  jo  or  otherwi/e :  For  1  never  thought 
that  External  Character  coifd  either  heighten  or  diminifh  the  Intrinfck 
Value  of  a  Book :  Nor  did  I  intend  a  Difpute  again f  any  Man's 
Perfon,  but,  tho*  1  ordinarly  name  Mr.  Rhind  only,  yet  I  generally 
mean  His  Party.  And  therefore,  tho"*  He  complains  that  the  Presby- 
terians have  exhauited  all  their  Common  Places  of  Slander  a- 
gainft  Him,  yet  for  my  own  Part,  I  have  confider'd  Him  meerly  as 
the  Writer  of  the  APOLOGY,  without  fo  much  as  touching  upon 
His  Perfonal  Qualities  or  Circumllances  in  any  Private  Concern.  I 
knew  the  Publick   cotfd  have  been  very  little  Edifyed  with    Perfonal 

ff   2  Objections; 


Vill.  The    PREFACE 


Objections  \    and  1  did  not   think  I  wanted  fuch  Adminicles ,  the  At* 
gument  it  felf  having  given  me  fujfibitnt  Advantage, 

P'LAINLT,  1  perfuade  my  felf  that  every  one  who  has  read 
Mr.  Rhind'i  Book  will,  upon  the  Reading  of- mine \- allow  that  1  have* 
kept  more  Temper  than  perhaps  was  due  to  fuch  a  Piece.  For,  when 
a  Set  of  People,  about  whom  there  is  r.othtng  Extraordinary  Chri- 
stian appearing ,  will  needs  put  fuch  a  "Jeft  upon  Mankind,  as  to  Mo- 
nopolize the  Name  of,  CHURCH  to  them) r elves ,  and  Belch  out 
their  Fire  and  Venom,  without  Fear  or  Wit^  agamH  the  whole  Re- 
formed Inter eft ',  and  yet  at  the  fame  Time  will  have  us  to  believe  'em 
f*rcteftajns  ;    In  fuch    a  Cafe  I  muft  needs  own,  thai 

Difficile  eft  Satyram  non  Scriberey— 

However,    I  have    reftrair/d  my    felf    as   much  as  the   Matter  corfd 
admit  of  or  either  Jujtice  or  Charity  required.  ■ 

I  'reckon  upon  it  that  my  Book  will  be  anfwered-;  and  'tis  hardly 
^nfftble  to  fore  fee  what  kind  of  Arguments  may  be  u fed  againfi  me  - 
But:  thsrc  is.  one  which  I  deprecate  viz.  that  Powerfull  one  —  Damn 
file.  /  dates'  fear  that  any  of  their  Laity  will  attack  me  with  it,  I 
kave  a  better  Opinion  of  their  Piety  and  Manners-,  but  I  dare  not 
i)romiQ;  jo  rnucfybn  their  Clergy's  Head:  For,  what  has  been,  -fmay 
be.  Hojwjvtr,  hj  Way  of  Prevention,  I  own  it  to  be  an  unanfwerahlg 
f\Jnd  of  Argument  \  And  therefore  they  may  fave  them f elves  the 
Trouble  of  it ;  jo  much  the  nather  that  they  cannot  -be very  great  Lo* 
/-■;,     tfo'  the j  omit  it. 

B  'V  ?'  I  am  fenfble  that  by  the  Length  of  this  Preface  I  add 
to  the  Tvanjgrefjion  of  the  Book.  After  all  I  can  fay,  I  know  it 
mujL    as  all  $ther  Books  have  ever  done,     take  its  Fate  according  to 

tfo 


I  X  J  See, Mr  Q.iUer'i  Mifcellany  Numbers  Num.  IV. 


The  PREFACE.  JX. 


the 'Inclination  or  Capacity  of  its  Different  Readers.  And  therefore, 
as  if  is,  I  fend  tt  forth  into  the  Wo4d  with  its  Fathers  Bteffing, 
heartily  praying  that  the  GOD  of  Truth  and  Peace  may  Prof  per 
U  to  the    Prtferving    among    ut  Two  fab  valuable   Enjoyments. 


March  17th, 

17 14- 


ERRATA. 

Age  9.  Line  13.  Read  that  flat.  lb.  L.  1  f.  r.  I  have)  heard.  P.  13.  L.  1.  r.  be  fo  very.  lb.  L. 
.fi~  13.  r.  cradely.  lb.  L.  19  are  oaf  r.  are  o«;  a-nd  fo  in  fome  other  Places.  ,V.^.  L.  ii»  r.  Re- 
fra&arions.  P.  4.2.  L.  20.  v.  Lofer.  P.  4.3.  L.  22  Preshytries  r.  Presbyters.  P.  44.  L.  8.  two  r.  too.  Ps 
45-.  L.  14.  Principal,  r.  Principle.  P.  48.  L.  6.  from  the  Form  the  Rules,  r.  from  the  Rules.  lb.  L.  27"; 
is  examined,  r.  are  examined.  P.  64.  L. '22.  Priefi  r.  Prieflu  P.  70.  L.  ao.  r.  revile.  P.  71.  L.  27.  r". 
Necks.  P.  72:  L.  11.  1.  Eutiopius.  P.  j6.  L.  22.  6/\»  CoiiceiTion  r.  this  'Conceffion.  p.  81.  L.  31.  Acts 
10.  r.  AQs.  19.  P.  81?.  L.  14.  hear  r.  here.  P.  112.  the  Word  Seven  in  the  End  of  the  2d  Line  is  to 
be' blotted  out.  P.  117.  L.  28.  Martial,  r.  Marital.  V.  118.  L.  1.  He  had.  dele  He.  P.  120.  L.  10.  De- 
grees, r.  Degree.  P  143.  L.  10.  rererrs  His  Readers  to.  dele.  to.  P.  149.  L.  8.  His  Words,  r.  His 
Words  are.  P.  175.  L.  10.  on  •  Day.  r.  ow  Day.  P.  175.'  L.  13.  furnifhing  our  of  dele,  of  lb.  L.  231 
Year  1642.  r  1*42.  P  188  L  \6  RedicuU  r.  Ridicula.  P  287.  h  3  is  Nothing,  dele  the  Pciic  P. 
319    L    laft    Woife    r    Worffc   i 


CORRIGENDA       IN       MARGINE 

PAge  71.  a  Capite.  Dele,  a.     P.  Sr.   lege  Seceffum.     P.  97.  Lege  Vacaban:.  lb.  Legiflativam.     P.  98. 
:    lege,  tribuendarn.      P.   ia>o.  legequoque.     P.   102.  Ifge,  Terns.     P.   133.  Lege,  Elegit.     P.   148.  Lege 
tradidille.     p.  ify.  Lege,   forte.     P.  17J.  Lf£f,   peperic.     P.    182.  /<£f,   Obfokverk.     P.  101.  Lege,   non 

acaduu;. 


m 


Mr.  Ehind^s  Apology  duprovecl 


I 

I  T    H    E 


INTRODUCTIO 


H  E  general  Method  of  Mr.  RtoPsBook  is,  I  ac° 
knowledge,  abundantly  Diftinft.  Therein,  after  the 
Hiftory  of  the  MANNER  How,  H^giyes  an  ac- 
count of  the  REASONS  fox:  Which  He  feparated  from 
the  Presbyterian  Party;  to  wit,  becaufe,  upon  Enquiry 
He  found  Their  GOVERNMENT  to  be  Schifmatical,  Their  Ar- 
ticles of  FAITH  fundamentally  Falfe  and  Pernicious,  Their  WOR* 
SHIP  fcandaloufly  Corrupt  and  highly  Imperfeft,  and  their  SPIRIT 
diametrically  Oppofite  to  that  of  the  Gofpel.  A  heavy  enough 
Charge  truly ;  and  if  but  one  half  of  it  hold  True,  every  good  Chri- 
ilian  muft  needs  at  once  Juftify  his  Separation,  and  Congratulate  his 
Efcape. 

But  it  is  the  Defign  of  the  following  Sheets  to  Examine  his  Perfor- 
mance; and  if  in  the  IfTue  it  fhall  be  found,  that  there  is  neither 
Truth  in  his  Afirtions,  Strength  in  his  Arguments.^  Proof  for  his  Al- 
kdgavces,  nor  Modefiy  in  his  Characters ;  Then,  I  hope,  it  will  fol- 
low, that,  how  much  Reafon  foeverlome  other  Party  may  have  to 
be  fond  of  their  new  Profelyt,yet  the  Presbyterians  have  nofuchCaufe 
to  be  fwallowed  up  of  overmuch  Sorrow  for  their  Lofs,  but  that 
they  may  hope  the  Days  of  their  Mourning  may  wear  over3  ancl 
ihey  may  be  comforted. 

A  "CHAR 


CHAP.    I 

Containing  preliminary  Remarfy] 

T  Hough  his  Title,  Preface  and  Narrative  have  no  great  Influ- 
ence on  the  main  SubjeG:;  yet,  that  Ivmay  proceed  in  or- 
der ;  for  clearing  the  Ground,  I  {hall  beg  leave  to  take  them  un- 
der Review  in  Tome  few  Remarks :  the  mher,  becaufe  the  doing 
fo  will>  I  hope,  fufficiently  diftinguifh  the  Spirit  of  the  Author ;> 
perhaps  too,  help  to  enlighten  his  Book..   ■ 

S.E  GT.    I; 

Containing  Remarks  on  the  Title  of  Mr*  Rhind % 

Boo^ 

I.?  'XJjTK.Rhwd  has  given  his  Book  the  Title  o? an  Apology.  Bufj 
IVl  I  apprehend,  when  the  Book  it  felf  is  lookt  into,  it  will  ap- 
pear to  be  very  ill  Choten.  The  Apoftle  Veter  enjoins  (/)  Chri- 
stians to  be  always  ready  to  make  an  Apology  (  fo  it  is  from  the  Origi- 
nal )  to  every,  one,,  that-  asks  a  Reafon  of  the  Hope  that  is. in  them.  Bur9 
though  that  Apoftle  had  as  much  Edge  on  His  Temper,  and  pof- 
fibly  was  as  forward  in  his  Zeal  as  Mr.  Rhind-,  though  the  Caufe 
of  Chrifiianity  was  at  leaft  of  as  great  Importance  as  that  of  Prelacy, 
and  the  Enemies  the  Church  had  then  to  do  with  lirle  better  na- 
tured  than  the  Presbyterians;  yet  He  would  not  allow  them,  in 
putting  in  an  APOLOGT  even  for  Lhripanity  it  felf, though  againft 
Jews  and  Pagans,  to  ufe  Rudenefsor  Biuerjufs,  fee  lefs  Calumny  and 
Slander;  but  exprefiy  Charges  Them  to  do  ic  with  MEEKNESS 
and  FEAR,  Mr.  Rhind  was  not  Ignorant  of  this  Precept,  He  has 
fronted  his  Book  with  it ;  but,  fince  ever  Apologies,  were  in  fafliion^ 
I  very  much  doubt  if  ever  any  was  writ  with  fo  unchriilian  a 
Spirit,  foabfolutly  void  of  both  theie  Requifites*  .  I  do  not  .believe 


Sea.  I.  Mr.  Khind'x  Title  Vage  f 

the  Reader  wou'd  think  himfelf  much  gratified  by  entertaining 
Him  with  aColle&ion  of  all  the  Paffages  in  the  apology  that  migP 
contribute  to  prove  this  Character  I  have  given  of  it.°  Yet 'tis  ne- 
ceffary  I  produce  One,  left  any  fhould  fnfpecl:  I  charge  Him  fafly; 
And  one,  Vox  perfwaded,  will  be  fully  fufficient  for  that  Purpofe. 
■I  Ihali  therefore,  without  adding,  altering  or  diminishing,  tranfcribe 
one  Paragraph  from  Him,  wherein  He  has  drawn  the  Character 
of  the  Presbyterians,  diftinguifh'd  too  into  its  Periods  for  the  Read- 
ers more  diftincl;  conception.    It  is  thus 

i  c  They  ( the  Presbyterians)  are  naturally  Rigid  and  Severe,  anil 
"f  therefore  conclude,  that  God  is  fuch  a  one  as  themfelves.  2.  They 
'damn  all  who  differ  from  them,  and  therefore  think  that  God 
'  does  the  fame.  3 .  And  becaufeThey love  themfelves, They  are  plea- 
"'  fed  to  perfwade  Themfelves  that  They  are  his  fpecial  Favorites* 
•*  4.  In  a  Word,  They  are  Refpe&ers  of  Perfons,  and  there- 
c  fore  think  to  Patronize  Their  Partiality  with  His  Authority. 
'  5.  Hence  They  conclude  that  They  owethem  no  Civilities  whom 

*  God  neglects,  nor  kind  Offices  whom  he  hates.    6.  Henegleclf 

*  and  hates  all  who  are  not  capable  of  his  Grace,  which  none  are 
€  (fay  they  )  who  are  not  of  their  Way.  7.  This  wicked  perfvva- 
f  fion  fan&ifies  not  only  the  ill  Manners,but  which  is  worfe,  the  ill 
r  Nature  of  the  Party  ,towardsall  who  differ  from  them.  It  contradicts 
'  the  Ends  of  Society  and  Government,  and  is  only  calculated  to 
f  advance  the  private  Intereft  of  a  Partial  and  Defigning  Set  of 
{  Men  !  Thus  He  p.  208. 

Now,  if  in  all  this  Paragraph  there  is  the  leaft  allay  0?  Meeknefs, 
He  would  very  much  oblige  us,  if  He  would  tell  us  what  Witttr* 
nefs  and  Malice  is. 

But  though  His  Zeal  fwallowed  up  his  MEEKNESS,  yet, was 
there  no  place  fev  FEAR  ( the  other  Requifite  )  I  mean  a  Rever- 
ence and  Regard  to  Truth?  Might  he  not  have  thought  it  Necefr 
fary  to  offer  at  leaft  at  fome  Inftancesfor  fupporting  the  faid  Char- 
acter? Did  he  fancy  it  would  be  believed  on  his  bare  Word  ? 
He  muftbe  abundantly  fanguin  if  he  did.  However,  Presbyterians 
don't  think  themfelves  much  in  hazard  from  Writers  that  facrifice 
their  Veracity  to  the  Pleafure  of  breathing  their  Spleen.  They  areac- 
cuftom'd  to  have  themoft  black  Characters  drawn  of  them  by  the 
Edmpant  high  Church  Authors  j  But  they  don't   feel  themfelves 

A  a  mucli 


son  Chap,  ft 

much  hurt  thereby,  becaufe  they  are  as  notorioufly  falfe  as  they 
are  Black.-  'Tis  difficult  to  name  that  iH  Thing  whicha  Heylint 
a  Hicks,  a  Lefslyy&  Sacheverel,  C 'alder  or  iome  other  very  Reverend 
Divine  of  the  like  Probity  has  not  write  of  Them  or  imputed  to 
Them.  Who  were  the  Inftruments  that  procured  the  .Spanifh  Ar- 
madoto  invade  England  in  158S?  The  Whigs  (b).  Who  burnt 
London  in  1666  ?  The  Whigs  (c).  Who  piloted  in  and  aflifted  the 
Dutch  to  burn, the  Englifh  Fleet  at  Chatham"?  The  Whigs/d>  Nay 
who  crucified  Jefus,-Chrift  ?  Who  but  the  Whigs,  the  very  Chil- 
dren are  taught  to  lisp  out-that  (?).  Calves  Headfeafts  are  with  thefe 
Authors  true  History,  Why?  Becaufe  one  of  themfelves  wrote  it, 
and  the  reft  citeit(/),  and  who  dares  doubt  it-  after  that  ? 

But  fuppofe  it  was  below  an  Author  of  Mr.  ,Rhtn£s  Soaring 
Genius  ■  to  adduce  Proof  for  his  Affertions,  or  to  regard  fo  fmall  a 
Circumftance  zsTruth  in,  his  Characters;  yet  might  he  not  have 
ufed  fo  much  common  Prudence,  as  not  to  draw  the  Presbyter'um 
in  the  Habit  of  High-Church  Tories,  and  to  Twit  them  with  that 
whereof  Himfelf  and  Fellows  are  notorioufly  Guilty  beyond  what 
was  ever  heard  of  among  any  Party  of  Chriftians  except  the 
Church  of  Rome  ?  His  forecited  Character  turns  mainly  upon  un~ 
sharitablenefs.  The  Presbyterians^  faith  he,  damn  all  that  differ  from 
them^and  therefore  think  that  God  does  the  fame.  But  is  not  this  evea 
fche  diflinguifhing  Principle  of  a  High-flyer?  Has  not  Mr.Dodwell^ 
whom  Mr.  Rhind  fo  much  admires,  and  upon  whofe  Principles 
he  profeffes  to  have  formed  his  own  p.  24,  25.  exprefly  taught* 
that  there  is  no  communicating  with  the  FATHER  or  the  SON 
b%t  by  Communion  with  the  Bifhop.  >  i  It  is,  faith   he,  one    of  (g ) 

*  the.  moft  .dreadful  aggravations  of  the  Condition  of  the 
'  Damn'd,that  they  arebanifhed  from  the  Prefence  of  the  Lord  and 
4  from  the. Glory  of  his  Power,  The  fame  is  their  Condition  alfo 
a  who  are,  difunited  from  Chrift,  by  being  difunited  from  his  vi* 

*  fible  Reprefentative  (  the  Bilhop  ). ,  Nay,  has  he  not  ihut  up 
even  the  fmall  Cranny  of  the  uncovenanted  Mercies  of  God, 
which  might,  ha.ve.  let  in  fome  faint  Ray  of  Hope,     againft  all 

the 


(b)  Cafsandra  vNumb.  II.  p    57.    -(c)     New   Aflbciation  part-  II.  p.    tS.    .  d)   Ibid',  (e)     Culler    on  the 
Sign  of  ih*  Crcis,  *Ntuab.*,V.IU,  P\  p..  (f)  Cafstqdrn  Numb.  L  p-  $£.{  '■$  J  One  Pikfttood^Giupi  XllLJ 


Sed.  7;  Mr.  Rhind'j  Title  Pagi.  f 

the  World  but  Epifcopalians  alone,  by  declaring  in  that  fame  Place, 
1  That  it- is  extfeamly  uncertain,  and  at  lead:  inf nitty  hazardous 
'  C  and  what  can  be  beyond  Infinite? )  that  ever  they  fhallihare 
*  in  them.  Do  not  Scores  of  their  other  Authors  talk  at  the  fame 
Rate?  But  "why  do  I  {peak- of -others?  Is  not  this  the  very  De- 
fign  of  Mr.  Rhwdk  Book  ?  Was  not  that  the  Reafon  why  he  fen 
i><trated  from  the  Presbyterians,  becaufe  They  are  not  in  the  Ordinary 
Road  to  Heaven  p.  3 1  ?  Nay  I  hope  to  make  it  good  to  every  Man's 
Conviction  ere  I  have  done,  that  he  has  damned  the  whole  Chri^ 
ton  Churches  on  Earth,  the  Church  of  England  her  felf  too  among 
the  Reft  excepting  feme  High-flyers,  who  can  no  more  be  faid  to 
be  of  the  Church,  than  an  overgrown  Wen  cr  fbme  monftrous 
Tumour  on  the  Body  can  be  called  a  Part  of  it.  Think  now 
how  well  calculate  -Mr.  Rhind^s  Book  is  to  bear  the  Title  of  an 
Apology;  how  wifely  and  joftly  his  Meek  and  Catholick  Spirit 
charges  the  Presbyterians  with  Rigour  and  Vnchariiablenejs.  I  wou'd 
advife  him,  if  ever  his  Book  come  to  a  Second  Edition,  to  alter  the 
Title  a  litle;  and  inftead  of  an   APOLOGY  to  call  it  a  LYBELL. 

IL  In  his  Title  he  promifes-to  give  an  Account  of  the  Reafons 
for  which  he  ft  far  at  ed  from  the  Presbyterian  Party,  AND  EMBRA- 
CED THE  COMMUNION  OF  THE  CHURCH.  I  cannot 
but  wifh  he  had  been  a  lisle  more  particular,  and  told  us  OF 
WHAT  CHURCH.  'Tis  true,  the  Church  is  but  one;  yet 
there  are  feveral  Communions.  There  is  the  Roman ,  the  Lutheran, 
the  Church  of  England  Communion,  with  toojnany  others,  which 
differ  from  each  other  in  very  considerable  Points;  But  though  I 
have  read  his  Book  with  all  the  Application  I  was  Capable  of; 
I  (incerely  declare  I  cannot  find  out  that  Church,  whofeCow/^/^- 
on  he  can-  reafonably  claim  to. 

The  Presbyterian  Party  is  that  which  he  hath  abandon'd.  He' 
hath,  though  indeed  in  very  model!  Terms,  difclaimed  the  Comv 
munion  of  the  Church  of  Rome  p.  14,  15.  The  Greek,  Armenia 
/*#,  Ethiopick  Churches  &c  lay  too  far  out  of  his  Road.  The  leifer 
Fractions  and  Se&s  among  Chriftians  he  gave  not  himfelt  the 
Trouble  to  enquire  about,  from  a  juft  Fear  left  if  he  had,  He  had  > 
ended  His-  Days,  ere    He  had-  formed  His  Confeffion   of  Faith  p.   14.  l 

What  Church  then  can  it  bewhofcCamniiinion-he-hasimbFaeed?- 


<5  Remarks  on  Chapel. 

He  has  given  lis  three  hints  to  find  her  out  by,  tut  none  of  them 
fufficient  to  give  Light  in  the  Matter  and  determine  the  Er- 
i  quiry. 

I.  He  tells  us  p.  28  It  is  the  Communion  of  the  Catholick  Church. 
But  this  CJTHOLICK,  is  a  Hackney  which  every  Party  prefs  in- 
to their  Service,  every  Church  claims,  and  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  yet  he  difowns,  appropriates  to  her  Self.  Andfowe  are 
juft  as  Wife  as  we  were. 

II.  He  tells  us  in  the  Beginning  of  his  Preface,  that  it  is  tha 
<  Communion  of  the  SVFFERJNG  CHVRCH,  by  which  he  means 

the  Frelatifts  in  Scotland.    But,  though  he  hath  joined  bimfelf  to 

them,  yet  that  he  is  not  of  them,  nor  within  their  Communion,  I 

filial!,  ere  I  go  further,  make  abundantly  Evident  upon  this  fingle 

VofluUtum,  that  that  CHURCH  is  the  fame  in  her  principles  now 

iXhe  is  Suffering,  that  She  was  while  Flourishing. 

She  was  while  Flourifhing  EraHian  in  her  Government JCalvinift 
1  in  her  Doctrine^  her  Worfhip  without  a  Liturgy,  her  Difciplint 'ex- 
•ercifed  by  Lay  Elders.  All  which  is  diredly  Contrary  to  the  Prin- 
ciples of  Mr.  Rhindh  Book. 

Firfl^  I  fay,  His  Suffering  Church  was  EraHian  in  her  Govern* 
fnent.  Befides  the  Tradt  of  our  Hiftory  and  many  A£ts  ofParlia- 
rxnent,  Arch  Bifliop  Gladstones  h&s  given  Emphatick  Teftimony  than 
'it  was  fo  in  the  Time  of  King  James  VI.  In  his  Letter  to  that  Prince 
of  the  Date  Augufl  31.16 12.  He  has  thefe  remarkable  Words.  l  For, 
•*  befides  that  rioEitate  may  fay,  that  they  are  your  Majefties  Crea- 
■*  tures,  as  we  may  ;  fo  there  is  none  whofe  Handing  isfoilippery, 
■c  when  your  Majefty  fhall  frown,  as  We.  For  at  your  Majeftie$ 
-e  Nod  we  rauft  either  fland  or  fall.  Thus  alfo  it  was  in  the  late 
Times  after  the  Reftauration  of  King  Charles  II,  as  appears  by  the 
Aft  of  Parliament  Redintegrating  theEftateofBifhops;  For  there- 
in (  the  Difpofal  of  the  External  Government  and  Policy  of  the 
1   Church  was  declared  to  be  in  his  Majefty  and  his  Succeffors  as  an 

*  inherent  Right  of  the  Crown,  and  that  they  might  fettle,  ena£fe 
%€  and  limit  fuch  Conftitutions,     Ads  and  Orders   concerning  tlie 

*  Administration  of  the  External  Government  of  theChurchj  and 
c  the  Perfons  employed  in  the  fame,  and  concerning  all  Ecclefiafti- 
£  cal M&6b0j  and  Matters  to  be  propofed  and  determin'd  there- 


Se&  I.  Mr.  Khmd's  Title  Fagi.  7 

*  in,  as  they,  in  their  Royal  Wifdom,  fhall  think  fit.  Did  fhe  alter 
this  Principle  upon  the  Revolution?  No.  In  the  Year  1692,  no 
fewer  than  180  of  the  Epifcopal  Clergy  with  Dr.  Canaries  on  their 
Head;  in  their  own  Name  and  in  that  of  the  whole  Body  of  the 
Epifcopal 'Clergy in  thb  North,  addrefled  the  Genera}  AlTembly  to 
be  affumed  into  Minifterial  Communion  and  a  Share  of  the  Church- 
Government  upon  a  Formula  whereof  the  Firft  Words  are.  I  J,  B„ 

*  dofiricerely  declare  and  promife,  that  I  willfubmit  to  the  Presby- 
5  terian  Government  of  the  Church   as  it   isnoweftablifhedinthis 

*  Kingdom—^  -This  they  could  not,  without  expofing  themfelves  to 
Damnation,  have  promifed  to  do,  had  they  judged  Presbyterian  Go- 
vernment to  be  Sshifmatisal ;  But  their  Doing  fo  was  very  well  con- 
fidentr  with  the  Eraflian  Principles.  Now  Mr.  Rhinds  Principles 
aredireellyoppofiteto  thefe:  :  For  he  hath  not  only  taught^  *  That 

*  the  Church  is  a  Society  independent  upon  the  State,  P.  29.  but  that 
Prelacy  is  the  only  Government  of  the  Church  by  Divine  Right,  and 
thatexciufrVe  of  all  others.  This  is  the  avowed  Defign  of  almoft  one 
half  of  his  Book. 

Secondly,  Whfuffering  Church  was Calv'wift  in  point  oFDotfrwe. 
Kjioxh  ConfefFion  of  Faith  was  formed  in  the  Year  1 560  \  exhibited 
to  and  ratified  by  the  Parliament  that  fame  Year  and  oftimes  after- 
ward. It  was  owned  as  the  only  Confeffion  of  this  Church,  with- 
out Rival  without  Controul  either  by  Prelatifis  ovfresbyterians  for 
ikiiQftfzxty  Tears.  .  I  need  not  tell  any  Body  whohasfeenit,  that  it 
was  Calv  in  ijt  all  over.  In  the  Year  16 16.  the  General  AfTembly  at 
Aberdeen^  wherein  Arch-BifhopS/wAmw^  was  Moderator,  formed  a 
new  Confeffion  of  Faith,  which  we  have  at  length  in  Calderwoodes 
H-ifrory  from  P. 6 3 8.  This  was  yet  more  expreily  and  rigidly  Calvi- 
mfi  than  the  other.  In  the  late  Epifcopal  Times,  Kj*oxys  Confeffion 
of  Faith  was  again  revived  and  fworn  to  in  the  Oath  of  the  Teft.  The 
whole  Epifcopal 'Clergy ,  except  fome  few  that  were  Whiggijfjly  inclin'd 
and  refufediton  other  Accounts,went  into  that  Oath ;  And  therein  not 
only!  ■'  declared  that  they  believed  the  faid  Confeffion  tobe  founded  on, 

*  and  agreeable  to  the  wrir ten  Word  of  God  ^  but  *//V  promifed  and 

*  fworeto  adhere  thereto  during  all  the  Days  of  their  Life-time,  yea 
f  md  to  endeavour  to  educate  their  Children  therein,  ■  After  the 
M^uoJutwnthQ  WefifpirJhv  Confeffion  ofFaitfo  was  -ratified  and  elta- 

blihed- 


8  Remar^f  on  Chap:  L 

blifhed  as  the  avowed  Confefllon  of  this  Church.  How  much  Calvu 
mft  that  is  every  one  knows.  Yet  in  the  Year  1692,  the  Epfcopd 
Clergy,  who  defired  to  bealTumed  upon  the  Formula  before  menti- 
oned, promifed  '  that  they  would  fubfcribe  the  faid  Confeflion  of 
*  Faith  and  larger  and  fhorterCatechifm  confirmed  by  AcT:  ofParlia- 
c  ment,as  containing  the  Do&rine  of  theProteftant  Religion profelTed 
c  in  this  Kingdom.  This  Promife,  if.it  fignifled  any  more  than 
a  Jugle,  which  we  ought  never  to  fuppofe  a  Clergy  Man  guilty 
of,  could  import  no  .Ids,  than  that  they  own'd  theDoftrine  of  the 
Said  Confeflion  and  Catechifms  to  be  true,  at  leaf),  that  they  did  not 
judge  them  to  be  fundamentally  Fal/e  and  Pernicious.  This  is  a  fhort 
Hiftory  of  all  the  Ccnfefllons  of  Faith  were  ever  received  in  Scotland 
fince  the  Reformation.  All  of  them  were  formed  upon  the  Calvin/flick 
Scheme,  all  of  them  have  been  a  (Ten  ted  to  by  the  Epifcopal Clergy, 
yet  all  of  them  directly  contrary  to  Mr.  Rhinos  Book  in  the  Do- 
Brine  of  the  Decrees,  Predeftination,Perfeverance,  univerfal  Re- 
demption, univerfal  Grace  %c. 

Thirdly,  His  Offering  Church  had  hev  Worfljip  without  a  "Litur* 
gie.  JQjox^s  Liturgie  was  falling  into  Defuetude  ere  Epifcopacy 
was  eftablifhed  in  the  Time  of  King  James  VI.  Befides,  Mini- 
fters  were  never  bound  to  the  conflant  Dhfervance  of  it.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Book  it  felf  allows  them  to  ufe  the  fever  at  Forms,  or 
THE  LIKJL  IN  EFFECT.  And,  faith  one  of  its  Rubricks,  <  It  frail 
-'  not  be  neceilary  for  the  Minifter  daily  to  repeat  all  thefe  Things 
c  before  Mentioned,  but  beginning  with  fome  manner  of  Con- 
e  feiTion  to  proceed  to  the  Sermon;  which  being  ended,  he  either 
6  ufeth  the  Prayer  for  all  Eftates  before  mentioned,  or  elfe  pray- 
6  eth  as  the  Spirit  of  God  {hall  move  his  Heart,  frameing  the 
.'  fame  according  to  the  Time,  and  Matter  which  he  hath  en- 
&  treated  of—-.  5Tis  true  there  was  an  Attempt  made  in  the  Time 
of  K,  Charles  I.  to  bring  in  a  Liturgie  much  after  the  Engliflj  Model. 
But  I  need  not  tell  the  World,  that  it  mifcaried.  No  woa* 
tier:  For,  not  only  the  Body  of  the  Nation  and  the  Bulk  of  the 
Presbyters,, but  even  the  Wife  ft  and  moft  experienced  of  the  £*'- 
jhops  vveie  again  ft  it.  This,  Gilbert  Burnet  has  Ingenuoufly  con- 
,kfcd(jjj.     This  the  Author  of  the  Short  Account  of  Scot land,  though 


»THiiwj.f  rv  wwaanc 


[■>  j  Mcmoires  °f    theJ-Ioyie   o( -HuniUvh  p,  ?y 


J5e<3v -I.  -Mr-  Khmdc s  Title  Vdgi    TT*'     % 

Epfcofd,  frankly  owns  page  56.  *'lt  was  fet  on  Foot  fey  a  For*1 
*'  reigner  (  A.  B.  Laud  )  upon  the  Importunity  of  fome   young 

*  Bifhops  in  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  who  made  it  their  Bufinefs, 
?  to  oppofe  the  Ancients  and   thought  it  Matter   of  Triumph  to 

*  carry  any  Point  againft  them.  Thus  he.  In  the  late  Times 
before  the  Revolution,  the  Epfcofd  Clergy  did  not  fo  much  as 
EfTay  to  bring  in  a  Liturgie.  For  many  Years  after  the  Revolution 
noae  of  them  publicity  ufed  any  either  in  their  Churches  or  Meet< 
ing-  houfes.  nnd  to  this  Day  fome  of  the  beM  of  them,  to  my 
certain  Knowledge,  are  againft  the  English  Liturgie.  How  the® 
can  Mr.  Rbind  pretend  to  be  of  their  Communion,  when  he  ar- 
gues not  only  for  the  Excellency,  but  even  the  Neceffity  of  Forms- 
and  declares      6  Flat   Xrn pertinencies,  fobftantial  Non- 

*  fenfe  and  horrid  Blafphemies  are  VN AVOIDABLE  in 

*  the  'Extemporary  Way  \,  And  yet  I  heard  the  Extemporary  Prayers 
K&Epifcopd  Minifters  five  Sunder  Times.  It  Teems  I  have  been  well 
employed.  And  I  have  known  five  hunder  People  harraffed  in 
the  late  Times  Jot  not  going  to  Church  to  hear  fuch  Prayers.  Is 
feems  it  was  a  mercifull  Government  that  persecuted  People  for 
not  putting  themfelves  under  the  unavoidable  Neceffity  of  hearing 
borrid  Blafphemies  by  way  of  Addrefs  to  God  Almighty. 

Fourthly,  His  Suffering  Church,  exercifed  her  Difiiplme  by  Lay* 
Elders;  and  this  every  one  knows  that  lived  before  the  Revolution* 
I  conclude  then  that  Mr.  Rbind  is  not  of  the  Communion  of  the 
Suffering  Church  either  in  -point  of  Govemmsm^Faith,fYorjhif  or  Dif- 
c/f  line  f  xmlds  he  can  prove  that ,  file  hath  changed  her  Principles 
in  ail  thefe  within  a  Score  of  Years  or  fo';  which  Ifuppofe  it  will 
fee  hard  for  him  to  do.  And  when  he  has  done  it,  I  cannot  think 
it  will  contribute  much  to  the  railing  her  "Character  Tto  reprefent 
her  as  a  CHANGELING. 

hum  goon  in  out  Search  after  his 'Church.  He  gives  us  a  Third 
Hint  for  finding  her,  by  telling  us  p.  369.  \  That  he  hasembra- 
,e  ced  the  Communion  of  that  Church  whofe  Worfbip  is  the  beM: 
f  in  the  World  with  Refpeft  to  both  Matter  and  Manner.  By 
which  Character  he  would  have  us  to  -undetfta'nd  the  Church  of 

B  England* 


p.  ij6.   1/7. 


io  Remarfy  on  Chap  1: 

England.  But,  though  he  has  embraced  her,  yet  fhe  is  fo  far  from 
embraceins;  him,  that  he  ftands  DE  FACTO  Excommunicated 
by  her.  I  fhall  have  ample  Occafion  to  fhew  this  when  I  come 
£3  confiderhisfecond  Reafon  for  his  Separation.  In  the  mean  Time,to 
fatisfie  the  Reader's  LongingJ  fhall  give  oneXnfhnce  for  Proof  of  ir. 
Among  the.  other  Presbyterian  Do&rines  which  he  has  declared 
Fundamentally  Falfe  and  Pernicious  &c3  he  reckons  this  2s  one,  . 
That  the  best  Ail  ions  of  Meny  without  Grace,  are  but  fo  many  fplendid 
Sins-]-.  The  Truth  of  this  Presbyterian  Doctrine  is  obvious  even 
to  common  Senfe-  For,  how  bufie  foever  a  Servant  may  be,  yet  if 
lie  has  no  Regard  to  the  Will  of  his  Mailer  in  what  I.e.  does,  can 
his  Diligence  be  reckoned  Obedience  ?  Nay,  muft  not  the  neglect 
of  his  Makers  Authority  be  imputed  to  him  as  a  Fault?  But,  it  is  i 
not  the.  Truth  ofthe  Doctrine  I  am  now  concerned  about.  Be  it  true 
or  falfe,  is  it  not  the  Doclrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  much 
as  of  the  Presbyterians?  Hear  her. 

Art,   XIIL 

*  ^*     ration  of  his  Spirit,  are  not  pleafant  to  God  ;  For  as  much 

*  as  they  fpring  not  of  Faith  in  Jefus  Chrift,  neither  do  they  make 

*  Men  meet  to  receive  Grace  or  fas  the  School  Authors  fay  )  de-  . 
£    ferve    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, 

5Tis  plain  then  that  he  has  impugned  and  rejected  the  Dotlrins 
©f  the  Church  of  England.    Now  let  us  hear  what  Cenfore 
has  awarded  to  fuch  as  do  fo. 

Canon  V.  iCo^l . 

*  WHofoever  fhall  hereafter  a^rm  That  any  of  the  XXXIX : 

*  - *^    Articles  agreed  upon  by.  tfe  Archbfhops  and.Bifhops  of  ; 
I  both  Provinces  and  whole  Clergy  in  the  Convocation  holden  at, 

'   *  Lo.nam 


\  ^  i3$.  137.  i?5f  y> 


Sea.  I.  Mr.  Rhind'x  Title  Pagf,  ii 

6  London  in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  1 562  for  the  avoiding  of  Diverfi- 

*  ties  of  Opinions,and  for  the  Eftablifhing  of  Confent  touching  True 
4  Religion,  are  in  any  Part  Superftitious  or  Erroneous,  or  fuch  as 
'  he  may  not  with  a    Good  Conference  fubferibe  unto;  let  him  be 

*  Excommunicated  IPSO  FACTO-,  and  noi  reftored  hut  only  by 
■f  the  Archbifhop,  after  his  Repentance  and  publick  Revocation  of 
I  lucfe  his  Wicked  Errors. 

Who  now  will  fay  that  Mr.  Rhind  is  of  the  Church  of  England 
Communion,  when  fhe  has  excommunicated  him.  I  conclude 
then  upon  the  whole,  That  it  is  not  polfible  to  find  that  Church 
wherein  he  can  bechffed,  I  mean,  here  on  Earth.  As  for  the  VN* 
SPOTTED  Church  f  of  which  the  late  Edinburgh  Addreffers  pro- 
feffed  themfelves  to  be,  I  don'c  believe   it  to  be  on  this  fide  the 


Containing  RemJr\s  on  Mr.  Rhind' j  Treface] 

U  R  Jpologift  is  earned  to  have  his  Reader  believe  that  ifc 
was  not  upon  any  finful  Byafs  or  Wordly  Confideratioti 
that  he  changed  Sides.  And  therefore  in  the  Beginning  of  his 
preface  tells  us,  '  That  a  forcible  Conviction,  which  was  the   Re* 

*  ful    of  an  Impartial  Enquiry,  determin'd  him  to  abandon  the 

*  Presbyterian    Party     SOME  TEARS    AGO  when   the  Church 

*  was  under  fevere  Preffures  in  this  Nation  and  when  there  were 
e  fmall  hopes  of  Deliverance.  But,  he  has  been  too  General  in  the 
Date  of  his  Converfioo,  and  feme  People  are  tempted  to  think 
there  was  a  Reaioofor  it.  Her  Majeftv  waspleafed  SOME  TEARS 
AGO  to  write  a  Gracious  Letter  to  her  Privy  Council  of  Scot/and 
of  the  Date -Feb.  4,  1705.  in  favours  of  the  EpifcnpJ  Clergy  and 
others  of  that  Piofeffion,  Ker  Majefty  was  lo  far  from  intending 
that  the  faid  Letter  fhould  have  any  ill  Influence  on  the  Presbyterian 
Ertablilhment,  that  on  the  Contraiy  {he  recommended  it  to  Her 

B  2  Council 


\  See  f&nii/n  Gaze.ca  Nu.ufe,  »-c 


li  Remarry  on  Chap*  t. 

Council  to  give  them  all  Due  Countenance  and  Encouragement.' 
Yet  it  is  abundantly  well  known  in  this  Nation,  That  the  Epif- 
tcpalPmy  conftru&ed  the  faid  Letter  as  a  Preface  to. the  overturn* 
ing  of  Presbytry  and  the  Reettabhfhment  of  Prelacy,  As  if  her 
A/lajefty,  like  a  kind  .  Mother  teszed  with  hungry  Children,  hao* 
bid  them  content  themfelves  a  little  with  that  Morfel,  till  fhe  could'' 
get  Dinner  provided  for  them.  And,  in  Oppofition  to  all  her  Ma*, 
jeftics  Promifes  and  Aflurances  to  the  Contrary,  the  DiftinQioq 
betwixt  a  Secret  and  Revealed  Will  was  indqftrioufly  propagated; 
And- from  that 'Time,  fome  young  Divines,  who  hitherto  had  beer* 
warmed  and  Fledged,  under  the  Wings  of.  Prtsbytry,  began  to 
look,  with  a  more  kindly  Bye  towards  the  Prelatick  Party,  and  to 
alter  their  Conduct  accordingly.  If  Mr.  Rk'md\  Separation  was 
prior  to  that  Time,  there  is  the  more  Charity  to  be  had  for  him, 
and  he  was  not  Kind  enough  to  himfelf  in  not  fignifieing  fo  much. 
But  if  it  was  after  it,  I  can  lee  nothing  Extraordinary  in  it:  For, 
to  run  from  under  a  falling  Houfe,  and  to  W70£fhipthe  rifeingSun, 
is  what  People  do  every  Day. 

Befides,  how  licle  Encouragement  foever  Mr. Rhind  might  hop* 
for  from  the  SUFFERING  Church  in  Scotland,  yet  he  might  very 
reafonabty,  upon  his  revolt,  expect  more  elfewhere  than  ever  h# 
could  have  found  among  the  Presbyterians.  A  Presbyterian  Mink 
iter  is  like  the  Heath  in  the  Wildernefs  that  never  grows  higher. 
When  once  he  has  got  himfelf  pofleiTed  of  a  Church,  however 
fhincinghis  Parts  are,  there  is  a  m  plus  ultra,  fet.to  his  Ambition. 
But  in  the  Prelatick  Way  there  are  various  Degrees  of '.Dignity  t$ 
animate  the  generous  Spirit.  'Tis  pofRble  one  may  Rife  from  a 
Curat  to  a  Reft  or  from  thence  to  a  -Dean,  Archdeac§n  or  fo  at  length 
obtain  a  Mitre,  and  never  ceafe  advanceing  till  he  hath  lodged 
fiimfelf  in  Lambeth.  Though  1  will  not  tuppofia  Mr.  Rbwdfoalry 
as  ever  to  have  Dreamed  of  mounting  the  pigheft  Pinacle  of  Ho- 
nour ;  yet  had  he  fo  humble  an  Op;nion  of  .himlclf.as  not  to  allow 
jhimfelf  to  think  that  he  might  one  Day  merit  fome  ot  the  greater 
Church  Dignities'*  Was  it  no  Motive  to -him  to  know  that  there 
are  People  in  the  World  much  fonder  of  a  Proiel.yt  from  Prtsbyry 
than  from  P&gamfm*  And  that  .the  writeing  of  an  Apology  might 
very  giuch  contribute  to  his  ^dvancemem  f  He  doe&  oot  feem  to 


- 


Sc&IL'-  Mr.  Rhind'x  Preface}  *% 

to  be  very  much  a  Stranger  to  good   Authors,    as  not  to  hav« 
Jaeard  ofJuvensPs  Secret  for  rifeing  in  the  World. 

Wcu*djf  thou  to  Honours  and  Preferments  Climb,. 
Be  hold  in  MtJ chiefs  dare  feme  mighty  Crime. 

Mr,  Dryden  fat.  i .  1.  73, 

And  is  net  Dr.  SacfavsreliVreRi  Inftance  of  the  Wifdomofthat 
Precept,  whofe  high  Mifdemeanours  made  him  at  once  the  Idol  and 
Darling  of  high  Church,  the ,  Theam  of  her  Fraife,  and  Object  of 
her  Bounty. 

IL  He  has  been  pleafed  in  his  Vrefi.ce  to  give  his  own  favour- 
able judgement  of  his  Performance,  of  the  flawnefs  .of  his  Stile  and 
Thought ,  the  Linking  of  his  Arguments  and  fo  00.  And  I  think  it 
cannot  be  amifs  to  give  mine  too,  before  I  enter  on  the  Book  it 
fel£  Befjdesthe  ill  Nature  (  already  noticed  )  which  bewrays  it 
felf  almofl  in  every  Page,  and  is  fometimes  continued  through 
many,  without  fo  much  &sone  Ray  of  Truth  tocjaalifieit.  Befides 
this,  I  fay,  his  Book  bears  Three,  other  Characters,  none  of  the 
moil:  lovely  indeed  yet  too  Remarkable  to  efcape  Notice.  I  mean,. 
Vanity  9  Dogmaticalnejs  and  Prophanefs. 

1.  Vanity.  With  a  vefydiftinguifhing  Air  he  adores  the  Reader' f 
■c  That  he  ■  meant  fomething  elfe  by  the  length. of- his  Narrative 
f  than  to  add  to  the  Number  of  his  Pages.  This  was  fo  necelFary 
an  Innuendo^  fo  pretty  a  Phrafe,  that  he  thought  fit  to  repeat  it  a- 
gain  in  his  own  Favours  p.  79.  He-had  before  told,  in  his  printed 
Sermon  oa\Liturgy9  1  hat  his  Genius  and,  the  Cow/fe  of  his  Studies 
had  habituated  htm  to  fome  Application -of  Thought.  This  was  of  fo 
great  Moment  to  be  known,' perhaps  fo  hard  to-  be  gathered  from 
his  Writeings,  that  he  now  tells  it  over  again  in  his  Apology  p.  1 59. 
^gain  p.  199  he  .difgenfes  with  himfelf  from  wrifeing  a  Lelfure.cn 
the  Animal  Ueconomy  and  accounting  Mechanically  for  all  the  Phanome* 
va  of  f£e.  Presbyterian  Devotion^becaufe  he  wants  Leifure.  .  No  doubt. 
Yet  fome  People  think  ir  had  been  not  only  as  Modesty  'but  as 
True  an  Excuie  to  have  (aid  he  wanted-  Ability.    l£  the  mean  Time 


14  Remarfyon  Chap  fi 

Iieis  not  fo  juftastoown  that  what  he  has  already  advanced  on 
that  Head  he  ows  to  Dr.  Scot  in  his  Sermon  on  Bodily  Exercife  from 
i  Tim.  4.  S.  and  other  Places  of  his  Works. 

2.  Dogmatic  dnefs.  He  writes  with  the  fame  Pofitive  Air  as  if  ha 
were  infallible.  Every  thing  adduced  on  the  Presbyterian  Side  is 
with  him  Weakness,  Prejudice,  an  Argument  of  a  De/perate  Cau/e  2nd 
the  like.  What  hehimfelf  advances,  is  put  beyond  all  Doubt,  and 
lie  hopes  Every  decerning  and  unprejudiced  Reader  will  take  the  Hint ,  and 
be  convinced  as  well  as  be.  Nay  it  (lid  11  be  an  Impeachment  of  the  Divine 
Wifdom  to  think  differently  from  him.  Nay  our  Lord  lumfelf  behoved 
to  do  according  to  Mr.  Rbind's  Dictates.  Repeated  In  (ranees  of  this 
Preemption  wefball  meet  with  afterwards.  The  molt  Learned  of 
die  Armim&n  Side  in  the  Church  of  England  have  owned,  that  the 
Cahini/ls  have  to  fay  for  their  Opinions  on  the  Controverted  Points, 
what  is  not  to  beeafily  anfwered.  But  there  is  nothing  too  hard  for 
Mr.  Rhind.  Conditional  Decrees ,  Freewill ,  the  Apoflacjof  the  Saints^ 
Vniver/al  Redemption,  Vniverfd  Grace  are  all  as  clear  to  him  as  Self- 
evident  Propositions.  Nay,  fo  ftrong  has  his  Fancy  wrought ;  that, 
ss  if  he  had  for  ever  decided  the  Epif  copal,  Armtni&n^  and  Liturgical 
Controverts,  He  concludes  his  Book  in  the  Mathematical  Stile  whll 
a  £.  E.  D. 

3.  Profamfs.  He  fets  himfelf  induftrioufly  frompag.  189.  to  pngc 
207.  10  put  the  mo  ft  facred  Things  in  the  moft  Burletqtie  Air  poffible. 
The  Presbyterians,  faith  he,  pag.  2'o,  tell  a  long  but  jenlelefs  Hory  of  the 
Manner  of  Gods  dealing  with  the  Souls  of  his  Elect,  how  the  Work  of  Grace 
is  carried  on  there,  and  how  their  Regeneration  is  co-np'eated.""  'Tis  true, 
the  Presbyterians  do  talkof  rhefe  Things*,  but  how  long  andfenfelefs 
foever  the  Story  is,  the  Subftance  of  it  is  what  every  good  Man  feels ; 
3Tis  what  the  Spirit  of  God  works ;  'Tis  a  Story  which  the  Church 
of  England  Divines,  the  moft  ludiciousof  them  Ci),  Bifhops  too  a- 
mongtheReft,  have  told  a  thoufand  times  over,  and  fome  ofthera 
very  lately  (k).  1  am  not  to  repeat  the  reft  of  his  impious  Stuff  vomit- 
ed out  on  that  He-sd  ;  once  printing  it  was  too  much.  Ionlywifb 
dm  our  P yeUtick   Writers,  tho' they  don't  regard  Man?  yet  would 

at 


[  i  ]     See  He^'s  Sermons  fubjoined  co  his  Ecclef.  Polk.  Edit.  London  i;oj.  [hi   EiHop  KotlunS.   Br. 


Sed;  II  Mr.  Rhine!'/  Preface:  if 

at  lead  Fear  God.  For  I  foppofe  that  no  Man  that  reads  the  latter  Part 
of  Mv. Rhi»d's Book-  will  ftick  toacknowledge  thzt  Lacian,  Celfus, 
Wanwus,  Spinofa,  Blount,  may  be  reckoned  modeft  Chriftians  in 
Companion  of  him. 

III.  Towards  the  End  ofthe  Preface,  Mr.  KhM,  apprehending 
fome  one  or  other  might  efifay  todifprove  his  Apology,  thinks  fit  to 
befpeak  civil  Ufage  for  himfelf;  -with-  Certification,  that  in  Cafe  he 
is- not  thus  ufed,fafc  xviUexpofe  the  Presbyterians  yet  more  fully  to  the  World. 
Were  I  of  his  Council,  I  wou\l  advife  him,  ere  he  proceed  further, 
once  to  prove  the  Characters  whereby  he  has  already  attempted  to 
expofethem,  krl  he  eftabhfh'-  a  Character  ■  upon  himfeff  and  the 
Party  He  ierves  that  will  be  none  of  the  mod  honourable,  Nor 
let  him  fear  it  will  be  reckoned  Pedantry  to  ftudd  his  Margin 
with  Vouchers :  For  I  can  allure  him,  the  World  is  now  £o  much  In- 
fidel, Whigs  efp'ecially,  .  as  not  much  to  regard  Affertion  without 
Probation.  Ifthe  Presbyterians  arefuch  ashe-hasreprefented  them, 
he  cannot  expect  civil  Ufage  from  them.  And  if  they  are  not  fuch,  he 
may  befenfiblehehasnot  deferved  it.  However,  tomakehimeafy^ 
I  fhall  promife  him  all  fair  "Quarter,  and  refent  his  Inve&ives  no 
otherwife  than  by  Neglect::  Or  if  I  chance  at  any  Time  to  draw 
his  Picture,  it  fhall  be  with  Canvafs  and  Colours  of  his  own 
furnifbmg.- 

IVV  lam  now-  to  enter  on  the  Book  it  felf.  I  have  heard  it  both 
from  Prelati/lsznd  Presbyterians,  that  it  was  nor  done  by  Mr.  Khintk 
himfelf,  but  that  his  Separation  haveing  given  the  Occafion,  a  better 
Hand  than  his  did  the  Work,  and  borrowed  his  Name  to  it.  The 
YreUtifts  pofFibly  give  out  this  to  gain  the  greater  Reputation  to  the 
Performance.  But  iffo,  'tis  a  very  mean  Politick  :  For,  by  how 
much  it  magnifies  the  Book,  itdifgraces  the  Man,  and  atonceleffens 
their,  own  Trophy  and  the  Presbyterians  Loft.  The  Presbyterians 
found  on  this,  ,  that  while  he  attended  his  Studies  among  them,  tho7 
bis  Zeal  again  ft  the  Prelats  was  flaming  high,  yet  hisother  Accom- 
plilliments  did  not  feera  proportional.  In  a  Word,  That  he  did  not 
makefucha  Figure  as  promifedan  Author.  But  this  Conjecture alfo 
is  too  weak. ■• .  For  Yearsand  Application  do'oftimes  make  fu'rprizing 
Changes  on  Young  Peribns.  -  I  do  indeed  believe  that  the  Book  was 
Written  at  the  ^Defire,  and  pybhilxed  upon,  the  Approbation  of  the 

Leaders 


i6  Remarks  on  Chap] Tj 

Leaders  of  the  Party. But  T  as  firmly  believe  Mr.  Rhhd  to  be  the  true 
Father;  and  feeing  he  owns  the  Book  and  none  elfe  claims  it, 1  can 
fee  no  Reafon  why  any  Body  fhould  believe  otherwife.  I  am  fo  much 
convinced  it  is  his,that  I  take  the  whole  Book  to  be  pieced  up  of  Sermons, 
he  had  preached  at  feveral  Occafions,  or  at  leaft  of  large  Shreds  of 
them  artfully  tacked  together.  Some  fuch  Serwtwwereneceflaryto 
ingratiathim  with  his  new  Mafters,  his  harangueing  Way  feems  rather 
adapted  for  Sermons  (  according  to  the  Epifcopal  Way  of  Sermonizing  ) 

.  than  for  aDifpute.  And  which  confirms  all,  X  find  a  good  Part  of 
his  Sermon  ti^on  Liturgie,  which  he  preached  and  printed  in  the  Year 
171 1  engroiled  'verbatim  into  his  Apology  tboc  he  has  not  acquaint; 

, dpd  his  Reader  therewith, 

:Se£t  HI* 

Containing  Remar\s  on  Mr.  Rhinds  Narrative  of 
the  Manner  how  He  feparated  from  the  Presby- 
terian Tarty.  F/om  P.  1.  to  Pp  iy+ 

H  E  Sum  of  his  Narrative  is,  That  he  was  educated  PresbjZ 
jerian,  turned  Sceptick  upon  Choice,  that  he  might  find  ouc 
the  Truth  ;  the  Refult  of  which  was  that  he  feparated  upon 
Cc&viBicn.  He  has  indeed  gone  far  to  fcarr  one  from  Quarrelling 
,  the  Account  he  has  given?by  promising  p.  6.  to  deliver  the  fame  with  as 
much  Sincerity  as  fe  fill  be  thefe  Words  with  which  he  hopes  to  commend  his  %oul 
AtUHtoQoL  Andyetl  mull  needs  declare,!  do  not  find  My  Self  ob- 
liged even  in  Charity ,  much  lefsin  Juftice  to  believe  it.  I  cannot 
help  thinking  it  is  a  ?iece  of  Poefie  ratlusr  tfean  Hifiory^  hand/cms  Ficliofi 
of  the  Method  he  thinks  he  .ought  to  have  taken,  rather  than  a 
rtjftl  Accciiht  of  what  in  Fact  he  did  take.  I  am  aware  how  hard- 
ly this  my  Judgement  .may  be  conftrucled  of.  But  I  crave  to 
be  heard,  and  then  let  ths  Reader  give  Sentence.  i 

,By  Mr.  Rkixd's  own  Account  p,  6.  He  was  educated  Presbyterian* 

When 


Se&  J/7.  Mr.  Rfoind  cs  NamnkM  *  7 

When  he  had  ran  through  the  ordinary  Courfe  of  the  Languages 

and  Ph'dofvphy  and  commenced  Mailer  of  Arts,  H@applyedhimfelfs 
to  the  Study  of  Divinity.  After  feveral  Years  Attendance  on  thara 
he  went  horns  to  his  own  Country  the  Shire  of  Rofs to  undergo 

^Trials  in  Order  to  be  licenfed  a  Preacher. 

All  this  while  he  was  fo  far  from  being  fufpeSecl  to  incline  to 
Prelacy,  that  he  received  particular  Favours  from  the  Presbyterians,  as 
nehimfelfowns  p.  7.  And  as  he  was  not  fufpected,  fo  indeed  there 
was  no  apparent  Reafon  why  hefbould:  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  leaft  21  Years  of  Age  Corn- 
pleat  .•  For  no  foonerdo  theYresbyterians  admit  Men  fo  be  Preach- 
ers, or  enter  Them  onTryals  for  that  End.  And  yet  all  this  Time 
he  had  not  enter tain'd  a  Thought  of  Separating.;  nay  he  had 
not  brought  his  Mind  to  a  Sulpence  or  Equilibrium  about  the 
Controverfy -;  For, 'how  could 'he  effay  to  Commence  Preacher  a- 
mongO:  the  ¥resbyterianst  while  he  was  undetermin'd  to  the  one 
Side  or  the  other  ? 

Again  he  tells  us  p.  152  that  he  was  but  22  Tears  among  the 
Vresbytertans,  There  fS  then  bus:  one  Year  left  for  doing  all  thefe 
Things,  and  makeing  all  thefe  Enquiries  he  mentions  in  his  Nar- 
rative ,and  at  lad  determining  Mtnfelf*  But  if  he  did  'em  all  in 
one  Year,  I  dare  bs  bold  to  pronounce  it  was  a  Miracle :  Being 
well  a flured  it  would  have  employed  any  ordinary  Manfeven.  A 
Ihort  abttraO:  of  his  Narrative  will  Sufficiently  demonflrate  this. 

1.  When  the  Luc-hie  Minute  was  come  that  was  to  give  a  Begin- 
ning to  his  Converfion,  he  conceived  a  very  jufl  Sufpicion  that  the 
•■many  Opinions,  wherewith  he  found  his  Mind  crowded,  were 
not  all  either  well  come  by  or  right  founded.  From  this  he  con- 
cluded, that  therefore  it  was  reafonable  if  not  neceilary  to  examine 
and  bring  them  to  the  Teft.  But  in  order  to  this  Prejudices  mere 
to  b%  {haken  off.  p.  9.  10. .  Every  Body  that  has  a  competent 
Knowledge  of  himfelf  will  allow  that  this  was  not  to  be  done 
without  Time. 

2.  Thus' prepared.  He  made  the  firft  Experiment  in  Tome  Phi* 
lofophical  Points.     And,  after  a  mq ft  Impartial  and  Avium  Exami- 

Q  wat-ton 


1$  Remar\f  on  Chap.'   L 

nation  found,  That  what  formerly  he  had  admitted  upon  a  fuppo- 
fed  fcientifick  Evidence  was  in  it  felf  abfolutly  Falfe  p.  u» 
Every  ore  will  own  that  this  was  nor  to  be  done  at  a  Starr. 

3.  Thence  he  proceeded  to  try  whether  his  Religion*  Opinions 
were  not  as  ill  founded  as  his  Philofophicd  ones.  For  that  End 
he  threw  himfelfinto  a  State  of  abfolweSV^//V//w,  and  found  that 
he  had  yeilded  too  Implicite  an  Affent  to  them.  p.  12.  Suppofe* 
ing  this  had  been  Lawful),  yet,  I  hope,  it  will  be  granted  it  was 
not  the  Work  of  a  Day. 

4.  After  all  this  Labour  to  unhinge  himfelf,he  next  began  tofearch 
where  he  might  fix.  To  that  Purpofe  he  entered  upon  fi&wqft  hnpar- 
tial  and  Accural  Examination  of  the  Effential  Articles  of  Religion 
he  was  able  to  make ;  and  ceafed  net  till  he  was  rationally  per- 
f waded  about  the  Truth  of  a  Natural  Religion,  p.  1$.  This,  con- 
fidering  how  many  fine  Books  have  been  writ  on  that  Subject, 
and  how  many  fhrewd  Things  have  been  advanced  againft  it  by 
fuch  as  are  called  the  Wits  of  the  World,  and,  which  Mr.RWs 
curious  Genius  would  undoubtedly  engage  him  to  perufe,  wou'd 
be  fufTicient  to  exercife  him  a  very  considerable  Time. 

5.  He  next  carried  his  Enquiries  to  revealed  Religion;  and  ex- 
emin'd  the  tiecefflty  of  Revelation,  the  certainty  of  that  which  is 
owned  as  fuch  by  Chriftians,  in  a  Word  the  Truth  of  the 
Chrijlian  Religion  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Ibid. 
What  a  large  Subject  of  Difquifition  this  is,  and  how  much  Time 
it  wou5d  require  may  be  eafily  conjectured. 

6.  When  he  had  got  him'elf  convinced  of  the  Truth  of  the  Chri< 
ftian  Religion,  his  Labour  was  but  beginning:  For  Chriftians 
being  multiplied  into  fo  many  SecTis,  which  of  them  could  he  be- 
lieve in  the  Right,  when  each  of  them  pretended  to  befo  ?  He 
refolved  then  only  to  examine  the  Pretentions  of  the  inoft  consi- 
derable Parties  viz.  The  Roman  Catholicks  and  Protejlants. 
For  that  End  he  laid  afideall  Prejudices  and  ferioufly  examin'd 
all  that  is  commonly  adduced  for  or  agaiaft  the  Rowan  Catholick 
Way.  p.  34.  15.  .  Now,  who  knows -not,  that  the  Popi[b  Con  tro- 
ves:(ies  are  io  very  large  a  Field,  as  to  require  feveral  years  Tra- 
vel to   get  through  them   to  Parpofe  ? 

2  •  He  parted  Ways  with  this  .Infallible  Church  j  though  upon  a 


Se#i  III:         Mr,  RhincKr  Narrative}         19 

veryfmall  Quarrel,  as  we  fhall  bear  afterward.  But  then  he  found 
the  Froteftants  cantonM  into  lo  many  Parties,  that  he  was  in  a 
great  Quandary  where  to  find  reft  for  the  Sole  of  his  Foot,  -Where- 
fore, to  fhortea  his  Work,  he  refolved  to  confine  his  Examinati- 
on to  the  Epifcofal  and  Presbyterian  Perfwafions.  And  here  it  cod 
him  both  Time  and  Pains  to  dived  himfelf  of  his  Prepofeffions  in 
favours  of  Presbytry,  and  to  fhake  of  the  Prejudices  he  had  con- 
tracted or  been  educate  in  againft  -Epifcopacy,  and  to  fortifie  his 
Soul  againft  the  Tentations  of  Perfection  and  W7ant  in  Cafe  h$ 
Were  determined  to  the  Epifcopal  Side.  p.  16".—  20. 

This  being  done  he  entered  upon  a  very  huge  Task. 
r  1.  He  did  read  the  Old  and  New  Teftament  all  over  p.  26I 
Now  though  a  Shift  may  be  made  to  get  through  that  Book  in 
a  fhort  Time,  yet  it  is  a  large  one,  and  when  one  appiys  himfelf 
to  read  it  with  a  View  to.be  determined  by  it  in  controverted 
Points,  which  was  Mr.  Rhind7$  Cafe,  He'll  find  it  a  confiderable 
Labour. 

2.  After  the  Bible,  he  engaged  himfelf  in  reading  the  Works, 
of  the  Fathers,  especially  thofe  of  the  three  fir  ft  Ages.  In  which 
Courfe  of  reading  hs  narrowly  obferved  whatever  could  fervetode- 
termin  the  Controverfies  in  Hand.  p.  21.  22.  This  was  a  yes: 
larger  task  than  the  Former  ;  for  tho5  he  had  never  gone  beyond 
tho  third  Age  ;  yet,  to  get  through  the  Work,  of  &emeks.  Roma- 
mis,  Barnabas,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Her  mm,  "jufiin  Martyr,  Athena*  0- 
ras,  Theopbilus,  Tatianus9  Irenaus,Tertutlianf  Clemens  Ak-xandrinus, 
Mimitius  Felix,  Or  ken,  Cyprian,  Armbius,  LaBantius,  &c»  To 
get  through  all  thefe  I  fay,  with  the  Hi  fortes  relateing  to  their 
Times,  was  ■  Sufficient  to  employ  one  a  longer  Tims  than  Mr. 
Jihind\  Account  can  well  admit  of. 

3.  And  yet  he  was  not  near  an  End  _of  his  Toil:  For  being 
curious  to  know  whatever  was  written  on  the  Head  of  Government,, 
he  read  the  Controvertifts  of  both  fides  on  all  the  Subjects  in 
Debate.  In  which,  .he  declares,  He  was  fo  fcrupuhufly  exact  that 
he  does  not  remember  any  Author  of  any  Name  whom -he  did 
not  per ufe  except  S.almafita  alone,  which  he  could  not  come  by. 
p.  22—25.  This  was  to  be  diligent  in  good  Earned:  For,  to 
read  on  the  Epifcopal  Side  Andrews,  Bancroft 9  Bil/on7  Barges,  QhiU 

C  2  -Ungwortht 


^o  K  emarl]s  on  Ghap  fc 

I'wgworlh,  Douvham>t  Dcdivcll,  Hopkef,  Hdl,  Hcylin^HAmmond,  Honmy* 
Win,  Maurice,  Monro.  Saravia,  $*g'9  Scoty  Sutlivius,  Tilen,  On  the 
Presbyterian  Side  Be&s,  Bain,  Bucer,  Blonde!,  Bailie,  Csrtivright^  CaU 
derivQod,CUrkJon9  Gillcfpie,  For'refler,  Jsmefon,  Rut  herfoord,  Rale  fNufa 
a  long  et  eaters  on  both  fides,  to  read  all  thefe  Authors,  I  fay, 
and  to  read  them  fo  as  duely  to  weigh  the  Arguments,  ObjeQions, 
Anfwcrs,  Exceptions  and  Reply s  was  a  Herculean  Labour.  But 
where  is  there  Time  for  it  by  Mr.  Rhinos  Account?  And  yet 
he  had  not  done  with  it.    For 

4.  As  to  the  other  Controversies  that  relate  to  Doffrine,  Wor* 
yZ»//>  Src.  He  confulted  the  refpecUve  Authors fro  arid "con,  p.  26V 
That  is  to  fay,  he  ftudied  th$  Armwian  and  Liturgical  Controver- 
ts, which,  Every  one  knows,  require  both  much  Time  and  great 
Application.  Yet  after  all  this  he  was  only  fhocked,  not.abio- 
lutly  determin'd.     For 

5.  To  the.  Study  of  Books,  he  added  Conversion  with  learned 
Men,  he  collected  his  Obfervations  on  the  Spirit  and  Principles  of 
the  Party  of  which  he  had  folong  been;  and  took  Time  to  inform 
himfelf  about  what  he  did  notJuiow  of  the  other.  And  narrowly  ob- 
ferved  how  the  Spirit  and  principles  of  both  difcovered  themfelves 
by  overt  ACTS.  .  All  this  he  did,  noi-once  but  msty  Times; 
and  after  all  this  he  had  his  Soul  to  workup  to  a  due  Serioufnefs 
and  Intention  of  Thought.;  and  then  once  wore  recollected  what 
he  had  learned  from  Men,Books,or  his  own  Experience  for  or  agsinft 
either  Principle  or  Party. Not  till  this  was  done,  and  the  Aid  and  Di- 
rection of  God  invocked,  was  he  determin'd  in  his  Judgment.  And 
even  when  he  was  determin'd,  Bafhfullnefsor  Fear  reftrained  Him, 
till  at  Jaft  a  forcible  Conviction  and  the  fevere  Remonilrances  of  his 
Conference  obliged  him  pub  ickly  to  declare  himfelf  p.  26-29.. 

This  is  his  Account  ;_butnow,how  a  Man  could  do  all  this  within 
the  Space  of  22  Years,  when  he  had  not  fo  much  as  a  Thought  of 
doing  any  Thing  of  it  at  an  Age  wherein  hewascapable  to  be  a 
Preacher,  which  we  cannot  fuppofe  earlier  xhan  21;  chat  is,  in  a 
,Word,  how  Mr.  Rhind  could  do  that  in  one  Year,  which  wou'd  have 
Iceptany  ordinary  Manconftantly  bufie  §eve&  Years,  He  has  yet  to 
account  for  to  the  World,  And  till  it  be  done,  he  nv.iftexcufe  his 
^wd;ers , .  Me  at  |e|ft,  frogLt)eIie,ying  i|§  Sincerity  9!  bxs. Narrative 

QQt* 


$j$&  //£  Mr.  ^hind's Narrative  bi- 

notwirhftanding  the  Solemnity  of  his  .AfTcveratioa.  •  Andfo  I  -pro-i 
ceed  in  my  Remarks* 

II.  Tho'  Mr.  Rhwdlus  told  us  p.  6%  That  hems  his  Birth  to  Pref. 
hyterian  Parents,  yet  he  has  conceal'd  his  having  been  baptized  by  a 
PresbjterimMim^tw    Did  it  look  like  Sincerity- to diffemble  that 
which  was  of  fa  great  Moment  to  be  known  ?    I  ferioufly  declare  I 
do  not  intend  Banter  oi  Raillery  by  this  particular  ;.    but  touch  upon 
it,  becaufe,according  to  Mr.  Rhinos  Principles,,  it  is  of  the  la'fl:  Coa- 
fequence  not  only  to  himfelfbutpoflibly  to  many  others,  -  He  is  in  a 
much  worfe  Condition  -than  if  he-had  been  baptized  by  a  meer  Lay* 
roan  or-Midwife  in  the  Church  of  England:     For,  tho'  Baptifm  as 
difpenfedby  them   is  irregular,  yet  being    Chrifrkns,  within  the 
Church,  and  having  at  leail  the  Connivance  of  the  Btjbop,  Iris  not 
Invalid  and   therefore  is  not  repeated,  or  dinar  ly  atleafh     But  Pres- 
byterian Minifters  are  no  Chriftians.--  They  are  by  his  Scheme,  not 
only  without  the  Chmch j  but  Enemies  to  it.    Their  Baptifm  then  is 
null  and  can  have  no  Effect,    even  tho5  the  Perfon  is  afterwards- 
confirmed  by  theB/TZwf  :-For,  what  is  inks  own  Nature  null  can 
never  be  made  valid  by  a  Pofterior'Deed  :     And  therefore,  as  Dr." 
Hicks  informs  us     (/)    the  Church  has  provided  the?  Office  for  the 
Baptifm  of  thofi  of  riper  Tears,  which  was  not  Originally  in  the  Liturgies 
on  Purpofe    toanfwer-   theCafe  ofPerfons-  in  fuch  Circum'ftan'ces, 
This  muft  needs  affect  Air.  Rhind  very  heavily  :    For,  according  to 
his  own  Principles  .concerning  .Baptifm  *,  He  is  no  Chriftian,  is 
without  Grace,;  incapable  of  Salvation,  can  neither  be  Prieft  nor  Dea*' 
con,    confequently  the  Baptifm  difpenfed  by  him  to  others  is  Null  \ 
Confequently,  by  his  Principles,. they  moil  all  be  Damned  [[Extra-' 
ordinary  Mercy  interpofe.not.     I  could  Jnot  think  of  all  this  without 
Horror,.,   and  therefore  am  in  Pain  till  I  hear  how  heextricatshirn- 
felf.     By  all  I  can  apprehend"  there  is  but  one  Way  to  fave  him  and 
prevent  further  Mifchief,  viz.  joget  Epifcopal  Baptifm.     If  he'isnot' 
convinced  of  the  Neceflity  of  this  by  what  I  have  faid,     I  recommend 
tohirn  toread  Mr.  Laurence's  late  Book  of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Bap*' 
tifm,  where  he  may  have  all  Objections  enfwered,    and  both  Argu- 
ments and  an  Example  to  perfwade  him. 

III." 


r  1 1    Preface  to  the  Iov^ky  of  Lay-B,apcif$n.    *  p,  177.  &c,  - 


22  Remarfy  on  Chapi  I. 

III.  Mr.  RhindMX  profeiTes  that,whiie  he  was  among  thePresbyteri- 
ans, he  was  without  the  Church  and  incapable  of  Salvanon.  One  WGuld 
think  therefore  that  he  fhouldhave  afcribed  to  God  the  fir  ft  Hint" 
was  given  him  to  make  his  Efcape  out  of  fo  d  angerous  a  State.  Even 
the  Church  of  England  Divines  themfelves  who  have  gone  off  the 
C&lvinian  Scheme  do  yet  acknowledge  a  preventing  Grace.  But 
does  Mr.  Rhind  this?  No.  He  afcribes  it  to  himfelf  and  his  own 
Thought;  and  that,  as  I  take  Him,  under  a  favourable  Planetary 
Afpetl.  When  1  had  arrived,  faith  he  p.  9.  a*  a  competent  Age,  infome 
lucky  minute,  my  Thoughts  fugge  fled  to  me  the  reafonablenefs  of  my  enqui- 
ring into  my  Opinions  about  Things.  Gcd  is  not  brought  into  the  Ac- 
count here,  Nay  he  has  not  fo  much  as  a  Hint  of  addreffing  him  by 
Prayer,  till  he  had  DETER  MIN'D  himfelf  as  to  Natural  Religion, 
tillhe  had  got  himfelf  perfwaded  of  the  Truth  of  the  CbriJiUn  Religi- 
on, and  till  he  had  refolved  himfelf  againft  the  Romifo.  After  all  this, 
sndnofooner,  did  he  addrefs  the  God  of  all  Truth  p.  19.     This  Con- 

,  duel  of  his  was  defign'd  and  founded  upon  two  Reafons  which  the 
Reader  may  weigh  at  his  Pleafure.  Firft,  He  is  fo  much  an  Enemy 
to  Enthufiafm,  that  he  did  not  think  it  would  become  him  to  im- 
pute any  Motion  in  his  Soul  to  the  Spirit  of  God  :  For  the  Manner  of 
Godis  Dealing  with  the  Souls  of  his  EleEi  is  hut  afenfeiefs  Story,  and  it 
was  below  his  Phiiofophical  Genius  to  afctibethat  to  a  Divine  Efficiency 
which  wight  oihenvijebeaccsnnied  for.  Secondly,  His  Story  would  not 

:  have  cold  right,  if  he  fliould  have  owned  God.  For  he  was  refolved 
to  throw  himfelf  into  a  State  of  Sceptiafm,  wherein  he  was  to  fuf- 
pend  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  Gcdf 
mufi believe  that  he  is.  ItWrill  therefore  be  very  neceffary  that  Mr, 
Rhind  in  his  next  explain  a  Utile  rpen  the  lucky  Minute,  b.caufe 
People  are  much  in  thcjD&rk  about  it. 

IV.  I   r".  Rhind  p.  j.  makes Mention  irl  genera!  of  his  Obligations 
to  the  Presbyterians.    But  did  he  intend  thereby  to  teftify  his  Grati- 
tude? No.     The  whole  Strain  of  his  Book  is  Evidence  that  he  hid 
i  Impreflibns  oftliat ;    but  he  does  it,  that  he  may  raife  his  own 

.Character,  by  Shewing,  ag&ihft  how  great  Tencationsto  the  contra- 
ry he  had  fcparatefrom  Thswy  and  upon  what  Difintereffed  Views 
he  hsd  come  over  to  the  Efifcoptd  Side.    This  is  plain  from  his  own 

Words 


r.  tvnina\f  Narrative:'  25 

Words  p.  8.  t  And  if  now  that  I  am  none  of  theirs;  and  if  after 

*  having  received  fomany  Difcourtefiss  from  them,!  do  ftill  entertain 

1  a  graceful!  Refentment  of  their  Favours,    Imagine  how  deep  the 

*  Impreflion  tnaft  have  been,  and  how  much  I  would'  be  prejudi- 
1  cats  in  Their  behalf,  when  actually  allowed  very  liberal  Ex- 
i  preilions  of  Their  Favour  and  Efteem— -— .  i  cannot  pcrfwade 
My  Self  that  fuch  Artifice  wou'd  become  a  Man  recommending 
His  Soul  to  God  in  His  la  ft  Minutes. 

V.  I  faid  before  That  He  parted  Ways  with  the  Church  of 
Rome  upon  a  very  (lender  Quarrel.  What  was  it?  Take  it  in 
His  own  Words  f.  15.  i  Though  I  had  been  convinced   of  the 

*  Truth  of  all  the  Articles  of  Pope  Pju/s  Creed,  (  which  you  may  think  y 
c  would  argue  a  ftrong  Faith,&  a  great  Deal  of  Violence  offered  to  my 

*  Reafon)  yQt  could  I  never  be  perfwaded,  That  the  Damning 
6  of  all  who  did  not  believe  as  I  did?  fhould-  be  a  Condition  of 

*  My  Salvation.     In  a  word,  the  abfq;  .qua  Fide,  &c  which  They 

*  had  made  a  Term  of  Communion  and  an  Article  of  Their  Faith,. 
f  was  (o  choaking  that  it  would  nor  believe  for  Me.*  And.  as  the 
.*  Disbelief  of  this  one  Artiste,  would  hinder  Their  receiving  Me, 

*  into  Their  Communion  ;    So  indeed,  this  alone  abundantly  con- 
'  vinced  Me,  that  I  fhould  never  enter  into  it?  For  understanding 
this,,  the  Reader  mafi  know,  that  Pope  Pius's  -Creed,  alter  a  Re- 
hearfal  of  the  feveral  ^\rticles,hath  this  affixed,  and  the  fame  true  Ca~ 
Mick  Faith,  WIEQX3T    WHICH  NO  MAN   CAN  BE   SA- 
VED—-/ the  fame  N do  vow  and  /wear.  '  This  damning  Claufe  Was 
the' Quarrel  ;  but  I  affirm  that,  fuppofeing  he  had  been  convinced  0/ 
the  Truth  of  all  the  other  Articles,  it  was  no  good  one  j  bscaufe  he 
has  already  done  the  fame.     The    Church  of  England,  to    which 
Mr.Rhind  has  join'd'vhimfeIf,  hath  engrofTed  the  Athana/m  Creed 
in  her  Liturgy:  And  yet  that  Creed  has  at  kail  two  fuch  damning 
Claufes,andin  harder  Words  too;  one  iir  the  Beginning.    '  Who- 

*  foever  jwill  -be 'laved.,-'  before  all  Things  it  is  necellary  that  he 
c  hold  the  Catholick  Faith,  which  Faith  except  every  one  do  keep 
6  Holy  and  undefined,,  without  doubt  he  fhall  perilh-everlafiingiy. 
c  Another -at  the  End,     This  is  the;  Catholick  Faith,  which  except 

*  a  Man- believe  ■■  faithfully 'he  cannot' be  faved.'-- 

[Why .  then  did  He  refute  the  Roman  Catholick  Communion ,  for 


%4  Remar\f  on  Chap."  Tj 

that  which  he  has  approved  of  in  the  Church  of  England  Communis 
on  ?  I  cannot  fay  it  was  unwifely  done:  For,  the  fmaller  the  guar* 
rel  was,  the  eafier  may  the  Reconciliation  be. 

■VI.  While  Mr.  Rhind  is  giveing  an  Account  of  his  own  Study  of 

the  Fathers^  falls  heavily  p.  2 1  upon  thePresbyteriansfor  their  want  of 

Refpecl  to  them.     But  has  he  adduced  in  all   his  Book  one  In- 

■  fiance  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  mifs  it.    No  other  Proof  has  he  for  his  Charge,  unlefs 

you'll  be  fo  kind  as  to  take  his  own  AiTertions.     They  who  had  th& 

Directions  of  my  Studies,  faith  he,  never  recommended  to  me  the  reading 

Jo  much  as  of  one  Father.     No  wonder  truly,  it  was  foon  enough 

to  begin  the  Study  of  the  Fathers  at  the  Age  of  22.     Mod:  part 

,of  young  Men  arenotfooner  Ripe  for  it;  and  at  that  Age  Mr. 

.Rhind feparated.   tB'i(hop  Burnet  is  thought  to  have  tolerable  good 

Skill  in  training  young  Theologues,  now  hear  him  (m).    l  It  may 

e  feem  ftrange,  that   in  this  whole  Direction,  I  have  faid  nothing 

c  concerning  the  Study  of  the  Fathers  or  Church  Hiflory.     But  I 

•  ■  faid  .  at .  firft,  That  a  great  Diitinclion  was  to  be  made  between 

1  what  was  neceffaryto  prepare  a  Man  to  be  a  Prieft,  and  what 

c  was  NecefTary  to  make  himacompleat  and  learned  Divine.  The 

'  knowledge  of  thefe  Things  is  neceffary  to  the  latter,  though  they 

1  do  not  feem  fo  neceffary    for  the  former:     There    are   many 

6  Things  to  be  left  to    the  Profecution  of  a  Divines  Study,  that 

'  therefore  are  not  mentioned  here,  without  any  defign  to    difpa- 

c  rage  that  fort  of  Learning.    Thus  He.    But,  proceeds  Mr.  Rhindt 

1  frequently  heard  them  talk  contemptibly  of  them  and  their  Works,  except 

ting  ft  ill  St.  Auguftines  Books  of  Predeliination  and  Grace.     That 

.excellent  Perfon  Mr.  George  Ivleldrumy  late  Ptofefor  of  Divinity  at 

Edinburgh  was  -he  who  had  the  Direction  of  Mr,   Rhind'j  Studies, 

If  He  talked  contemptibly  of  the  Fathers,  lean  (ay  from  my  own 

.perfonal  Knowledge  of  Him,  to  be  confirmed  by  many  Thoulands 

yet  alive;  that  it  was  what  he  hardly  ever  did  of  any  Body  elfe. 

Mi'o  Rhind,  then  muft  prove  this  ece  he  is.  Believed* 

But 


(m  )  Ptloril  Ctre,  p.  ty$t 


Scftlll.       Mr.  Rhind'x  Narrative!  s| 

But  while  he  charges  the  Presbyterians  fo  fiercely  on  this  Head; 
Why  does  he  himfelf  give  fuch  a  Contemptible  Hint  of  Auguliin  ? 
Why  p.  1 14  talks  he  fo  contemptibly  of  Jerom  That  be  contradicts 
him felf  kef  Why,  Mguftw ;^as  for  the  Doctrines  of  Predefti* 
nation  and  G^f?,  and  J^mw  for  Presbytryy  both  which  are  Mr. 
Rhind\  Averfion;  yet  one  would  think  he  fhould  not  deny  that 
Freedom  to  Presbyterians  which  he  takes  to  himfelf.  ThePra«i 
byterians  Willingly  acknowledge  that  the  Fathers  have  done,  excel- 
lent Things;  yet  they  don't  believe  They  were  infallible.  They 
ftick  not  to  fay  that  the  Fathers  were  fubjed  to  the  fame  Infirmi- 
ties with  other  Men,  and  their  Works  as  full  of  grofs  Efcapes 
as  thefe  of  latter  Authors,  and  that  they  wrote  (  as  themfelves  ac- 
knowledge )  crudedly  and  Icofely  till  Herefies  and  Schifms  arifting 
taught  them  more  Correftnefs.  And  do  not  the  Church  of  En- 
gland Divines  talk  as  contemptibly  of  them  as  all  this,  or  whatever 
elfe  Presbyterians  have  (aid  of  them  can  amount  to  ?  Yes.  Never 
was  there  a  Set  of  Writers  in  the  World  that  treated  the  Fathers 
more  homely  and  coarfely  than  they  do.  The  only  Difference  is, 
that  they  fall  into  this  Strain,  when  they  find  the  Fathers  to  be 
againfi  Them.  But  then  when  they  either  are  One,  or  can  be 
fcrewed over  to  their  own  Side,  Oh  then  !  thei^forj  areal!Oracles9 
and  'tis  the  Sin  of  Cham  to  open  a  Mouth  againfi:  Them.  Need 
I  cite  Inftances  to  prove  all  this?  No.  'Tis  clear  to  every  one 
that's  acquaint  with  their  Writekigs,  yet  I  fhall  give  one  or  two  for 
fatisfleing  the  Reader. One  of  Mr.  Rhino's  learned  Brethren  of  the  Cler- 
gy f  has  lately  appeared  very  loudly  in  Defence  of  the  Book  about  An. 
pchritt  afcribed  to  Hippolit  us, though  no  Man  that  had  not  quite  profti- 
tute  His  Senfe  would  have  done  it.  He  has  been  told  how  Coke 9 
Ffdkj  Whitaker  three  famous  Divines  of  the  Church  ofEnglandhzvQ 
difparaged  it,  and  how  Monfieur  le  Fevre  that  eminent  Cmick  hath 
made  a  Jeft  of  it,  and  rnw,  fuppofeing  it  were,  what  he  would 
have  it  to  be,  it  yet  m^kes  nothing  for  his  Purpofe.  Yet 
be,  like  a  true  Teague,  is  reiblved  to  keep  his  Text,  whatever  he 
fay  on  it.  To  put  him  in  Humour  then,  after  fo  much  Wrath,  it 
ihall  he  allowed  that  H!ppQlitus\  Book  is  Genuine.    Now  hear 

D  with 

i  Mr.  Colder, 


i6  Remarfy  on  Chap."  L 

with  what  profound  Refpeft  Jewell  Bifhop  of  Salisbury  treats  («) 
the  Reverend  Father  and  his  Work.     '■  Tis  a  very   little  Book, 

*  of  fmall  Price  and  as  fmall  Credit.  -  It  appeareth  it  was  fome 
i  ftmpU  Mm  that  wrote  the  Book,  both  for  the  Phrafesof  his  Speech 
'  in  the  Greek  Tongue,  which  commonly  are  very  Chtldifi,   and 

*  alfo  for  the  Truth  and  Weight  of  the  Matter.  He  beginneth  the 
1  fir  11  Sentence  of  his  Bock  with  Enim  which  a  very  Child  would 
fcarcely  do.  After  a  Recital  of  feveral  of  his  Blunders  he  adds. 
'  And  this  he  faith  without  either  Warrant  of  the   Scriptures,  or 

*  Authority  g(  the  Church-  "Us  alledgeth  the  Apocalypfe  of  S.  John 
1   in  the  Stead  of  Daniel,    which  is  a    Token  of  great    Ignorance 
6  or  of  marvellous  Oblivion.    Say  now,  what  Difcipline  a  Presbyteri- 
an had  defer ved,  had  he  treated  fo  worthy  a  Father  fo  familiarly. 
Take  another  Inilance. .  Bifhop  Whitgift  (d)  runs  a  Comparison 
3twixt  the  Fathers  and  the  Englijh  Bifhops  in  Truth  of  Doffrine,  Ho- 
nefty  of  Life ,  and  Right  ufe  of  External  Things,  and  very   mannerly 
gives  the  Preference  to  himfclfand  his  Colleagues  in  all  the  three. 
If  thefe  Infhnces  are    not  fufficient,  Mr.  Rhind  may  have  five 
hunder  moe  upon  demand,  and  perhaps  fomeof  them  ere  we  have 
done  *.    To  put  an  End  for  ever  to  this  Topick  of  declaiming 
again  (I  the  Presbyterians,  I  here  challange  the  Epi/copalians  to  make 
a  Collection  of  all  the  Contemptible  Things   the  Presbyterians  have 
written  of  the  Fathers.     And  if  I  do  not  make  as  Urge  a  Collection 
of  as  Contemptible  Things  that  the  Epiftopd  Authors  have  written 
of  them,  it  fhailbe  owned  they  have  Reafon  for  their  Declamati- 
ons.-   If  they,  refofe   this,  they    muft  give  us    a   Reafon    why 
they  may  make  bold  with  the  Fathers,  and  the  Presbyterians   nor. 
Have  Prelatifis  only  the  Priviledge  of  railing  at  'cm  ? 

VII.  Mr.  Rhind  gives  an  ample  enough  Commendation  to  the 
Writers  of  his  own.  Way.  1  found  them  all,  faith  he,  p.  2  $.  to  be  Men  of 
Difcretion  and  Senfe,  fo  that  jh  on  Id  I  name  all  whom  I  thought  to  have 
atjed  thtir  fart  handfomly,  I  Jhould  have  none  unnamed.  Is  this  the 
Sincerity  hepromifed?  Could  he  find  never  wfenfclefs  Author  on 
the  Ep/fcopal 'Side?  Why  certainly  he  has  looked  on  them  with  a 
Lover's  Eye  ;  for  who  is  there  that  knows  nor,  that  the  Confufion  of 

Languages 


(»j  Reply  to  M.  H4r£in£s  Auf.  Aa.  i.  Diy .;  /.  (c)  Defease,  of  the  Anf.  p.  472.  * 


Se&./iX         Mr  KKm&'sNarrativf.  27 

Languages  at  Babel  was  never  greater  than  is  among  the  Efifcopal 
Writers  ?  Where  fhall  we  find  any  twooi  them  that  go  entirely  upon 
the  fame  Scheme  ?  Does  not  every  Body  know  how  they  mutually 
reiecl  each  others  Arguments  ?  Should  I  inftance  any  of  their  Writers 
whom  I  judge  to  have  performed  buifo  and  fo,  I  know  I  would  be 
declined  as  a  partial  Judge ;  but  let  us  hear  one  of  Therafelves  giveing 
the  Characler  of  his  Fellows  that  went  before  him.  Mr.  Thomas  Ed~ 
-wards  afTerts  (/0  of  them.  That  as  to  their  Proofs  out  of  Scripture, 
6  They  underftood  not  what  they  faid,  nor  whereof  they  affirmed. 
And  in  a  later  Book  (f)  He  is  fo  far  from  repenting  ofthefehard 
Words,  that  '  he  hopes  every  Body  will  grant  he  had  reafon  for 
Them.  And  he  would  not  have  this  mean  i  of  one  or  m?onlyofhis 
Fellow  Writers,  but  of  the  whole  Bulk  of  them.  And  therefore  he 
fulls  down  the  whole  Frame  of  Epifcopacy  to  build  it  after  his  own  new 
and  better  Fafhion.  Now  either  M.  Edwards  has  not  aQed  his 
part  handfomely,  or  none  of  the  reft  have ;  For  it  isfure  but  a  forry 
Way  of  ailing^  when  one  knows  not  whit  he  fays,  or  whtreof  he  affirms. 

VIII.  Of  all  the  Epifcopd  Authors  Mr.  Rhind  gives  the  Preference 
to  M.  Dodivell  and  M.  Sage  f.  To  the  firft.  particularly  for  his  Book  of 
Schjfm,  and  that  of  the  One  Priefthood  and  one  Altar ;  and  to  the  latter 
for  his  Principles  of  the  Cyprianick  Age  and  the  Vindication  thereof. 

That  M.  Dedwell  was  a  Man  of  vaft  Reading  and  Abftracl  Life 
every  one  mud  acknowledge  ;  but  that  his  Books  are  of  a  moft  per- 
nicious Tendency,  I  am  wellperfwaded,  no  one  ought  to  deny.  For, 
in  Order  to  make  Room  for  planting  Prelacy  \  He  hath,  fofar  as  his 
Principles  prevail,  not  only  deftroyed  Charity,  but  grubbed  up  the 
very  Roots  of  Chriftianity,  yea  of  Natural  Religion.  Whether  this 
bean  unjuft  Cenfure,  I  refer  it  to  the  Reader  upon  hearing  of  the 
following  Account. 

His  Book  again fi  Schifm  he  publifhed  in  the  Year  1679  When 
the  Civil  Government  did  not  want  to  have  a  bad  Opinion  of  the 
N§nco??formifts.  Therein  he  attempts  to  prove  not  only  that  the  Sepa- 
rates from  Epifcopal  Government  are  Schifmaticks^  but  (r)  That 
no  Prayers  made  by  thernfelves,  nor  by  others  for  them  can  find  Ac- 
ceptance with  God,  except  fuch  Prayers  as  are  put  up  for  their  Con- 

D  2  verfion 


[jij  Difcourfeagainft  Extemporary  Prayer.     [V!  Diocefen  Epifcopacy  proved  from  Holy  Scriptures, 

p.231.  tf.  h-   (O.ciup.  xi.  sd,  7.      -  •■■-.     ;?:.?:■ 


2  S?  Remttrfy  on  *  Chap~  t! 

verfion  from  the Schifm,    and  that  their  Separation  is  the  Sin  unto- 
Death  fpoken  of  by  S.  John  i  Ep.  chap.  5.  ver.  16.    That,    (j)     that 
dreadfull  Text  Heb.6.4,  5,6.     It  is   imp/fib le  for     thofe  that  were* 
erne  enlightened  —is  applicable  to  them.     That(0    they  are  guilty' 
of  the  fame  Crime,    and  as  real  Enemies    to  ChriM  as  thefe     who' 
in  Terms     profefTed  him    to  be     an  Imyoftor.    That    (y)    fuch1 
Separation  is  a  Sin  againfi  the  Holy  Ghofiy    and     (x)     a'n  Interpreta- 
tive difowning  Chrift  for   our  Matter.     Nay  (y;  that  it  is  as  Cri-^ 
m.inal  as  the  Sin  of  the  Angells,and  \X\zOldWorld,  2nd  the  Sodomites ,' 
and  the  Ifr  at  I  ites  in  the   Wiidernefs.  In  a  Word,  That  nothing   is 
effectual  to  Salvation  without  being  in  the     Epifcopal  Communion.  I 
pofe  now  Mr.  Rhtnd  to  findany  thing  more  impious  and  fcandalous 
in  Spinoffs  Book,  to  which,  he  faies,  the  Presbyterians  compare  M.? 
Dodivel/'sl 

This,  one  would  have  thought,  was  enough  for  one  Man  in  his 
whole  Life.  ButM.  Dodwell  did  not  think  fo.  The  Parliament  of 
"England,  confidering  the  great  Danger  the  Nation  was  in  from  Pope* 
ry  ;  fawit  wasneceltary  to  have  better  Thoughts  ofthe  Diftnters, 
and  to  give  them  more  Countenance  than  would  havefollowei 
upon  his  Principles  ;  And  therefore  ffnrtly  after  the  publishing  of  his 
Book,  viz.  Upon  the  tenth  of  January  1680  the  Commons  declared  by* 
their  Vote  neminecontradicente,  '  It  is  the  Opinion  of  this  Houfethat 
6  the  Profecution-  ofProreftant  DifTenters  upon-  the  Penal  Laws  isaf 

*  this  Time  grievous  to  the  Subject,    a  weakening  the  Pioteuaot  In- 

*  tereft,an  Encouragement  to  I  opery,  and  dangerous  to  the  Peace 
6  ofthe  Kingdom.  This  was  plainly  toblaft  all  Hopes  of  the  Fruits 
night  otherwife  have  been  expected  trom  M.  Dodwell^.  Book.  Where* 
fore  he  makes  a  fecond  Attaque,  and  in  the  Year  168$  pubiifhed  his 
Book  of 'the  One  Priesthood,  one  Altar,  wherein  he  over  again  attempt 
Jed  to  prove  the  Nonconformifts6V/;//w^/^i,  and  imagining  he  had 
done  it,  inferrs  (V)  that  they  can  lay  no  Claim  to  the  One  Altar 
nor  to  the  One  Prieji hoody  to  the  Favour  of  God  here,  nor  the  Enjoy- 
ment of  him  hereafter. 

It  was  no  Wonder  he  was  thusfevere  upon  the  Diffenters:  For  he 
proceeded,  and    made  the  Church  of  England  her  felf  upon  the  Re* 

volution 


I  s]  Chap.  XIII.  [tj  Ibid."  Sea.J3  [vj  Chap.  XIV*  £*]  Ibid.  £<;£.  20.  [y]  Ibid.  Sea.  22.  [1]  Chap.  XJUj 


Seft,  III:  Mr.  R  hind 's  Narrative]       l§| 

volution  Eftahlifhment  Schifmatical, and  in  the  Year  i704publifti- 
ed  his  Ltiine  Book  entitled   Paranefis  ad  exteros  de  nupero  Schifmate 
Anglicano to  advertife  Foreigners  thereof.    What,youcllfay,  was  his 
Quarrel  with  the  Revolution  Church  of  England?  Was  it  her  Injuries 
to  "the  late  K.  James  ?  No.     Was  it  her  renouncing  the  Doctrines  of 
PaffiveObedience  and  Non-Refiftance  on  any  Pretence  whatsoever  ? 
No.  Was  it  the  fcandalous  new -Prayers  (be  had  p in  into  the  Litur- 
gy? No.    Allthefe  Things,  he  exprefly  tells  us  p.  3.  He,  with  thofe 
of  his  Principles,    made  a  Shift  to  bear  with  ;     perhaps  To  much  the 
more  eafily  that,  as  the  Writer  of  his  Life  tells  us,  he  had  been  pro- 
claimed a  Rebel  for  not  comerng  in  and  takeing  Part  with  the  Forces 
ofthefaid  K.  James  when   they   endeavoured    to  keepPoflefTion  of 
Inland'm  the  Year  1689.  What  was  it  then  difobliged  him  ?  Why  the 
Bifhops  Mttre  was-touched^  and  that  was  of  more  Confideration  than 
she  Kings  Crown.     The'Nonjuring  Bifhops  were difporTeffed  ;  their 
vacant  Sees,  atter   much  Patience,  filled  with  as  gocd'Men  as  them-" 
felves.    That  was  never>  to  bedigeiied,    and  therefore  "he  declared 
the  Eft ablifhment  a  Schifm.  : 

This    was  a  pretty  high  Flight,    and  yet  he  was  not  at  his  Pitch. 
In  the  Year  1706  He  pttblifhed  his  Epistolary  Difcourfe^proveingfrom 
the  Serif  tiff  es  and  Firfi  Fat  her  s9  That  the  Soul  is  a  Principle  naturally  mor-  ■ 
id,  wherein  is  proved  J  hat  none  have  the  Power  of  giveing  the  Divine  im- ' 
moYtdizingSpirit ,fince the  Jpofiles,  but  only  the  Bifhops.     Here  was  a 
very  New  and  furprizingSceneopened.     The  Heathens  that  never  : 
heard  of  Chrift  were  made  happy  by  it.    The  vvorft  they  had  to  fear 
was,  that  their  Soulsfhould  vanifh  into  f&/#  Air.     Butthen  fad  was 
the  Cafe  of  a  H  Separates,  from  the  Epifcopal  Communion  :  For  though 
their  Souls  were-neither  by  Nature  Immortal,  nor  Immortalized  by 
Epifcopal  Baptism  ',  yet, he  found  a  Cue  to  have  them  Immortalized dB it*  ' 
ally  by  the  PleafureofGod  ioP-unijhment,  Was  ever  fuch  horrid  Do- 
drine  heard  of  among  Chriftians?  However,  that  Book,  though  per- 
haps the  very  worit  'ever (aw  the  Light,  had,by  accident,  one  very 
good  Effect.    -For,  fuch  as  were  before  iii  Danger  of  being  implicitly  ' 
carried  into  his  Principles   by  the  Fame  of  his  Learning ;  when  they 
faw  that  he  would  force  even  the  Scriptures  and  Fathers  to  vouch  for 
the  Natural  Mortality  of  the  Soul,   very  juftly  prefurhedi  that  his  Rea- 
Comngs  from  them- in  hisotfar  Books  were  to  beiufpe&ed.-  • 


jd  Retnarfy  on  Chap.    Ti 

*Tis  now  worth'the  while  to  fee  how  Mr.  Rhind  refines  on  this* 
1  Tis  true,  faith  he  p.  24.  M.  Dodwdljeemed  to  have  given  his  Ene» 
c  mies  a  Handle  againfi:  him,  by  the  uncouth!  noughts  which  he 
6  vented  in  his  Bcokof  the$oulybut  this  he  did  in  a  manner  lb  learned, 
c  &  fofar  above  the  Comprehension  of  Ordinary  Readers  ^  that, allowing  his 
G  Opinion  to  have  been  Erroneous,  yet  would  not  many  be  in  ■/&- 
c  ^^3^  of  being  perverted  by  it.  Withall,  I  confideredthat  my  then 
c  Search  was  not  to  be  employed  about  that  fuppofed  Cmgufor  Opinion 
c  of  his ;  for  what  1  was  then  Defirous  to  know,  was  only,  whe- 
?  ther  his  Arguments  for  Epifcopacy  w7ere  forcible  or  not? 

Here  is  a  Text  worth  the  commenting  on.  Did  M.  DodweB. 
feem  only,  did  he  not  really  give  a  handle  not  Only  to  his  Enemies 
but  to  all  the  World  that  had  any  Regard  for  Religion  ? 
But  why  does  M.  Rhind  call  it  his  Book  of  the  Scull  Why  does 
lie  not  call  it  his  Book  for  Epifcopacy?  Epifcopacy  was  the  Conclufion 
intended,  the  Mortality  of  the  Soul  only  a  Medium  forenforceing 
it.  Why  does  he  fay  it  was  writ  above  the  Compr then fion  of  ordinary 
Readers?  Did  he  not  write  it  in  Englifjj  f  And  is  not  this  a  tol- 
lerable  Preemption  that  he  defign'd  he  fhould  be  underftood? 
Is  not  the  Doclrine,  to  wit,the  Mortality  of  the  6W,fo  Plain  that  every 
Plowman  may  understand  it.  But  M.  Rhind  is  right:  For  the 
Arguments  for  proveing  this  DoQxine  are  above  the  Comprehenfwn 
not  only  of  ordinary  Readers  but  of  extraordinary  too,  even  of  all 
undemanding.  This  I  am  fure-of,  that  the  FloribiUtyofthe  Wills 
of  Dead  Souls  frf),  feparate  Souls  receiveing  Water  Baptifm  <J>) 
and  the  like,  are  Notions  as  much  above  the  Capacities  of  Pres- 
byterians as  Jacob  Behmerfs  Lucubrations  are.  I  hope  many  are  not 
in  hazard  of  being  perverted  by  it.  But  M.  Rhind  himfelf  is  fo  un- 
happy as  to  be  one,  for  it  is  not  really  but  a  fuppofed  lingular  O- 
pinion,  he  will  not  pofitivly  fay  it  is  Erroneous,  but  allowing  it  to 
be  fa,  it  is  not  dangerous  becaufe  of  its  Obfcurity.  But  how  in  all 
the  World  could  he  fufTer  thefe  Words  todropfrom  him,  '  That 
*  his  fearch  was  not  to  be  employed  about  that  fingular  Opinion 
6  of  M.  DodwelPs,  but  to  know  whether  his  Arguments  tor  E- 
;l  pifcopacy  were  forcible  or  not.     Is  not  the  natural  Mortality  of  the 

Soul, 


.   j    S>£   ji.  p.  7 7 j.    [b]  Se&£v 


Se<9:.  III.  Mf\  R  hind's  Afamtffo/*.1         51 

&?«/,and  its  keing  immortalized  by  Epifcopal  Baptifm,  or  in  de- 
fect of  if,  by  the  Pleafure  of  God.  to  -  Pumfhment,  one  of  his  Argu- 
ments for  Epifcopacy  ?  What  meant  Mr.  Efe&l  by  fuch  ajugle, 
thinks  he  M.  DodwelPs  Book  is  not  .extant,  or  that  ail  the  World 
is  turned  quite  Senfelsfs  and  wants  Eyes  to  read  it?  I  cannot 
think  that  Mr.  Rb'md  himfelf  upon  a  Review  will  fay,  That  he 
has  u fed  the  Sincerity  that  would  become  an  expireing  Soul. 

But  to  go  on  with  the  Hi  (lory  of  M.  Dodwell.     Ashe  had  pro- 
ved the  Difinters  and  Low. Church  Schifmaticks,  fo  the  Norf unrig 
High  Church  Tories,  who  continued  the  Separation  after  the  Death 
of  the  deprived  Bifhops,  mud,  in  their  Turn,  be  declared  Sehifma-- 
ticks  too.     For  this  Purpofehe  publidieda  Book,  the  laft  he  wrote, 
entitled,  The  Cafe  in  f?ieiv9  now  in  Faff,  proveing,  that  the  Continuance 
of -a  feparated  Communion  without    Subflitutes,  in '■  any  of  the  late  in  va- 
lidly deprived  Sees,  fince    the  Death  of  William  Lord  Bifhop  of 
Norwich,  is  Schifmatical.  ,  With  an  Appendix  proveing}  That  our 
late  invalidly  deprived  Fathers  had  no--  Right  to  fubjlitufe  Succefors, 
who  might  legitimate  the  Separation ,  after    that  the  Schifm  had  been 
concluded   by  the  Deceafe    of  the  lafl  Sm'viver  of  thofe  fame    Fathers,  ■ 
Thus,  I  think,  there  were  very   few  in    England,    Epifcopal   or 
DilTenter,  of  High  Church  or  Low  Church,  that,  were  nor,  .fuo  ■ 
ceffively  at  lea  ft,  Schipmaticks  by  M.-Dodwelfs  Account.     Plainly, 
his  Head  was  turned  with  immoderate  Zeal, and  therefore  Schifm9 
Schifm j  was  his  everla (ling  Clack-     Mr.  RhM  indeed  has  -given 
p,  25  another  Character  of  him.     viz.     '  That  he  has  flared  the 
'  Controverfy  fairly,that  his  Authorities  are  pertinent  and  juilly  a!- 
1  kd^ed,and  that  his  Deductions  from  them  and  all  his  other  Rea- 
€  fonings  do  proceed  in  a  M&thematkd  Chain,     This  Character  I 
fhall,  adhominem,  allow:     For,  whenever  I  fhall,  find  M.  DodwelPs' 
and  M.  Rhinos  Reafooings  quite  contrary  ;  which  I  hope  not  fel- 
dom  to  find  in  the  following  6'heets,  it  will  neceffary  follow  that 
Mr.  Rhind  is  fully  anfwered,  a  Mathematical  CWm  being  more  In- 
violable rhan  an  Adamantine  am.     So  much  for  M.  Dodwell, 

As  for  M.  Sage, out  JpologifPs  other  Celebrated  Author, all  he  fales 
of  him  is,    c  And  in  Truth,  faith  he  p.  2  5, 'tis  as  much  as  can  bef-- 
'  faid  of  any  Man,  That  he  thought  he  puriued  the  Argument  in 
I  the  fame  Manner  with  M.  -Do dwell  and  improved  upon  it. 


3 3  Remarks  oh  Chap.  I J 

Of  this  Character  the  Panegyrical  Part  is  Hyperbolical,  the  Hifto- 
rical  Part  falfe.     Firft,  I  fay,  the    Panegyrical   Part  viz.  That  it  is 
as  much  as  can  be  faid  of  any  Man,  is  Hyperbolical.     No  Man  that 
is  not  blindly  Partial  will  make  him  a  Standard.    'Tistrue  he  was 
Mafter  of  fever al  good  Qualities,  of  a   gocd    Capacity  and  great 
Application  ;  but  the  Revolution  had  foured  his    Temper,  which 
carried  him  out  often  to  tranfgrefs  the  Rules  of  Religion  as  well  as 
Decency  ;  witnefs    his  Vundamental  Charter  of  Presbytry,  particu- 
larly his  long  Preface  prefixed  to  it,  upon  the  Account  of  which, I 
.acknowledge,  he  deferves  the  Cha racier  of  an  Incomparable  Author: 
For,  he  has  therein  treated  his  Adverfary  after  a  Fafhion,  whichj, 
to  fay  no  worfe  of  it,  will  not  be  eafily   paralleled.     And  which 
makes  it  fo   much  the  more  intolerable  is,  that  he  did  it  upon  fome 
.  Points  of  Hiftory,in  v\  hich  his  own  Friends  (c)  have  atlaft  acknow- 
,  ledged  he  was  miftaken.     And  how  Falfe  and  Weak  his  Hiftoricd 
Argueings  were  in  the  faid  Charter  upon  the  Ufage  of  the  Enghfh 
.  Liturgy  in  Scotland,  has  been  iufficiently  fhown  in  the  Country. marts 
x  Letter  to  the  Curat  on  that  Subject. 

'Tis  true   there  is  lately   publifhed  a  Vindication  of  the  Funda- 
mental Charter  in  Opofition  to  the  faid   Letter.     But  I  hope,  upon 
.  compareing  the  two,  The  Vindication  will  appear  to  be  a  very  harm- 
lefs  Piece:  For  i.  Who  is  likely  ever  to  be  moved  by  an  Author 
that  tells,  as  that  Vindicator  does  p.  165,  c  That  it  is  not  Suffici- 

*  ent  Proof,  that  a  Thing  is  not,becaufe  the  Hiitorians  are  filent  about 

*  it,  no,  not  fuppofe  they  fliould  all  contradict  it.  Has  that  Gentle- 
man his  HiMory  by  Infpiration?  No,  but  he  would  have  us  to 
Judge  by  Hiftories  yet  to  be  written,  p.  166.  p.  13.  2ly,  Who 
will  be  moved  by  his  Argueings  on  Buchanan,  when,  notwithstand- 
ing that  Buchanan  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  fole  Relater  of  what 
he  Argues  for,  he  yet  faies,    '   That  Buchanan  was  doating  when 

*  he  wrote  his  Hiltory,  if  it  came  frcm  his  Hands,  as  we  have 
e  it  in  all  the  Editions  hitherto  publifhed  p.  165,     ^ly,  Who  that 

51         profeOes,  as  the  Vindicator  does  p.  9.  to  write  with  at;  poffibleCan- 

■         dour  would  fay  with  him  p.  164.  that  Buchanan  Contradicls  him- 

; rielf about  Arthurs  Oven,  when  no  Man  ever  dealt  more  candidly 

tharj 


(^  Viadicatioa  of  the  Fundamental  Charter.  p-72« 


than  Buchanan  has  dorse  in  that  Matter,  even  though  it  was  of  no 

Confequence.     He  begins  the  Civil  Hiftory  of  his  Nation  at  the 

fourth  Book;  there,  in  the  Reign  of  K.  Donald!.  Hefaies,  '*  Thae 

6  Work  now  called-  Arthur's  Oven,  fome  have  falfly  related  to  have 

* '  been  the  Temple  of  Claudius  C<efar.     We,  fo  far  as  we  can  gue[s,be» 

*  lieve  it  to  have  been  the  Temple  of  Terminus.  You  fee  he!  makes 
bat  a  Guefs  of  it.  To  the  CmV  Hiftory  of  his  Nation  he  thought 
fir  to  prefix  the  Geography  of  it  &ad  an  Account  of  its  Antiquity; 
and  there,  like  a  moft  Candid  Soul,  he  retraces  his  former  Guefs 
upon  better  Information,  and  in  the  firfi  Book  delivers  himfelf 
thus.  c  I  indeed  was  once  induced  by  a  Conjecture  (  by  this  it  ap- 
c  fears  j  that  the  Civil  Hiftory  was  written  before  the  Geographical  Part) 

**  to  believe  it  to  have  been  the  Temple  of  Terminus,  which  (  we 
€  have  learned  )  ufed  to  be  built  Round  and  open  above  ; 
c  But  then  hetells,  that  he  was  informed  by  creditable Perfons  Thac 

*  there  were  ieveral  other  Buildings  of  the  fame  Form  in  other 
*c  Places  of  the  Nation.     This,  faith  he,  forced  me  to  iufpend  my 
■*  Opinion-—.  Say  now,  good  Reader,  is  there  any  Boating  here  in 
Budhdnan,whta  he  is  fo  -watchful!  even  over  his  Efcapes  in  Gueffings? 
Is  there  Pny  contradiction  here  ?  Did  not   Augustine  write  two  full 
Books  of  Retractions,     and  one    of  them   too  of   what  he  wrote 
when  he  was  a  Bifhop?  And   does  not  every   Man  applaud  his 
Ingenuity  for  doing  fo?  Nay,  has  not  M.Dodwell  himfelf  retract- 
ed (d)  even  in  point  of  Hiftory  ?  And  yet  who  blames  him  for 
it?     4?/?/y,  Who,  to  avoid  the  Force  of  Dr.  Burnet  now  Bifhop  of 
Sarum  his  Testimony  from  the  Pulpit  before  the  Houfe  of  Commons, 
concerning  what   he    had    feen,     and  Papers  he  had  had  in    his 
Hands,  would  put  off  the  Matter  by  telling,  as  the  Vindicator  dots 
p.    36,  that  the  Biftoop  is  not  Infallible, and  that  all  he  preached  in  1688 
was  not Gofpel,  and  that  he  fometimes  f reached  Extempore?  Was  not 
this  amofi:  Bitter  Way  of  giveing  him  the  Lye, and,  which  makes 
the   Treatment   (till     the    more    Ri;de,     he  at  the  fame  Time 
declares,  that   it  were  uncivil  and  uncharitable  in  him  to  Que  Ft  ion  the 
'Doctor ys  Candour  and  Veracity*     Is  this  the  grave  Vindicator  !  Is  the 
World  io far  loft,  as  to  take  Slynefs  fotSinc  rity,  and  Affefitat ion  for 

E  Gra- 


{£}  Paranes.  Se£i.  1$.  p.  Ci, 


54  RemarJp  on  Chap  L 

Gravity?     %'<Wy,  Who  that  reads   the   Dr's   Sermon,  knows    his 
Charatler,  or  ever   heard   of  his  Concernment  in  the  Project  of 
Comprehension  will  alledge  his  Words  to  be  Capable  of  any  other 
Entendre  than  the  Country-man  has  put  on  them?  6thly,   Who  would 
deny  that  the    Di's   Teftirnony    bears,    '  That    the  Ceremonies 
6  mifs'd  narrowly  of  being  thrown  out  by  an  Acl  of  the  Convocu 
6  tion,  when  it  was  carried  by  the  greater!  Number  of  the  Voices 
e  of  the  Members  that  were  preient   in  the  lower  Houfe  that  they 
'  fhould  be  laid  afidek,  And  when  the  Bifhops  (  who  make  the  up- 
per  Houfe)  were  the  fame  Way  afTe&ed,  the  Quten's  Stifnefs  m 
maintaining  themfahhihQ  Dr,  not  flowing  jrom  their  Counjels,  but  from 
difguifed  Papifis;  Will  any  Man,  that  defignsnot  to  trifle,  deny  that 
this  was  a  narrow  Mifs  ?     But  the  Vindicator  overlooked  the  Bijhops 
in  the  Dr's  Teftirnony.  .  ~ithlyy  The  Author  of  the  Charter  had  af- 
firmed that  our  Country-man  Alefs  was  a  Member  of  the  Engtifb 
Convocation.     The   Country-man  had   proved    beyond   Contra- 
diclion  that  Alefs  was  not  a  Member.    What  iaies  the  Vindkat or  to  * 
this  ?  It  was  only  an  Impropriety  of  Speech  in   the   Acurate  Author. 
Every  Man  ought  to  defpair,  after  fuch  an  Anfwer,  to  convince 
the   Vindicator  that  it  is  Light  at    mid-day.     But  the    Anfwer.   is ,, 
indeed  as  fohd,  as  the  Epithet  of  Acurate  is  Judicioufly  chofenin  i 
that   Place.  . 

But  I  acknowledge  all  this  is  a  HigrefTion  from  M.  Rhind^Bcdk.  . 
I    have    only    adduced    theie  Instances  to  convince  the  Reader 
that  if  the  Country-man,  who  is  my  good  Friend  aud  next. Neigh-  . 
bour,  don't  give  himfelf  the  Troubieot  makeingany    Return  to  the  . 
fa\d  Vindication,  Jt)s  f  lain  it  is,  becaufe  it  needs  none.     The  reading 
over  c  his  Letter  once  more  after  the  Venduatwn  being  at  once  an 
Eafie  and  Sufficient  Anfwer  to  it.     I  return   then  to  Mr.  Rhind. 
In  the  fecond  Place,  his  historical  Van  of  M.  Sagt\  Character  vi&* 
that  he , has  pur  [tied  the  ,  Argument  in  the  fame,  Manner  with  M,  Pod  w  ell  3 
iSifalfe.     M.  Dodwell  in  all  his  Books    upon  Church  Government 
(e)  aHerts  the  Bi! [hop's  Sole  Power,  and  though  he  is  content  togive 
a  Sonjultorj  Power  to  the  Presbyters^  which  every  Chriftian  Man   ■ 

and  . 


|f]  See  Differ  t.  C/pr* .  Numfc.^,    14.3  J/-   Far  east. .  Sect.  i/^Pramonitio^ to  the  .EpiftoUry  Aifouife 
49,  &«»  c 


j.  (ipi&^tc 


5e&.  TIL        Mr.  R'hinckf  Narrdtivel         |f 

and  Woman  has,  it  being  lawful!  to  all  or  any  of  the  People  to 
lay  to  Arcbippus,  Take  heed  to  the  Minifiry^-^  yet  he  peremptory  re- 
fufes  them  a  Decretory  Power.  M.  Sage  on  the  other  Hand  not: 
only  denies  the  faid  Sole  Power,  but  apply s  himfelf  in  his Vindicu 
tion  of  the  Principles  of  the  Cyprian  ick  Age  todifprove  the  Bifhops  claim- 
ing of  it.  Was  this  tofurjue  the  Argument  after  the  fame  Manner  ? 
That  Excellent  Perfon  M.JAMESON  wrote  His  Cyprian 'us 
Jfotimus  in  Anfwer  to  the  faid  Vindication,  And  anfwer  it  he 
did  beyond  Poffibility  of  Rerly.  M.  Sage  Himfelf  was  abundant- 
ly SenfiUe  of  this,  He  lived  half  a  Dozen  Years  after  M.  Jamefon's 
Book  was  Publifhed,  but  never  effayed  to  make  a  Return.  He 
could  not  but  fee  how  he  had  miftaken  his  Meafuresand  prejudg- 
ed the  Caufe.  And  therefore  as  he  could  not  with  any  ground  of 
Reafon,  fo  he  would  nor,  oufof  Love  to  theCaufe,  infift.  And  I 
doubt  not  but  it  was  very  heavy  to  his  Spirit  to  Survive  the  Re- 
putation of  his  principal  Book;  and  to  think  that  he  fhould  have 
wafted  the  precious  Lamp  of  Life  in  fo  voluminous  a  Work,  for 
proving  that  Bifhops  did  not  claim  a  Sole  Power,  when  not  only 
his  learned  Ad  verfary  had  proved,  beyond  Contradiction,  that  they 
did  fo,  but  the  moft  learned  of  his  own  Party  allowed,  that  it 
was  Their  Right  to  claim  it*  So  much  for  Mr.  RhM&§  Narra- 

mm  "■•■; 


CHAP. 


3  6  Defence  of  the  P^ap.  //! 


C   H    A   P.    II. 

e rein  Mr.  R  hind  s  fir  ft  Rcafon  for  Sepa- 
rating from  the  Presbyterian  Party  viz  That 
They  are  Schifmatkks  in  Point  of  Govern- 
aient,  is  Examined.  FromV.  29.  to. P.  119. 


OR  Juftifieing  this  Reafon  oVStywMioH  Mr.  Rhwd  ufesthe 
following  Method.     Firil.  He  lays  down  two  Principles 
from  which  he  fubfumes  {ome  Corollaries.     sdly?  He  ftates 
the  Debate,  and  3dly  advances  his  Arguments. 


Wherein    Mr,  R  hind's  Principles  and  Corollaries  > 
P*  i^y  are  examined.. 

Ft  I  S  two  Principles  are.  I*  That  the :  Church  is  but  one.  IlThit 
I     *  it  is  a  Society  diftinft  from    and  Independent  upon  the  : 
f  State. 

FsciTHhefirft  ofthsfe  Principles  he  infcir^s  thefe  two  Corollaries/ 1  ' 
c  That  the  ordinary  Means  of  Salvation  are  confined  to  the  Churchc  . 
6  II.  That  whoever   are    without     (  but  more  efpecially  they  who 
1  feparate  from  its   Communion )  are  out.  of  the  ordinary  Way  of 
I  Salvation,  .  &Qg|ft 


Se£E  h  Presbyterian  Government.  jj 

From  the  Second  ofthefe  Principles  he  inferrs  thefe  three  Corolla- 
ries./ I  That  the  Church  has  diftinS  Laws,  and  a  Government  and 

*  Governours  of  its  own  which  can  ferv-e  all  the  Purpofes  of  the 

*  Sociery.     II  That    that  which  does  properly  denominate  one  a 

*  Member  of  the  Church  is  the  Acknowledgement    of  m  Laws 

*  and  Government,  and  a'Submiffion -to  the.  Authority  of 'its  Go- 

*  vernours:  Nor  is  the  owning  any  one  of  thofe  enough -without 

*  "the  other*    III.  That  the  Contempt  either  of  its  Lawsor  Lawfull 

*  Governours,  requiring  no  Terms  of  Communion  that  are  truly.. 
6  finfull,  juftly  deprives  one  of  the  'Priviledges  of  this  as  Well  as  any 

*  other  Society o  ■• 

From  all  this  he  concludes  p  30. 31.    c  That  that  Society  which 

1  is  not  oiily    DefeSiVe    with  refpecl   to  that  Form  of  Govern- 

'"raentthat  obuio'd  in  die  Days  of  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  and  down* 

i  wards  (  which  is  -undoubtedly  the  Rightful!  one  J  .but  does  like- 

*  wife  difown  and  oppofe  thofe  who  govern  after  that  Manner,  is 
e  without  the  Church  by  the  third  Corollary,  andconfequentfy  out  of 
1  the  ordinary  Road  to  Heaven  according  to  the  Second  Corollary  from 

*  the  frfi  Principle.  And  that  the  Presbyterians  are  thus  Defective 
in,  and  difown  and  oppofe  that  Government,  he  is,after  ftateingthe 
Debate,  to  make  good  by  Arguments.  - 

This  is  his  Scheme,  but  not  withftanding  its  Mathematical  Face  ;  as' 
it'will  not  pleafe  the  Presbyterians,-  fo  yet  far  lefs  dieChisrdiof  £/?g- 
Und  which  he  has  joined,- 

Fir  ft,  it  will   not  pleafe  the  Presbyterians,    as  lie  tod  confidently.; 
prefumes.  ■•  For,  tho1   they  willingly  admitthisjSV/^  Principle,  That 
the  Church  ishut  one,     and  do  firmly  believe  that-there  is  but  one  Go-_ 
ve.r-nment  by  Divine  Right  viz.  the  Presbyterian^  and  zealoufly  wifii. 
that  it  might  obtain  ail  the  World  over ;     yetby  no-Means  will  they, 
ailert  that  iuch  as  either  oppofe  or  want  that  Government  are  without 
the. Church*.  •  The, Government  of  many  of  the  ProteJIant  Churches. 
iwGermany  is  Superintendehcy,  that   of  New  England  Independency, 
that  of  Old  England-  Prelacy;     The    fresbperianshtWzVQ,  They  are 
each  of  them  in  an  Error,    the  lajl  efpecially  in  a  Hugely  great  one  ;.. 
And  yet  they  believe  them  all  to  be  within  the  Church  and  capable 
of  Salvation,  if  they  are  otherwifegood  Chfiftians  j  ;A'fldthat,  as  'atr'- 
Ebg lijh, Poet  has  it  fomewhere?  , 


3  8  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

The  God  that  pardons  Sin  will  pardon  Errors  too. 

They  own  the  Road  to  Heaven  is  narrow,  yet  they  don't  believe 
It  fo  narrow,  but  that  they  can  charitably  hope  that  one  Company 
may  walk  to  it  with  a  Presbyterian  Minifter  on  their  Head ;  and  ano- 
ther (  tho' not  infoftraight  a  Line)  with  a  Btjhop  on  theirs.  'Tis 
itoidofMr.  Rhind  (and  heallowsusp.  9.  "to  reprefent  him  to  have 
been  a  Presbyterian  cf  the  moB  rigid  Kjnd}  that  while  he  was  ftudy- 
ing  Theology  at  Edinburgh  among  the  Presbyterians^  he  made  it  a 
cQueftion .in  a  Society  of  his  Fellow  Students,  Whether  an  Epifcopal 
Minifter  dying  in  that  Opinion  cou'd  be  faved  ?  I  fuppofe  he  was  the 
firft  Presbyterian  ever  ftarted  theQueftion,  and  poffibly  may  be  the 
Jail.  But  fome  Peoples  Brains  are  figured  for  Bigotry,  on  whatever 
Side  they  are.  Whether  it  be  by  Nature  or  Accident  They  are  fo,  I 
referr  it  to  fuch  as  have  Skill  in  the  Animal  Oeconomy. 

Secondly,  I  fay  Mr.  Rhincih  Scheme  will  yet  far  lefs  pleafe  the 
Church  of  England  which  he  has  joined ;  Which  I  fhall  make  good 
in  two  particulars;  when  once  I  have  premifed,  That  by  the  Church 
tOf 'England  I  do  not  mean  only  this  or  the  other  particular  Doctor ,  but 
that  I  mean  her  Articles,  Homilies,  Liturgy  y  Canons  and  fuch  other 
publick  Formula's. 

Firft.  Tho'  the  Church  of  England  thinks  Prelacy  the  beft  Govern- 
ment, yet  file  is  very  far  from  unchurching  thofe  that  want  it.  In  her 
Nimeenth  Article  fhe  defines  the  vifible  Church  of  Chrift  to  be  '  a  Con- 
'*  gregationoffaithfull  Men,in  the  which  the  pure  Word  of  God  is 
'  preached,  and  the  Sacraments  be  duely  adrmniftred  according 
"*  to  Chrift's  Ordinance,  in  all  thofe  things  that  of  Neceffity  are  re- 
1  quifite  to  the  fame  ?  In  her  twenty  third  Article  She  declares,  '  That 
x  thofe  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  fent  which  be  chofen 
6  and  called  to  this  Work  by  Men  who  have  publick  Authority  gi- 
6  ven  to  them,  in  the  Congregation,  to  call  and  feud  Minifters  into 
6  the  Lord's  Vineyard  ?  fn  neither  of  thefe  Articles,  tho' they  were 
■theonly  Place  fordoing  it,  is  any  one  particular  Form  of  Church- 
Government  declared  NeceiTary.  Nay,  the  Art  ides  are  conceived  in 
fuch  general  Words  on  Purpofe,  that  they  might  not  be  thought  to  ex* 
etude  other  Churches  that  differ  from  them  in  point  of  Government.  So  faies 

the 


Se&  I:  Presbyterian  Government*  g-pv 

the  B'ifaoy  of  Sarum  .(f)  whofe  Sufficiency  rounderiland  the  In- 
tent of  the  Articles  was  never  doubted,  and  whofe  Concern  for  the 
Epifcopal  Caofe  in  Reafon  cannot.    *  And,  adds  he,  whatever  fome 

*  hotter  Spirits  have  thought  of  this,  frnce  that  Time  ;  Yet  we  are 
e  very  fore,  rhac  not  only  thofe  who  penned  the  Articles,  but  the  Bo- 
<dy  of  this  Church  for  above  half  an  Age  after,  did  norwkhthnd- 

*  ing  thofe   If  regularities,  acknowledge    the  forreign    Churches  fo 
'  coniiuuted,  to  bo  true  Churches  as  to  all  the  EfTen  rials  of  a  Church. 
And  p.  260.  Neither  our  Reformers  -  nor  their  Succeffors  for  near   eighty 
Tears  after  thofe  Articles  were  publifhed,  did  ever  question  theConfiitution 
of fuch  Churches.    And  the?  Noble  Hiftorian  Clarendon  fwhowas  a- 
bundantly  zealous  for  the  Church,  reprefentsit  as  a  falfeStep  in  the 
Government  of  K.  Charles  I  that  the  Englifh  Ambalfadour  with  his  - 
Retinue  (eparated  from  the  Protectant  Church  at  Charenton  contrary 
to  former  ufage.     Yet  further,  the  Church  of  England  was  power- 
fully attaqued  by the  Romaniflsm  the  Days  of  chelate  K.  James;  and- 
upon  the  very  fame  Scheme  too  which  Mr.  Rhind  hath  advanced  viz.- 
Metaphyseal  Inferences  from  t&e  Unity  of  the  Church;  from  which 
they  would  needs   conclude   her  to  be'  Schifmatical.  The  Englijb  Di- 
vines never  made  a  mote  noble  Appearance  than  on  that  Occafion. 
They  engaged  with  the  RomaniB s  %x>A  defeat  them  totheConvtcti-  - 
on  of  all  the  World,  but  then  it  was  by  Reafonings  which  quite  over- 
turn Mr.  Rhind'- s  Scheme.  Dr.  Sherlock  firfl:  enter s  the  Field,and  with- 
open  Mouth  declares- •  (gj.againft  the  Unchurching  DoQrinefor  the 
want  of  Eft/copal Government.     fi  I  am  fare,  faith  ha t  that  is  not  a  fafe 

*  Communion  where  there  is  not  a  Succeffion  or    Apoftolical  Do- 
g  drine;  but  whether  the  Want  of  a  Succeflionof  Bifhops,.    will  in 

*  all  Cafes  unchurch/   will  admit  of  a  greater     Difpute :     I  am 

*  fure-:  a  true  Faith  in  Chrift,     with  a  true  Gofpel-Converfation,  . 
1  will  fave  Men ;  :  And   fome  learned  Romanics  defend  that  old 

4  Definition  oh  he  Church,  .  That  iivsCatus  Eiddiam,    the  Com-' 
6  panyoftheFairlifull,    and     will  not -admit  Bifhops  or  Payors  into m 

*  the  Definition  ofa  Church.    Thus  he.  >Dv.Ciagget     fucceeds  him, 
asadgoes  yet  more  roundly  to  Work.      He  affirms  indeed    (h)  as 

wo  - 


£f{]  Expof.  Art.  XIII.  p.-i^.-f  Hift.  Rebel L    'fg]     Vindication    of  the  Difsourle  •coacerfl.»£)  shSN'otes 
•£  the.  Church -p,  J3.  ^£h]  Upon  Beliiumin^  VIkhNote  oi  the  Church.-  ■• 


4°  Defence  of  the  Chap.  JL 

we  do,  the  Church  to  be  one  in  many  Refpecls  viz.of//^,  Faith, 
Sacraments ,  Service  and  Government  too.     But  exprefly  deny  s  that  any 
ofthefe  Kjnds  and  In  fiances  of  Unity  are  neceffary  to  the  Bring  of  a  Churchy 
except  tbeje of  one  Lord,  one  Faith,    one    Baptifm.    And  further  a fTerts, 
'.thatfrom  the  Apoftles  Times  till  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  conftant 
c  .Univerfal  DcCtrine  concerning  the  Church  was  this,  That  it  is  the 
c  .Society  of  the  Faithfully     without  ever  inferring  into  the  Definition 
1  of  it  any  Thing  relating  to  its  being united  to  the  Pore,  or  ANY 
e  OTHER  BISHOP  as  to  a  vifible  Head.    1  o  both  thefe  you  may 
2l$<\M\\  Stilling  fleet  afterwards  Bifhop  of  Worcefter ,  who  has  proved 
(/)  beyond  Contradiction  that  the  main  Bu4k  of  the  Ancient  Bifhops 
and  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  from  the  fii  it  Dawning  of  the 
Reformation -almofr  down  to  Laud,     have    exprefly  declared  a  gain  ft 
the  NecelTity  of  EptfcopA  Government,  and  maintained  the  Muta- 
bility of  Church  Government  according  to  the  Will  of  the  Prince  or 
Ciicumdances   of  the  Kingdom;     and  herein  they  wtTQagainft  Mr. 
il/;/Wand  hisFellows.     And  that  they  havealfo  acknowledged  the 
Scripture  Identity    of  Bifhop  and  Pr^byter,     aiTerting  the  Names 
to  be  interchangeable  and  the  Office  the  fame.     And  herein  they 
I    wtvtfor  the  Presbyterians. 

^iecondiy.  This  is  not  the  only  Quarrell  the  Church  of  Englandhzs' 
againft  Mr.  RhincPs Scheme.     No  one  wonders  to  find  the  Preshyte- 
nans  aiTerting  the  Intrinfick  Power  of  the  Church.  They  (unclaim- 
ed it,    have  been  always    wreftling  for  it,  tobefure  they  never  re- 
nounced it ;     but  it  certainly  very  ill  becomes  one  who  has  joined  the 
Church  of  England  to  lay  it  down     for  a  Principle,     as  he  has  done, 
that  the  Church  is    independent  of  the  State.     If  to,     what  then  means 
the  21  Jrtic/e which  declares,    '  thatGeneral   Councils imy  not  be 
'  gathered  together  without  the  Commandment  and  Will  of  Princes? 
Are  not  thefe  neceflary  for  fervingthe  Purpofes  of  the  Society  ?  The 
Church  independent  cf  the  State!     What    then    means    the  37  Article 
v^hich  declares  c  the  Queen's  Majeftyto  havetheChief  Power  and 
i  Government  of  all  filiates  whether  Ecclefiafticalor  Civil  and  in  all 
'  Caufes?  The  Church  independent  of  the  State'},  What  then  means  the 
full  Canon  1640  concerning  the  Pvegal  Power,  wheiein  the  King's  Su- 
premacy 

£/]     rreijic.  Fart     II  Chap.    VIII. 


Se&.  L  Presbyterian  Government^         41 

premacy  over  the  Ecclefiaftical  State  and  in  Caufes  Ecclefiaftical  is 
not  only  afferted  but  argued  for :  And  the  Government  of  the  Church 
■declared  to  belong  in-Chief  unto  Kings,  and  that  the  Power  to 
call  and  diffolve  Councils  both  National  and  Provincial  is  the  true 
Right  o^W  Chriftian  Kings  within  their  own  Realms  and  Territo- 
ries, and  that  when  in  the  firft  Times  of  Chrift's  Church  Prelats 
ttfed  this  Power,  it  was  therefore  only  becaufe  in  thofe  Days  They 
had  no  Chriftian  Kings.  The  Church  Independent  of  the  State !  What 
then  means  the  firft  Canon  1603  the  very  Rubtiok  whereof  is,  The 
Kjn£s  Supremacy  over  the  Church  of  England  in  Caufes  Ecclefiaftical  to  be 
maintain  d!  The  Church  Independent  of  the  State !  What  then  meant 
the  Bifhop  of  Norwich  Anno  1709  in  his  Vifi 'tat ion  Charge  to 
fpend  a  good  Part  of  his  Difcourfeand  a  large  Appendix  in  cau- 
tioning his  Clergy  againft  that  Principle  ?  Say  now,  good  Read- 
er, if  Mr.  Rhind  has  not  been  competently  furnifhed  with  AfTu- 
rance  when  he  declared  p,  29  His  Principles  and  Corollaries 
to  he  Truths  fo  evident  y  that  he  thought  it  needlefs  to  enlarge  on 
them.  Had  he  intended  only  a  Difpute  againft  the  Presbyterians 
he  might  indeed  have  afTumed  the  Independency  of  the  Church  for 
a  Principle:  But  when  he  was  to  tell  the  World  what 
fatisfied  his  own  Confcience,  and  dstermin'd  him  to  go  over 
to  the  Church  of  England,  which  in  the  moftfolemn  Man- 
ner has  renounced  that  Principle,  the  infifting  on  it  was  one 
of  the  greateft  Inconfiftencies  a  Man  could  be  guilty  of. 

I  fhall  conclude  this  Difcourfe  upon  his  Scheme  with  one  Ob- 
fcrwation.  Mr.  Rhind  would  needs  have  the  Presbyterians  to  be 
Schifmaticks,  and  thence  ioferrsThat  they  are  without  the  Church. 
But  this  is  horridly  ialfe  Reafoning :  For,  I  affirm  That,  if  they 
zvQSchifmatickSy  then  it  will  follow  that  they  are  within  the  Church. 
I  know  this  will  be  furprizing  at  firft  to  fome  Readers,  yet  it  is 
certainly  true.  The  Romaniftsfm  the  Days  of  the  late  K.James, 
reafoned,  exactly  after  the  fame  Manner  with  Mr.  Rhind,  againft 
the  Church  of  England:  But  that  great  Author  before  mentioned, 
I  mean  Dr.  Sherlock  demonftrates  that  pretended  Reafoning  to  be 
flat  Nonfenfe,  and  his  Woid,  will  abundantly  clear  my  Affertion. 

F  «  A 


4Sfe  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II: 

e  *  A  Schifmaticd  Church,  faith  he,  (k)  fignifies  a  Church  tco,   and 

*  how  they  are  a  Church  without  belonging  to  the  one  Church, 
6  when  there  is  but  one  Church,  is  fomewhat  Myflerious.  And 
'  therefore  Schifm  is  not  tearing  ofF  a  Part  of  the  Church,  but 
4  one  Part  dividing  from  the  other  in  external  Communion,  which 
'  fuppofes  that  both  Parts  fiill  belong  to  the  fame  Church,  or  elfe , 
i  the  Church  is  not  divided.  For  Apofir.cy  and  Schifm  are  two 
'  different  Things;  Jpoflates  ceafe  to  be  of  the  Church,  SchiCmaticks 

*  are  of  the  Church  ftill,  though  they  difturb    the  Peace  of.  the 
2  Church  and  divide  the  external  Communion  of  it---.    Does  Sr, 

*  Paul,  who  reproves  the  Corinthians  for  their  Schifms,  (hut  them 

*  out  of  the  Church  for  them  too?  Does  He  deny  them  tobelong 
e  to  the  Church,  when  He  directs  His  Epiftle  to  the  Church  of  GoA- 
c  %t  Corinth.  Thus  he.  So  Very  Ioofly  knit  is  Mr.  Rhinos  Scheme^ 
that  the  one  Part  of  it  deftroys  the  other.  And  if  he  can  prove 
the  Presbyterians'  Schifmaticks,  eo  ipfo  it  will  follow,  that  they  are. 
not  without  the  Church.  Dr.  Sher/ocPs  Reafoningis  Plain,  Strong, 
palpable  Senfe,  againd  which  Mr.  DodtvetPs  ufual  Stile,  though 
founded  upon  fame  loofe  expreilions  of  the  Fathers,  will  never  bear 
cat  Mr.  Rhind,  Nor  is  Mr.  Rhind  altogether  a  Loofer  by  this 
Obferve :  For  whereas  he  hints  in  his  Preface^  that  he  has  been 
upbraided  with  Apoflacy  by  forne ;  though  I  am  as  well  aflur'd  he 
is  a  Schifmatick,  as  I  am,  that  there  is  fuch  a  Sin  as  Schifm  ;  yet? 
upon  the  former  Reafoning,  he  ought  not  to  be  called  an  Ap&ftate, 
iill  he  declare  himfelf  a  little  more  Explicitly.  I  hope  then  he  will 
digeft  the  Obiervation  the  more  eafily,  that  what  he  loofes  by  it 
in  Argument,  he  fa ves  in .  Character*.  ■. . 

SECT.'i 


^>  Ubl /upra  .j?.  vj.  .al.  ,3_ 


Se&  11.      Wrc^ytmmGovemme^        £S 


S         :-E  C  Jt   #  llf 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhind^x  State  of  the  Debate  he* 
tmxt  the  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians^  P. 
31*  32.  V  Examined^ 

THE  Stateing  of  a  Debate  aright  is  always  a  principal  Point 
in  Controverfy.    Take    it    in  Mr.  Rhindh  own    Words. 

*  It  is  fufficient  to  anfwer  my  Defign  in  this  fhort  Apology 9  if  lean 

*  prove  that  the  Government  of  the  Church,  from  the  Beginning, 

*  was  managed  by  Officers  of  different  Orders,  and  fuch  as  acted 
7  in  Capacities,  fuperior  the  one  to  the  other ;  among  whom  there 

*  were  neither  Ruling  Elders,  nor  Deacons,  fuch  as  the  Presbyte- 

*  runs   have.   This,  faith  hey  is  all    that   the  Epifcopal  Writers 

*  plead  for.  And  therefore  he  thinks  it  needle fs  to  determine  more  ex- 
plicitly, what  are  the  diftinguifhing  Char  aft  teriflicks  of  the  fever  al  Of- 
ficer s9  or  to  fix  the  Bounds  of  their  Refpeffive  Powers,  Thus  he.  Now 
lej:  us  Remark  a  little  upon  it. 

'  I.  Why  does  he  State  the  Debate  upon  a  Subordination  of  Of 
ficersl  Was  there  ever  Presbyterian  denied,  that  there  fhould  be 
a  Subordination  among  the  Officers  as  well  as  Judicatories  of  the 
Church  f  Do  not  they  own  Chrift  to  be  the  Chief  Sheepherd,  the 
abfolute  King  and  Monarch  of  the  Church?  Don't  They  own  Pre* 
sbyteries  to  be  under  him,  Deacons  under  both  ?  Is  not  here  a  fair 
Subordination  of  Officers?  Khz  had  ftated  the  Debate  upon  a  Sub- 
ordination or  Imparity  of  Patfors  or  ikfc#//^,takeingthefe  Words 
in  their  Current  Ecclefiaftical  Senfe,  it  had  been  to  the  Purpofe ; 
but  to  State  it  upon  a  Subordination  or  Imparity  of  Rulers  or  Of- 
ficers was  to  lay  a  Foundation   to  himfelf  for  Chicane. 

Foffibly  he  may  thinfc  to  ward  off  this  Remark  by  what  he  has 

T  z  added, 


Defence  of  the  Chape  IT. 

added,  That  among  theft  Subordinate  Officers ,  there  were  neither  Ruling 
Elders  nor  Deacons  fuch  as  the  Presbyterians  have.    This,  I  acknow* 
ledge,  when  proved,  will  be  a  considerable  Point  gained  againft 
the  Presbyterians.    But  then  imo.  Why  has  he  not  reftri&edbim- 
ielf  to  the  Proof  of  this  ?  For,  in  all  his  State  of  the  Debate,  there 
is  not  one  Syllable  more  to  the  Purpofe  ;  and  yet  of  the  90  Pages 
he  has  fpent  in  the  Profecution  of  it,  he  has  employed  only  five 
oj  them,  and  thefe  two  only  by  the  by,  againft  the  Ruling  Elders 
and  Deacons,    With  what  Succefs  we  fhall  afterward  hear.  2.do. 
When  he  has  proved,  which  yet  I  defpair  of  finding  done,  that  a» 
rnong  thefe  Subordinate  Officer  s>  there  were  .neither  Ruling  Elders  nor 
Deacons  fuch  as  the   Presbyterians  have,  it  will  indeed  follow  that 
the  frejbjterians,  ate  miftaken  in  the  Characters  and  Functions  of. 
their  Subordinate  Officers,    But  by  no  means  will  it  follow  That 
they  are    againft   a  Subordination    of  Officers.    On  the  Contrary, . 
Mr,  Rhinos  Difputing  againft  the  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elders  and 
Deacons  proves  irrefragably,  that  they  axe  for  a  Subordination   of." 
Officers.    I  defire  every  Reader  of  Mr.  Rhintfs   Book  to  attend 
carefully  to  this,  and  they  will  fee  there  is  no  more  needfull  for 
difcovering  the  UfelefTnefs  of  all  his  Arguments  for  a  Subordinati- 
on of  Officers,  the  Presbyterians  being  as  much  for  it  as  the  Prela* 
tills  are  ;  and  that  his  latter  Part  of  the  Debate  is  a  moft  effectual 
Confutation  of  the  former. 

II.  Why  does  he  fay,  That  a  Subordination  of 'Officers,  without 
fuch  Ruling.  Elders  and  Deacons  as.  the  Presbyterians  have,./;  upon" 
the 'Main  all  that  the  Epifcopal  Writers  plead  for  f     Of  all  Things  in  * 
the  World  unflncere  Dealing  is  the  moft  Odious.    Certainly  he  has 
jajcen  it  for  a  Principle,  That  none  who  was  to  read  his  Book  had 
ever  read  the  Epifcopal  Writers,  or    would  ever  be    Capable. of -r 
reading  them.     Is  he  yet  to  learn,  That  the  fole  Power  is  pleaded  • 
for  by  them?  Haveing  read  fo  many  Books  of  that  Side,  can  his 
judgement  be  fo  weak  as  not  to  have.difctrned,  or  his  iV'emory- 
fo  frail  as  to  have  forgotN  that  ail   the  Elevations  of  an  cbfofute - 
Monarch  accountable  to  God  only  are  .pleaded  for  by  them  ?  Iffo,\ 
Care  fhall  be  taken  ere  I  have  done -to  clear  up  his  Difcernrrrent 
aodrefceila.  his  Memory,..  Does  he  imagine  that  a   SukcrUination  • 
aad/^/f  Powetare.  ail one  ?  Or)  wi.1l a  meet: ;  Subordination-  w'uh° 

it 


Seft.  II;       Presbyterian  Government]  ^.5 

out  Presbyterian  Elders  or  Deacons  pleafehim?  If  fa,  he  is  too  well 
natured  ;  For,  alas,  it  will  not  pleafe  his  Brethren.  To  Humour 
him  a  little,  I  fliall  fuppofe  the  Presbyterians  content  to  accept  of 
Conftant  Moderators  for  Term-  of  Life,  and  that  fuch  Moderators 
have  the Prefldency  in  all  their  AfTemblies  ;  Bnt  would  that  lave 
them  from  the  Guilt  of  Schifm  ?  Mv,Dodwell  has  exprefly  faid 
it .  will  not.  Hear  him  (l~).  '  This  (  a  Principle  of  Unity  )  none  of 
our  Modern  Se8s,  execept  the  Presbyterians,  can  fo  much  as 
offer  at.  None  of  them  (the  other  Modern  Sells  )  have  any  fmgje 
Mini der,  who  by  their.  Principles  can  pretend  to  Superiority  over 
his  Brethren.  And' all  that  they  (the  Presbyterians}  can  pre-- 
tend  is  a  Moderator  over  their  Claffes,  either  for  a  certain  Time 
or  at  the  utmoft  for  Term  of  Life.  Yet  even  that  is  not  Suf- 
ficient for  a  Principal  of  Unity.  Seeing  the  Sacrifices  are  they, 
which  are  the  Cement  of  this  Unity,  it  mud  be  a  Prefidency9 
not  in  their  AfTemblies  only  but  their  Sacrifices,  which  can  en- 
title to  aPrinciple  of  itJjThus  M.  DoJpjsIL  And  what  now  would 
it  fignifle  though  Presbyterians  fhould  grant  all  that  Subordina- 
tion which  Mr.  Rhind  pleads  for,  when .  notwithstanding,  .They",- 
mud'  dill  remain  Schifmaticks  by  M.  £Wiw/i'sVerdi£h 

III*  Why  did  hsthinkit  needlefs  to  determine  more  explicitly  the/eve* 
ral  Char  acleri flicks  of  the     fever  al  Officers  and  to  fix  the  Bounds  of  their 
Refpeclive  Powers?     About  what,  I  pray,     is  all  the  Controverfy  be- 
twixt Prelatifts  and  Presbyterians  ?  .'  IsifabouttheT/V/eofB//Z>o/>?'  'Tis' 
yielded  on  both  Hands  to  be  a  Scriptural  one,     Is  it  whether  there 
ffjouidhQ  Bifbops  in  the  Church?  '  The*-  Presbyterian  was  never  yet 
created  who  denied  it.     Is  it  that  thefe  Bifbops  [houid  have  Officers 
fubordinate  to  them  ?  The  Presbyterians  loudly  affert  it.      Is  it  not 
then  the  Coritroverfy  about  the  Char •a&eriSii'fts  and  Powers  of 'Bifbops, 
^ herein th&Choak- lyes  ?     And  yet  Mr.  Rhind  thinks  it  needlefs  t% 
^t ermine  them  more  explicitly.     If  fo,      tis  very  plain  he     fhould  have 
bought  it  needlefs  to  have  written  his  Book.  •     If  the  Prelatifts' cm 
pove^  that  Bifloops  by  Divine  Right     fhould  be  abfohue  Monarchs ;  or, 
to.  come     lower,  ,  that  they     fhould     have     a     NegdtiveYoiCQ 
finale  or  even  Reciprocal  \  If  they  can  prove,  that  by  Divine  Right 

the/ 


CU°«  Ptiefikoodi  Chap.  XIII.  Se&.  13.  p.  ^6^- 


46  Defence  of  the  Chap#  //• 

they  have  the  fole  Power  of  Ordination  and  Jurisdiction  or 
either  ofthem.  If  they  can  prove,  that  by  Divine  Right  they 
fhould  have  fame  Hundreds  or  even  Scores  of  Congregations  under 
their  Infpeclion  ;  Presbyterians  are  heartily  content  to  yield  the 
Caufe,  and  to  accept  of  Bifbops  with  all  thefe  Powers  or /a  many 
ofthem  as  they  fhall  prove  ox  Divine  Right  to  bek>ng  to  them. 
On  the  other  Hand,  if  the  PrelatiHs  are  content  with  B  fhopi  that 
are  neither  abjolute  Monarchs,  nor  have  a  Negative  Voice,  nor  fole 
Power,  nor  a  greater  Charge  than  they  can  perfonally  infpeft,  that 
is,  preach  and  difpenfe  the  Sacraments  to,  with  the  Aflirtance 
of  Elders  to  overfee  the  Manners  of  the  People,  (  and  of  Deacons  to 
take  Care  of  the  Poor  )  and  that  Difcipline  may  beduly  exercifed  j 
the  Presbyterians  offer  to  prove  that  they  have  fuch  Bifbops  already, 
or  are  content  to  take  them  where  they  have  not.  Is  it  poffible 
fairer  Conditions  can  be  either  demanded  or  offered  ?  Why  then 
did  Mr.  Rhind  decline  to  explain  himfelf  ?  The  Reafon  is  obvious, 
He  defigned  to  harangue  a  while,  and  difputing  would  have  mar- 
red the  Cadency  of  his  Periods. 

IV.    SuppofingMr.   Rhwd's  State  of  the  Debate  had  been  more 
Diftincl  than    it  is,    it  would  anfwer     only  the  one  Half  of    his 
Undertaking- in  tb&Titk  P4ge.    For  tho'  it  might  be  a  Reafon  for 
Hisfeparating  from  the  Presbyterians,     yet  it  would  be  none  for  His 
embracing  the  Communion  of  the  Church  according  to  hisprefent  Pra- 
ctice, unlefs  he  had  proved  that  the  Subordination  of  Officers  in  the 
Church  of  England  Conftitution,  into  which  he  is  gone,  were  of 
Divine  Inftitution;  Which  he  has  not  fo  much  as  attempted  to  prove, 
I  add  nor  can  be  proved.     For,  that  Primats  or  Arch  Bifbops  haveing 
a  Power  over  and  being  Ordinaries  to  the  other  Bffljops,  that  Bijhops 
exerceing  a&>IePowerorevena  Negative  Voice,  that  Presbyters  fer- 
ving  as  the  Bi (hop's  Delegates  without  Power  oWrdination  ox  Juris* 
diet ton,  that  Preaching  Deacons  veiled  with  a  Tower  of  Baptizing, but 
deprived  of  all  Manadgement  of  the  Churches  Stock  or  Care  of  the 
Poor,     which  was    the  Original  Defign  of  Their  Office;  that,     I 
fay,     all  or  any  of  thefe   Officers  confidered  under  thele  peculiar 
Characters,    are  the  Creatures  of  God,  or  of  Divine  Inftitution,     1 
pofitivly  deny,    and  want  to  be  directed  to  any  Author  that  ha 
proven  it. 

So  much  for  Mr.ZU/Ws  Wayofftateing  theDebate ;  And,  I  fc* 

hVe, 


*u        l 


Scdi+W        Presbyterian  Government g      •.  r  47' 

lievey  'sis  obvious  to  every  Body,  that  thereby  he  has  projeBed  for5 
his  own  E_afe  rather  than  the  Reader's'  "Con  vl&ibn.  For,  let  one,  id 
perufetng  his  Book,  dafhoutths  Word  Officers  or  R#/«\f,  an-Impa- 
rity  or  Subordination  among which  the  Presbyterians  grant,  and 
fubftiru.te  in  Place  thereof  the  Word  Paftors  or  Mimfters,  a  Parity, 
among  whom  was  his  Bofmefs  to  difprove  ;  and  it  will  prefentiy 
appear  that  feveralof  his  Arguments  are  Juil  as  much  to  the  Fur- 
pofe,     as  an  Ode  of  Horace  would  have  been.  - 

Bat  there  is  no  need  of  running  into  Niceties  in  this  Matter. 
Every  Body  has  a  tolerable  Notion  in  the  Grofs  what  is  meant  by 
Prelacy  and  Presbytry* ■■■;!£ Mr.  Rhinos  Arguments  prove,  that  the  Idfa 
ter-  is  a  Schifmatical  Idnd  of  Government,  the  former  that  which 
Jbould  obtain  in  the  Church,  Tlliall  grant  he  has  gained  his  Point, 
If  they  prove  not  that,  'tis  nothing  to  us  whas:  elfe  they  proves- 
And  whether  they  do  fo  or  not,  I  am  now  to  apply  my  Self  to 


are  fumtned  uf. 


mdc s  -Arguments'  for  s Prelaw 


H%.  hafccaft  his  Arguments  into  the  Form of  a  'Harangue ;  but 
fo  far:  as  I  can  diftirtguifh  them  they  amount  to  the  Nuo> 
bsh  of  Nwe*  -  .The  three  fir (1  of  which  .are  calculate  to  argue-  that 
Prelacy  JhouU  have  been  iolMtuted  j  the  lis  latter  to  f^w  that  it 
actually  was  ioftituted*-. 

Fir  ft  That  -  it  -was  mm$fflfy  \  tMt  Prelacy  -(Iduld  M  ■  kiilituted, '  he 
Srgug^.b 


48  Defence  of  the  Chap.  Ih 

I.  From  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  which  made  itlndifpenfibly 
neceflfary  in  it  felf.  A  Monarchical  or  Subordinate  Form  being 
able  to  anfwer  the  Ends  of  Government  better   than  the  Contrary. 

II.  From  the  Form  of  Government  in  thejewifi  Church',  fee-; 
ing  God  muft  be  uniform  in  his  Actings. 

III.  From  the  Form  the  Rules  of  political  Prudence,  feeing  a 
levelling  Form  of  Government  would  have  been  diftaftfull  both 
to  the  Jews  and  Romans,  as  being  Oppofite  to  the  Hierarchy  of  the 
former,  and  Monarchy  of  the  latter. 

Secondly,  That  it  actually  was  inftituted,  he  attempts  to  prove." 

I.  From  its  obtaining  in  the  Days  of  Chrift,  as  appears  from 
the  Subordination  of  the  LXX  to  the  Twelve* 

II.  From  its  being  continued  in  the  Days  of  the  Apoftles,  as 
appears  from  the  Hiftory  of  their  Acts,  and  their  Epiftles,  and  a 
Succeflion  in  the  Apoftolate. 

III.  From  the  Epifcopacy  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 

IV.  From  the  Apocalyptick  Angels. 

V.  From  Teftimonies  of  Antiquity, 

VI.  From  the  ImpoiTibility  of  its  Obtaining  fo  early  and  uni-1 
Verfally,  if  it  had  not  been  of  Divine  Inftitution. 

All  thefe  (  befides  what  he  has  advanced  againft  the  Presbyte^ 
dan  Ruling  Elders  and  Deacons  )  I  fhall  examine  in  Order. 


SECT.    IV. 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhind'J*  Argnings  for  froveing% 
that  it  was  Necejfary  that  the  Prelaticf^  Form 
of  Government  fliould  have  been  at  firji  Infiim 
tuted ^  is  Examined*  From  P.  3  2.  to  P„  49. 

I  Have  juft  nowobferved  that  he  attempts  this  by  three  Arguments^ 
which   I  fliall  examine  in  fo   many  Articles.    Lee  me  only 

once 


Se&.  W*    ■     Presbyterian  Government.        4$ 

once  more  advertife  the  Reader,  that  Mr.  Rhindh  exprefling 
himfelf  in  this  Controverfy  by  a  Subordinate  Form  of  Government 
on  the  one  Hand,  and  a  levelling  Form  of  Government  on  the  o- 
ther,  with  fuch  like  Phrafes,  is  a  very  Ridiculous  as  well  as  un« 
juft  Stile :  For,  the  Presbyterians  are  agdnli  a  Levelling,  they  are 
for  a  Subordinate  Form  of  Governmenr,yea,  they  are  for  a  Monarchical 
Form  of  Government,  undemanding  our  Lord  to  be  that  Monarch  \ 
as  Mr.  Rhink  Himfelf  does  p.  49.  Though  then  Mr.  Rhind found 
it  neceffary  for  amufing  his  Reader  and  filling  his  P^uoufefuch 
Forms  of  Speaking  as  a  Monarchical  or  Subordinate,  a  Republican  or 
Levelling  Form  of  Government;  yetlmuft  either  negle£t  his  Ar- 
guments altogether,  as  fignifleing  nothing  in  this  Controverfy,  or 
elfe  I  muft  plainly  underftand  by  thefe^and  the  like  Phrafes  Pre- 
lacy or  Presbytry  refpetlively,  as  common  Ufage  has  fixed  the 
Notion  of  them  in  this  Controverfy.  This  premifed  Inow  pro- 
ceed, 


A  R  T  I  C 

Wherein  Mr.  R  hinder  Argument,  for  tkeln&- 
penfibk  NeceJJity  of  Inflituting  Prelacy^  from 
the  Nature  of  the  Thing  is  examined*  From 
P.  32.  to  P.  39, 

TH  E  Summ  of  his  Argument  is  this.  God  could  not  but  infHtute 
the  Be  {I  Form  of  Government  for  his  Church.  A  Govern- 
ment of  a  Monarchical  or  Subordinate  Form  is  fuch,  that  is,  it 
£an  anfwer  the  Defigns  of  Society  better  than  any  other.    There- 

G  for© 


£$  Defence  of  the  Chap.  lh 

fore  the  Church  ought  to  have  that  Form  of  Government,  that  isto> 
fav    Prelacy.     Now  let  us  confider  this,  and 

yii    Iaffirm    this  Way  of    Arguing  labour! sunder  thee  very 
confutable  Infirmities.     Firft.  It  is  not  Modefi.Se_co»dlj.  not  fecure. 
Thirdly.  Suppofe  it  were  both;  yet,  as  he  has  laid  it,  it  is  quite  J«k- 
tmJtf,  and  does  not  in  the  leaft  affea  the  *«*"«"•-.. 

Fir*   It  is  not  Modeli.     Does  it  become  the  Creature  to  prefcribs 

,o  God?    h  it  uafferable  that  one  (houldtalk  at  Mr.  JfeHftM  Rate, 

That  f.ich  a  Form  of  Government,  abHrafting  from  and  antecedent. 

^WDkX&Um&t,  OVGHT  to  be,  MW  be,  ,s  <£ 

jffvjflft  Afttfftri   in  it  felf,  that  it  does  not  look   like  God  that  it- 

fcoidd  be  other  Jife,  all  which  are  his  Phrafes  ?     Is  not  this  to  to 

Bounds    to.  God's '  Wifdom  and   Wi  1  ?    I mutt ***    read 

a  Lefture  to  Mr.  R*W  from  the  judicious  Hwfcr  M  to  teach 

him  more  Reverence  towards  God.    '  As  for  thofe  "^g"®* 

•xourfes,  whereby  they  *!*««•«  to  argue  mat  God  w«S  needs 

«  have  done  the  Thing  which  they  tmagme  was  to  be  done  I  mult 

« 'Confeft,  I  have    often    mUred    at     their     netting     Boldnels 

••herein.        When   the    Queftion  is,  whether  God  have  deliver. 

<  ed  in  «crioture     (  as  they   affirm     he  hath)  a  compleat   P»- 
.  ££^S  Form  of  Church  Polity  •     why  take  they  that 

•  other  bote&efuMuou,  znAJ^rJUtotts  Labour  to  prove  UtfioM 

•  have  done  it/there   bciog  «  Way  in  this  Cafe  to    prove  the. 

•  S  of  God  faveing  only  by  producing  that  Evidence  where- 

<  inhehath  done  it.- ■-    When  we  do  other  wife  forelj ,we«™. 

•  our  Bounds;  who  and  where  we  are  we  forget.  And  there- 
«  toe  needfull  it  is  that   our  Pride  in   fuch  Cafes  be  controlled 

•  and  Sur  Difputes  beaten  back  with  thofe  Demandsot  the  Blef. 

•  IS&I , m»»furtbM>  are  bis  Juagmems  and  ks  Ifap  fajl 
.td^ounWho  hathkmvnthe  MM  of  the  ^f^TccS 
«  -CoJelbrli-    In  Matters  which  concern  the  Athens  -o.  God 

<  ,te  Lit  dutifull  Way  on  out.  Part  is  to  iearch  what  God i  to* 
..done  a  id  with  Meekneis  to  adrake  that,  father  than to  Dfputu 
« .what  he  in  Congtoity  of  Reafon  ought  to  do,,  I'm  fu.ettis.Mrj 
■RUintfs  Dutv  to  chew  the  Cud  a  while  on  tins.  . 

IS ;  I?  £  net  £*»   For,  C.rcumftances  may  make  ttaj 


£anj  Eccics,  Polit.  B. ;  1IL  $e&  XL  j.  ,ijfc  t#£ 


SefL  IF;       Presbyterian  Government  ^t 

left  in  one  Cafe,  which  would  not  be  To  in  another."  Hear  MJ 
Dodtvell(n)  who  will  clear  the  Matter.  '  The  Way  of  Arguing 
f  from  the  actual  Eftablzfbments  of  God,  as  it  is  much  more  Mode ft t 

*  ib  k  is  alfo  much  more  Secure  for  finding  out  the  Right  of  Go- 

*  vernment  than  any  Conjectures  we  can  make  from  the  Reafonot 
f  the  Thing.    It  is  certainly  the  moft  becoming  Courfe  for  a  Mo« 

*  deli  ChriHian  in  all  Things  to  acquiefce  in  God's  Judgment,  how 
f  great  Evidence  foever  there  might  Teem  for  differing  from  it.-»— 
f  The  Reafons  from  the  Nature  of  Government  in  General,  and  pe- 
s' culiarly  of  Government  as  EccUfiaftic&l,  are  not  proper  to  any  one 
f  Age,  But  for  bringing  thefe  Reafonings  down  to  determine  the 
f  Rights  of  any  particular  Government,  many  particular  Matters  of 
£  i7^  are  requifite  to  be  known.    Thus  he. 

Thirdly.  His  Argument,  as  he  has  laid  it  is  quite  Impertinent, and 
does  not  in  the  leait  arTecl  the  Presbyterians.:  For  he  adduces  it  to 
prove  that  there  fhould  be  a  Subordination  of  Officers  in  the  Church,, 
which  the  Presbyterians  are  for,  as  well  as  he. 

II.  Suppofeing  his  Argument  were  otherwife  tolerable,  How 
does  he  prove  that  a  Monarchical  ov  Subordinate  Form  of  Govern- 
ment is  the£<?#?  Why,waveing  the  many  Arguments  of  fever  al  learn' 
ed  Authors  he  will  needs  advance  three  of  his  own.  The  firft  is 
taken  from  the  Britiftj  Monarchy.  The  fecond  from  the  Principles, 
The  third  from  the  practices  of  the  Presbyterians  Themfelves. 

The  firft  from  the  Britijh  Monarchy  (lands  thus.  All  the  Sub- 
jects of  Britain  mud  own  Monarchy  to  be  the  beft  Form  of  Go- 
vernment for  the  State ;  and  therefore  he  fees  no  Reafon  from  the 
Nature  of  the  Thing  why  it  fhould  not  be  reckoned  fuch  for  the  Church 
alfo.  Nay  that  it  looks  not  like  God  it  fhould  be  other  wile  p.  jj, 
But  this  is  as  unhappy  an  Argument  as  Mr.  Rhind  could  have  pitched 
on.  For  two.  Unlefs  he  could  prove  (  perhaps  Dr.  Lesfly  may 
help  him  to  it  )  that  Monarchy  is  the  only  Government  by  divine 
Right  for  the  State,  and  that  all  the  Nations  of  the  World  who 
are  under  any  other  kind  of  Government,  are,  on  that  Account, 
in  a  State  of  Mortal  Sin,his  Argument  muft  do  a  great  deal  more 
Hurt  than  Good  to  the  Epifcopal  Caufe.    For  it  will  plainly  follow 

G  2  that 

£&J  On  Schifm  Chap.  -XIX.    Ss&.  33.  4.0.  p.   4J4,.   4.^. 


f2  Defence  of  the  Chap.  //. 

that  fuch  Nations  as  have  an  Jristrocratical  or  Democratical  Vbim  of 
Government  in  the  State,  and  areperfvvaded  it  is  b&H,  fhould  have 
the  like  in  the  Church  too.  The  Britifh  Subjects  are  indeed  per- 
fvvaded  that  Monarchy  is  the  bejl  Government  for  Britain,  and, 
I  believe,  will  always  be  of  this  Mind,whilefo  Benign  a  Princefsas 
Her  Majefty  fills  the  Throne  ;  but  thefe  fame  Perfonsare  not  per- 
fwaded  that  it  would  be  the  btft  for  theVnited  'Provinces,  the  Re- 
publicks  of  Venice.,  Genoa,  Lucca,  i\\q.Sivi/s  Cantons,,  Geneva,  &e, 
and  confequently,  they  muft  be  petfwaded  too,  according  to  Mr. 
Rhinos  Way  ot  Reafoning,  that  a  Monarchical  Government  in  the 
Church  would  not  be  beft  for  them.  His  Argument  then  would  quite  al- 
ter its  Nature  by  a  Voyage,  and  from  being  a  good  one  for  Eptf"- 
copacy  at  KomCj  would  become  a  good  One  .againsl  it  beyond  Sea. 
ido.  Is  it  not  pretty  odd  to  find  one  who  has. read,  the  Bible  all 
over.,  as  Mr.  Rhind  faith  he  has  done,  and  has  heard  Our  Saviour 
not  only  declareing  that  His  Kjngdom  is  not. of  this  JfWd,  but  ex- 
prefiy.  difcbarging  his  Difciples  to  exercife  fuch  Dominion  and  Au- 
thority as  the  Princes  of  ^Gentiles  do,  Is  it  not  odd,  I  fay,  to  fiod 
fuch  a  one  urgeing  the  Cutting  the  Church  Government  by  the 
Pattern  of  the  State  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  it  was  the  Fancy  of 
Modelling  the  external  Government  ot  the  Chinch  according  to  the 
Civil  Government  of  the  Roman  Empire  that  brought  in.  fuch  Of- 
ficers to  the  Church,  of  whom  there  is  juft  as  much  Mention  in  the 
Scripture,  as  there  is  of  the  Prefent  Emperour  ofMorrecco  or  Czar 
d.Mufcovj  (r;).  I  referr  it  then  to  xhs  Reader  to  Judge,  if  that 
can  be  a  good  Argument  for  determining  the  Government  of  the 
Church,  which  was  the  greareft  Caufe  of  her  Corruption.  3/0.  As 
Mr.  Rhind  has  laid  the  Britifb  Monarchy  in  the  one  Scale,  fo  he 
mjuft  allow  me  to  iayfomeluitancesin  theother,  and  let  the  Reader 
weigh  .both..  The  Romans,  who  were  the  greateft  Mafiersofm2//  j 
Prudence  ever  the  World  knew,  when  once  they  had  expelled  the  1 
Tarquws.and  .  abolifhed  Regal  Government,  though  they  ufed  I 
fomzt'imzsJri/tocracy,  iometimes  Democracy  ov  a  Form  mixtofborh,  ! 
yet  were  never  fo. idle  or  lifadvifed  as  to  think  of  fettmg  up  Mb-  i 
najchy   again  till Uiuipers  and -Tyrants- opprefTed  them,    and  by 


£cj     Sec;Pjr.C*yf?jjia»t.  Cfarift.  Part.  J,  Chap.  VIII.  p.'  az j 


Seft.  IV.         Presbyterian  Government,         53 

main  Force  wrung  their  Liberties  out  of  their  Hands.  Lycargusand 
Solon  were  the  wifeft  Men  of  their  Age  by  the  Verdict  of  all  the 
World,  yet  they  fetup,  the  One  Ariftocracy,  the  other  Democracy, 
and  recommended  them  forever  to  their  People.  Pkto  and  Aristotle 
are  Names  will  be  ever  had  in  Veneration,  yet  they  had  but  very 
indifferent  Thoughts  of  Monarchy  becaufeof  its  Liablenefs  to  dege- 
nerate intoTyranny.  And  that  which makesthe  Britifi  Monarchy 
fo  deOreable  is  that  the  two  Houfes  of  Parliament  qualifie  ir,  and 
give  it  a  Mixture  bo>h  of  Ariftocracy  and  Democracy ;  Whereas  the 
jPre/^/contended  for  by  its  late  Patrons,  is  a  downright  Tyranny, 
a 'Monarchy  after  the  French  Form,  none  daring  to  fay  totheBi- 
fhQVfvhai  doeft  thou  ?  as  we  Qiall  hear  afterward  .  4*0.  Is  it  not  -Grange 
that  thefChiifch  of  Ettg&dn&. -Divines  f  Dr.  Whit&ker,  for  Inftance, 
Aegius  Prof  far  of  Divinity  in  Cambridge  )  when  difpnting  againft: 
the  Church  of  Rome  fboo Id  argue  against  a  Monarchical  Govern- 
ment in  the^Church  ;  and  yet  that  Mr.  Rhind,  who  pretends  to  be 
of-  that  Communion,  fhoold  argue/^it  .when  difpnting  againft  -the 
presbyter  km  ?  I  want  mightily  to  be  fatisfted  about  his  Cond-uQ  in . 
this.  - 

His  Second  Argument  from  the  Principles  of  the  Presbyterians  runs 
thus  p.  34.  /  wou^d  know  of  them,  why  they  are  for  a  Subordination  of 
Judicatories,  while  they  are  at  the  fame  Time  againft  an  Imparity  of  Ru- 
lers ?  Really  the  Presbyterians  own  themfelves  fo  dull,  as  not  to  be 
able  to  give  'a-Reafon  for  that  which  is  not.  Let  Mr.  Rhind  once 
prove  that  they  are  againft  an  Imparity  of  Rulers,  and  then  it  will  be 
foon  enough  to  give  a  Reafon  why  thev  are  fo ;  For  they  are  not  dif- 
pofed  to  philofophize  on  the  Golden  Tooth.  He  never  fufpecled  that 
bis  Medium  wanted  Trutlr,  and  therefore  he  goes  on  very  innocently 
in  his  Harangue  thus*  '  To  what  Purpofe,  Twou'd  ask  them,  ferves 
6  a  Subordination  of  Judicatories,  where  the  Judges  are  foppofed 
*  to  be  ftill  the  fame  ?  Did  Mr.  Rhind  never  hear  that  plus  vident  Oculi 
quant-  Oculus^  -Two  Eyes  fee  better  than  One?  Does  he  not  know 
that  -all  the  Apoftles  were  Equal  in  their  Apoftolical  Characler,  and 
when  the  Controverfy  about  Circamcipon  was  ftarted  at  Antioch  ACts, 
15;  ;Doubdefs-  Paul,  being  under  an  infallible  Conduct,  could  have 
determined  it  as  Orthodoxly  as  the  whole  College  of  'em  ;  yet,  for 
fatisfieiag  peoples  Minds,  it  'was  judged  expedient  that  the  Advice 


54  Defence  of  the  Chap  II 

of  the  reft  fhould  be  had,  and  their  Authority  interpofed.    O  but 
faith  he,  In  the  "Presbyterian  Subordination  the   fudges  sire     Hill    the 
fane.     Now,  what  could  put  this  in  his  Head,  or  how  he  could  pof- 
fibly  ftumbleintoit,  I  cannot  conjecture.    Was  he  fo  long  among 
the  Presbyter  tans  and  does  not  know  it  to  be  falfe  .?     Could  he  meet 
with  never  one   in  the  whole  Country  to  tell  him  it  was  fo?  When 
1'mfure  there  are   very  few  in  the  Nation  but  could  have  done  it. 
All  Matters  that  come  from  a  Subordinate  to  a  Superiour  Judicatory 
are  tranfmitted  either  by  way    of  Reference  or  Appeal.  In  the  firft  of 
thefe  Cafes  the  Judges  are  not  meerly  the  fame,  but  a  vail  Plurality 
added  to  them,  for  Inllance,  when  a  Matter  is  Referred  fromaPrw- 
bytry  to  a  Synod,  the  whole    iMinifters  of  the  Province  with  a  Ruling 
■Elder  from  each  Parifh  are  Judges  in  the  latter:  Whereas  in  the  for- 
mer,   only  the  Miniftersot  that  particular  Presbytry  with  one  Ru- 
ling Elder  from  each  of  its  Parifhes  were  the  Judges.     In  the  Cafe 
of  Appeals,  not  one  Member  of  the  Inferior  judicatory  isadmittedto 
foe  a  Judge  in  the  Superior.     They  are  indeed  allowed  to  plead,    but 
■the  pleading  being  over,    they  ate  not  allowed  to  advif'e  much  lefs  to 
■vote  in  the  Frocefs.     The  Ufe  then  of  a  Subordination  of  Judicatories 
is  obvious,  to  wit,  that  the  Superior  may  re&ifie  the  Miftakes&c 
of  the  Inferiour.     But  this  will    not  go  down  with  Mr.  Rhind-.  For 
*  he  cannot  underfland  how  their  Fellow  Members  (   to    whom  they 
are  fuppofed  in  all  Refpecls  equal ) /ball judge  better  than  they.     I  know 
no  Body  obliged  to  find  him  in  Vnderjiandwg.     The  Thing  is  abun- 
dantly Intelligible  in  its  felf,  Solomon  a  wife  enough  Mafter  haveing 
told  us,  that  In  Multitude  of  Counfellors  there  is  Safety,     But  whence 
did  Mr,  Rhind  learn  that  all  the  Members  of  a  Presbyterian  Judicato- 
-lie  were  to  be  fuppofed  in  all  Refpecls  Equal?  Was  it  from  the  Presby. 
terjans?    Surely  not.  They  willingly  own,  that  all  the  Minifters,  for 
Inftance,  in  one  Presbytry  are  not  Equal  in  all  Refpecls.     One  of 
them  is  more  Learned  than  another.    Another  perhaps,  tbo'  he  hath 
not  fo  much  Learning,  is  yet  Wijer, for  thegreateft  C  krks  are  not  al- 
ways the  Wifeft  Men.    Was  it  from  his  Fellow  Writers  of  the  Epfco* 
/>*JSide?  No.     On   the  contrary,     They   plainly  declare,  thatthe 
'Presbyterians  neither  plead  nor  (uppofe  any  fuch  Thing.     Thus  the 
Author  of  the  Seventh    Book   of  Hooker* s  EcclefiaHical  Polity  Sz£k  $d. 
*  Tl\Q}'.9  frith  bet  which  cannot  brook  the  Superiority  which  Bifhops 

have 


Se&  IK        Presbyterian  Government]         55 

*  have, do  notwithftandingthemfeltfes  admit  that  fome  Kind  of  Dif* 
<  ference  and  Inequality  there  may  be  lawfully  amongftMiniiters. 
fi  Inequality  as  touching  Gitts  and  Graces  they  grant,  becaufethis  is 
**fo  plain  that  no  Miftin  the  World  can  be  caft  before  Men's  Eyes  fa 
4  thick,  but  they  needs  muft  difcern  through  it,  that  one  Mini- - 
'  fter  of  the  Gofpel  may  be  more  Learned,  Holier  and  Wifer;  better 

*  able  to  inftruevr,     more  apt  to  ruie  and  guide  than  another  ?     Let 
Mr.  Rhind  then  fay  at  his  beftLeifure?  whence  he  got  thatfuppofedE- 
quality  in  all  Refpeffs*< 

His  Third  ft  rgument  is  taken  from  thePracYices  of  the  Presbyterians 
themielves,  The  Sum  of  which  in  his  own  Words  p.  35.  is.  That, 
6  though  by  their  Principles  all  Church  Officers  are  allowed  an  equal 
'  Authority , yet  inEffe'3  the  whole,or  at  leafttheChief  Power  is  in  the 
6  Hands  of  a  Few?  -  who  are  the  mod:  knowing  and  Wife.  And  for 
c  poof  of  this  he  brings  an  Inft  awe  rbow  that  in  three  federal  General  Af- 

*  femblies,  though  the  moft  numerous  Party  in  the  ■■Affisnsbly  w&e 
1  earned  to  have  the  intrinfck  Power  of  the  Church  allerted  by  an  j0+ 
1  yet  the  Authority  of  a  leading  J&rito,  who  were  upon  the  matter  fo 

*  many  Bifihops,  crufhed  that  Dangerous  Affair.  -  Why  then,  faith  he 
6  p.  37.  do  they  oppofe  that  kind  of  Government,  which  is  not  only 
e  indifpenfibly  neceffary  in  it  felf5but  does  in  defpke  of  their  Principles 
4 "actually  obtain  among  themfelves.  Thus  he.  In  Anfwer  to  which. 
How  lucky  fo  ever  Mr.  Rhind  may  be  in  fome  of  his  Mimitsi  yet 
perhaps  he  is  the  moft  unlucky  m  his  Arguments  ever  Man  was  ,-They 
being  generally  fo  ill  natured  as  to  cut  their  own  Throat.  For  \mo+ 
who  told  him  that  it  is  again %.  Presbyterian  Principles,  that  one  Mioi- 
fterfhould  h'a^e  a  greater  Hand  inmanageing  affairs  than  another  ? 
Not  the  -Presbyterians  $\sy  refufeit.  Not  his  Brethren  the  Authors  on 
the  Epif copal  Side  •  ;  Witnefs  him  laft  cited  who  tells  us  ( Ibid,  j    <  A. 

5  Priority  of  Order  they  deny  not  but  that  there  maybe,  yea  fuch;  a 
'Priority  as  makethone  Man  amongft  many  a  Principal  Actor  ia 
fi;thofe  Things  wheseunto  fundry  of  them  muft  neceffarily  concurr, 

*  fo  that   the  fime  be  admitted  only  during  the  Time  of  fuch  Acli- 

*  onsand  ho  longer. .  2^  is  it  indeed  tree,  thktxhz  Presbyterian  Go-' 
vernment  is  in  effect  in  the  Hands'  of  a  Ffwf.  who  are  upon  the  Matter 
BiQiops ■? : Then  it-is  certainly  true?that  they  are  not-Schifmaticks,cott- 
fecjueady  that 'hluKhMi  feg arating frbeftheafofl  that1  Score  i$\m»- 

juftifiabjs 


5  6  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II- 

juftifleable.Isthismy  reafoningonly  ?  No,  but  of  one  of  thebeft  Men 
perhaps  ever  wore  Mitre,  I  mean  Dr.  Bedell  afterwards  Bifhop  of  KJU 
more  in  his  Anfwer  to  Mv.  IVaddefworth  once  a  Minifterin  Suffotk,then 
a  Roman C 'at holick and  Penfioner  of  theHo/y  Inquifition'mSevil.  IVtd. 
defvorth  in  his  Scripts  after  his  Revolt  fell  foul  upon  the  Reformation  in 
thefe  Words.    ?  In  ffaw*,  Holland  and  Germany  they  have  no  BifhopsJ 
To  this  Dr.B^//anfwers(/>). '  What  if  I  fhould  defend  they  have? 
4  becaufe  a  Bifhop  and  a  Presbyter  are  all  one,  as  S.  [faom  maintains; 
€  and  proves  out  of  Holy  Scripture,andtheUfe  of  Antiquity.  Of  which 
'Judgment,    as  Medina    confefleth,  are  fundry  of  the  Ancient  Fa- 
e  thers,  both  Greek  and  Latine,S.  AmbroJ  ey  August  inefiedulius  Prima- 
1  fiuSjChryfoftome^Theodoretfiecumeniusznd  Theophylaft  :  Which  point 
f  I  have  largely  treated  of  in  another  Place.     Thus  he.  But  Mr.  Wad- 
defworth  was  an  Adverfary  much  of  Mr-  Rhind\  Temper,     not  to  he 
fatisfied  without  B/fiops  fuperiour  to  Presbyters.    Dr.  Bedell  therefore 
finds  a  Way  to  make  ail  the  Proteftant  Churches  Epifcopal.    InGer- 
many  the  Superintendents  were  Bifhops.    But  what  was  to  be  done 
with  France. and  Geneva  where  thele  were  not  ?  Why ,  faith  hey  there 
6  are  ufually  certain  Chief  Men  j\\%\.  do  In  a  Manner  bear  all  the  Sway.— 
c   And  what  are  thefe  but  Bifhops  indeed  unlefswe  fhall  wrangle  about 
*  Names.  I  hope  Mr.  Rhmd'is  here  fitted  with  a  Wedge  of  his  own 
Timber.    Common  Senfe  Di&ates  that  Superiority  in  Wifdomand 
Dexterity  for  managing  Bufinefs  attended  with  a  due  Integrity  fhould 
bearSwayamong  allSocieties,  even  where  the  Conftituent  Mem-; 
bers  are  otherwife  equalin  their  Character:     Which  amounts  to  no 
more  than  this,     that  the  Weaker  fhould  follow  the  Counfel  of  the 
Wifer,  and  no  other  Superiority  but  this  could  the  Doctor  find  necef- 
fary  by  the   Word   of  God  among Minifters.  But,  faith  Mr.Rhind^ 
'  Why  do  thole   whofe  Superior  Abilities  entitle  them  to  the  Chief 
■  '  Power,     and  who exercife  the  fame  in  Fa£r,    refufe  to  bs  regular-' 
*  ly  admitted  to  the  Exercife  thereof,  that  is  plainly,  to  becon/ecrated 
Bifhops?  I  anfwer  from  the  excellent  Lord  Falkland  who  died  in  the 
Bed  of  Honour  fighting  for  the  Royal  Martyr  (q),    c  There  was 
I  once  a  Hen  in  Sfih  which  upon  a  moderate  Proportion  of  Barly 

laid 


[P]     Burnet's Lifeof  Bifhop  Bedell     p. +y3.  454- [q]  See  his  Speech  before  the  Houfe  oTCommow  g»^ 
.uujj  Eptfcopacy  m  Rufhworch's  Collect.  Vol.  I  Pau  III.    p.  i8a*  


Se£h  IV.        Presbyterian  Government         57 

[  laid  every  Day  an  Egg.  Her  Miftrefs  enlarging  her  Diet  in  Hopes 
6  file  would  proportionally  encreafeher  Eggs,  She  grew  fo  fat  upon 
'  that  Addition  that  She  never  laid  more.  Dignities  and  Preferments 
oftimes  turn  Men's  Heads,  blunt  their  Wits,  or  rebate  the  Edge  of 
their  Diligence.     How  often  has  it  been  feen  that  a  very  good  Mini. 
Jlerhas  made  hut  %  very  indifferent  Bifiop?  So  long  as  they  are  equal 
in  Authority,  they  know  it  is  only  their  Superior    Wifdom  and  Ver- 
tue  that  can  entitle  them  to  Refpecl  from  or  Sway  among  their  Bre- 
thren. This  fir  fi  excites  their  Spiries,and  then  keeps  them  on  the  Bend : 
But  when  once  they  are  fettled  in  the  Dignity  by  a  formal  In ftal- 
ment,they  know  that  Reverence  is  due  to  their  Characker,how  unac- 
countable foever  their  Conduct  is.     Of  all  forts  of  Bifbops,  thefeare 
the  moildefireable  whofe  Dignity  rifes  and  falls  in  Proportion  with 
their  real  Merit  and  wife  Managment.    This  puts  them  upon  their 
good  Behaviour,  which  is  neceftary  for  Clergy-men  as  well  as  for 
other  People.     And  this  is  plainly  the  Cafe  of  our  Presbyterian  Bi- 
fhops.  To  allthis  Mr.  K^/Wmay  pleafetoadd,  that  they  refufe,  and 
their  Brethren  will  not  allow  them  to   hoconfecrated  to  the  Dignity, 
bec?ufe  it  is  not  only  without  Warranr,butagairift  the  Precept  of  our 
Lord  Mat-th.  2.0.25,    whereof  afterwards.  In  the  mean  Time  Mr. 
■Khihd  having  acknowledged  that  the  Presbyterians  have  fuchasare 
Biftiops  upon  the  Matter  ;  'ris  plain  He   has  feparated  from  them  for 
the  Want  of  what  is  not  Material,  tyo.  As  to  his  Inftanceofthe  A0 
AiTertcry  olthzlntrwfick  Power.     If  he  had  faid,  that  the  Junta,  as 
lie  calls  them,  by  Importunity  prevailed  on,  or  by  pure  Dint  of  Rea- 
/wiperfwaded  die  Reft  that  fuchan^?  was  either  not  neceffary  or 
not  feafonable  at  that  Time  ;    I  believe  he  had  fpoke  Truth,  but  no- 
thing to  the Furpofe,  becaufe  Pm^/i^i  (till  own,  that  feme,  who 
•in  Point  of  Authority  are  only  on  a  Levell  with  their  Brethren,  may 
yet  befuperior  to  them  in  the  Ecclejiaftical .Politicks.  But  to  fay  that 
!  they  got  itcrulhed    by  their  Authority  wastobe  too  prodigal  of  his 
I  Credit,  the  whole  Nation    knowing  it  to  be  falfe.    Mo;.  I  know  that 
Mr*  Rhind  mentioned  this  Inftance  by  Way  of  Reflection  againfl  the 
■Jfresbyteriavs,  and  therefore  I  muft  take  the  Freedom  to:tell  him,  that 
the  General  Ajfembly  has  done  more,  even  fince  the  Revolution,  -for 
affemng  the  Intrinfisk  Pan?*?  than  al}  the  Prelatifts  in  Scotland  ever  had 
the  Courage  to  do.  Thefe  latter,  upon  the  Reitauratioo  of  K.Charles 


5'$.  Defence  of  the  Chap.  1L 

IF,  meanly  truckled  to  an  aro wed  Erajlian  Ufurpation  without  the 
leafr  Remonftrance  or  Reclaiming.    And  when  the  late  K.  James  fent 
down  his  Proclamation  of  the  Date  Feb,  12.1687.     foran  unbound- 
ed Toleration,  wherein?by  his  Abfolute  Power  and  Prerogative  Roy- 
alj    he  annulled  and  revoked  die  Penal  Laws  again  ft  PapiHs  ;    the 
Archbifhop   of  Saint  Andrews  and  the  Elecl:  Archbifhop  of  Glafgotp 
were  the  fecond  and  third  Perfons  who  fubferibed  a  Letter  of  Thanks 
to  him  for  the  faid  Toleration  and  Proclamation.     The    Letter  bears 
Date  Feb.  24. 1687.  It  is  (luffed  with  the  moft  fulfome  Flattery,  and 
aSoothingof  the  King  in  thofe  Meafures  which   took  away  the 
Barrier  of  the  Proieflant  Religion  and  atlaftruin'd  himtelf.     So  un- 
willing were  that  Unfortunate  Prince's  beft  Friends  to  venture  their 
Pofts  by  giveing  him  free  and  honeft  Counfel:  when  they  might  have 
pffibly{%xz(\  their  King*  and  certainly    their  own  Confciences  by  the 
doing  it.  The  General  Affembly  on  the  other  hand  have  atled  a  fome- 
what  better  Part:     For  when  in  the  Year  1692  the  Earl  of  Lothian 
would  needs  diflblve  it   in  a  very  abrupt  Manner,  to  fay  no  Worfe  ; 
the  Moderator,  with  all  due   Refpeft  to  the  Civil  Powers,  and  yet 
with  that  Courage  that  became    a  Churchman  poiTefTed  of  the  Chair 
In  thehigheft  Judicatorie,  boldly  afferted  thelntrwfrk  Power  even  in 
the  Face  of  a  frowning  Government,  and  the  whole  Ajfembly  adher- 
ed to  him  in  fo  doing.  I  hope   then  Mr.  Rbind  will  fee  that  he  fhould 
have  been  wife  in  his  Wrath/and  not  needlefly  have  given  Occafion 
tofucha  Piece  ofHiftory.  5*0.  His  Reafoning  concludes  alike  againft 
Bifhop  as  well  as  the  Members  of  the  General  Ajfembly  ;  for  the  World 
does  not  want  to  know  that  Bifhops  are  not  always  the  Wifc -ft  any 
more  than  the  bejl  Men.  And  he  himfelfwas  aware  of  this '  But^faith  he 
a  p.  38,  When  fuch  is  the  Government  of  the  Church,that  there  are 
•  different  Spheres  in  which  Men  are  to  act,  Wsprefam'd  they  are  cho- 
J  fen  with  Qualifications  proportioned  to  each:    But  why  fhould  that 
foe  prefumed  which  no  Man   can  prove,  and  every  Man  will  deny  f 
and  does  not  he  himfelf  own.  That  it  has  too  frequently  happened,  that  j 
'tfyftf  inferior  Abilities  have  attained  to  the  highetr  Ecclefiahtcal Digni- 
ties.    And    does  not  the  k  Hiftory    of  the  late  Times  confirm  this  ? 
Witnefs  M.  Wallace^  who,  in  the  .Year    1662  was  preferred  to  be  Bi- 
fhopof  the  JJlef}<,  though  he  under  ftood  not  one  Syllable  of  the  Native 
JMnguageol  his  Diocefs  5  yet  a  powerful!  Recornmeadation  and  the 

good 


»  , 


Sed.  IVi        Presbyterian  Government        §^ 

good  Quality  of  Pliancy  procured  him  the  Crofter.  But,  faith  Mr: 
Rhind  y  This is  mt the >  Fault of the  Constitution  but  of  thofe  who  prefer^ 
them.  Very  mannerly !  And  fo  all  the  Faults  ofthe  Bijhops  muftba 
charged  upon  the  Prime,  But  the  very  Conftitution  has  been  always 
fuch  in  Scotland,  that  it  was  at  leafl  a  very  great  Hazard  if  ever  a 
worthy  Perfon  waschofen.  Generally  Men  of  Merit  aremoded 
and  love  Obfcurity  ;  the  moil:  unworthy  Perfons  are  moft  foreward 
to  put  in  for  Preferments ;  Courtiers,  by  whofe  Eyes  and  Ears  the 
Prince  rnuft  fee  and  hear,  are  moft  ready  to  recommend  fueh  as  are 
likely  to  be  the  moil:  ferviceable  Tools  to  themfelves  in  their  Political 
Defigns.  The  Prince's  Conge  $  dire  makesthe  Eleftion  of  the  '-Chap* 
ter  a  Sham.  So  that  upon  the  whole  there  was  a  Fault  in  the  very; 
ponftitution,  even  though  the  Office  had  been  in  itfelf  lawfull. 
■'.-III.  Mr  Rhind  is  refolved  to  end  this  Argument  with  one  bold- 
Stroke.  *  According,  faith  he  p.  38.  to  the  Presbyterian  Platform, 
f  the  Ms  knowing  and  Wife  are  allowed  an  equal  Authority  with 
t  thofe  who  deferve  it  bed ;  An  Eftablifhment  which  feems  to  bid 
f  Defiance  to  Common  Senfe.  Did  Mr.  Rhind  never  hear  of  thQ 
Roman  Senate  ?  'Twas  reckoned  the  mod:  venerable  Bench  in  the 
World;  yet  there  did  Rarity  reign  in  Perfection,  and  that  notwith- 
Handing  the  Inequality  among  the  conftieoeot  Members  in  Point 
of  Prudence.  That  fine  Gentleman  the  younger  Pliny  giveinghfg 
Friend  Animus  an  Account  of  an  A£lion  before  the  Senate  in 
which  he  had  been  employed  to  plead,  tells  him  *.  Thus  itfeemed 
good,  to  the  Plurality  '.For  the  Votes  arenumbered  not  weighed.  NOR  CAN 
IT  OTHERWISE  BE  IN  PUBLICS  COUNCIL,**  which  time  is 
nothing  fo  unequal  as  the  Equality  it  f elf:  For  the  Right  of  all  is  equal  tho* 
their  prudence  is  unequal.  Did  Mr.  Rhind  never  hear  of  theHoufe 
of  Lords  or  Commons  in  Parliament?  Are  not  all  the  Mem- 
bers in  thefe  feverai  Moufes  allowed  an  Equal  Authority  ?  yet  who 
ever  faid  that  they  were  equally  qualified,  or  that  it  was  neceffary 
They  fhould  be  fo?  If  he  has  never  travelled  fofovaslVeJlmnJler 
•in  his  Views,  yet  did  he  never  hear  of  the  Lords  o£Seffion  or  jtewfr 

H  2  .    _    tors 


■^f  Sed  hoc  pluribus  vifum  eft.  Nurnerantur  eniro  Sentential  •  non  ponderantur.  Ncc  ali=» 
«d  in  publico  Concilio  poreft  fieri,  in  quo  nihil  eft  tarn  insqaale  quam  ^qualitas  jpfa  3 
^am  mm  fie  irnp^r  Prataja,  pas  omuiujc  jus  sS?    VJmt  lib,  w»  £p.  «i. 


66  Defence  of  the  Chap.  1L 

Urs  o£  the  College  of  Jaft ice,  m  Scotland?  Does  he  not  know  that 
none  of  'em  have  a  Negative  on  the  Reft;  that  they  have  all 
an  ^z/,Authority,  though  they  never  had,  nor  probably  ever  will 
have  equal  Abilities  ?  Yet  one  would  be  very  void  of  Common  Senfe 
that  would  venture  to  fay,  that  their  Conftitution  bids  a.  Defiance 
to  it. 

So  much  for  his  Argument  from  the  Nature  of  the  Thing, '  of 
which 'he  ..is.  fo  vain,  that  he  .affirms  p.  39.  it  may  in  fome  Mtafure 
ferve  to 'deter mine  the.  Con  trover  fy  about  Church  Government :  And 
I  hope,  after  what  has  been  faid,  every  Reader  will  grant  that 
he.  may  for  ever  enjoy  that  good  Opinion  of  it  without  fear  of  a 
Rival  , 


ART  I  C  L  E    II 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhind^  Argument  for  the  Necefc 
fity  ofinfiitntingVt:chcyfrom  the  Form  of  Go- 
vefnment  in  the  Jewifli  Church  >  is  Examined. 
From  F,  39.  to  P, 


r)  E  F  O  R  E  I  (late  this  Argument,  I  muft  put  (  yet  once  more) 
j  the  Reader  in  Mind,  that  though  the  Vreibyterians are  avainfb 
a  Subordination  of  Pallors,  yet  they  are  for  a.  Subordination  of  Officers^ 
as  well  as  the  Vrelatifis  are.  And  that  therefore  when  his  Argu- 
ment concludes  againft  4  Parity  of  Officers ,  or  for  a  Subordinate  Form 
of 'Government ,it  is  only  a  Parcel  of  Empty  infignificant  Words  hud- 
led  together,  unlefsby  the  former  we  underftand  ?resbytry,  and  by; 
the  latter  Vrelacy. ,  This premifed,  His  Ar'gi  ment  Hands" thus. 
J  A,  Government  coniiuute.  by ;a  Subordination  of  Rulers  was.< 

t  a&uajlr 


Sed.  IV*         Presbyterian  Government         6 1 « 

f  actually  approven  of  -by  God    under  the   Old  Teftament:_    For  ) 
4  the  Form  of  Government:  which  by  Divine  Inftitution  obtained' 
'  in  the  Jervijh  Church  was  coriftitwed  by  Officers  a&'mg  in  'anlm- 
e  parity  ;  fuch  as  the  HighPrieft,  Prieftsand  Levites ;  each  of  which  ' 
*.  were  Orders  diftinS    from,    and  Subordinate  to   the   other,  p. 
40.     This  is  his-  whole  Medium,  and  the  only  Inference  that  can  ' 
ju-ftly  be  made  from  it  is  (  which  every  Presbyter i&n  grants )  That 
fuch  an 'Imparity  was  not  only  Lawfa.ll  but  alfo  hzMox'that  State 
of  the  Church.     Bat  Mr.  Rhmd^s  Inferences  from  it  are  of  a  higher 
Nature,  viz.  That  if -it  was .  be'fi  .under-  that    Difpenfaticn,    he   cannot 
conceive  how  it  can  he  reckoned  unlawful!  in  the  ChriHi'an  Church.     I 
cannot  but  pity  the  Weaknefs  of  His  Conception:  For  if  our  Lord 
has  changed  the  -Jewifb  Priefthood,  and  diuolved  their  Polity,  and' 
fet  up  the  Chriftian  very  different  from  it,  will    not  this  make  it' 
unlawfully  O  bur,  by  Mr. Mind's  Account,  our  Lord  did  not  this>  he, 
could  not  do  it?it  was.  not  con  fifte-nt  with  his  Wifdo'm  to  do  ir,'plainlyy 
*  it  is.,  faith  he,  p.  41,  an  Impeachment 'pf  the  Divine  Wifdom  to' 
c  think  that  God  would  alter  that  Form  of  Government'  which  he 
'  'hadinftituted -to  -  eftabiifli  another  quite  different  from 'it.     And 
cow  you  have  his  whole  Argument,  an  Argument  which  \\t  think r 
fufficient  to  prove  the  Perpetuity   of  that  Form. 

In  "difcourfing  it  I  fbali  fliew,  Fir  ft.  That,  as  he  has  laid  it,  it  is 
horridly. Impious.  Secondly.  .Tint  his  Managment  of  it  againft  the 
Presbyterians  is  Ridiculous,  Thirdly,  That  it.is'w*  it  felf  Weaka 
and  -concludes  nothing  to  the  Purpofe  in  this-Controverfie,  Fourth* 
ly.  That  if  ft  conclude  at  all,  it  concludes  for  an'  Unlverfal. Papacy' 
rather  than  a  Diocefan  Prelacy.  And  La(lly.  That  it  is  rejected  as 
infufficient 'by  the  EpifcopS' Authors  thetnfelves.. : 

I.  The  Argument  as  he  has  laid- it  is  horridly  Impious.  God 
muft  not  he  Wife,  that  is,  he  muft- not  be'-God,  unlefsMr.  Rhind 
pleafe.  No  Chriitian  ought  to  pafs-tha't  Way  of  talking  he  has 
got  into  without  Refemtnent.  •  Saucinefs' againft  the  Almighty.' is 
Intolerable-.  What/  Was  it  nor  confident  with  the  Wifdom  of  God 
to; alter  a  Form  of  Government  he  had  formerly  inftitmed  ?  Has 
Mr.  Rhind  read  the  -Bibley  a:  d  knows  not  that  God  governed  If- 
rati  firft  by  Judges  and  then  by  Kings,  and  yet  was  infinitly  wile 
in  boai?  ;  li  he-did  this  m  the  Sme7  why  flaould  it  reflect  on  his 


6  2  Defence  of  the  Chap ,  //, 

Wifdom  to  do  it  in  the  Church?  Nay  has  he  not  actually  doneitia 
the  Church  ?  For,was  not  both  the  Civil  andEcclefiaftical  Power  O- 
riginally  in  the  fame  Perfon,  in  Adam,  the  Patriarchs,  and   Mofes ; 
and  yet  under  the  Law  did   He  not  put  the  Ecclefiafiical  Regiment 
into  the  Hands  of  the  High  Priefr,  Priefts  and  Levites,  fo  that  the 
King  was  no  longer  Pried  ?  And  might  he  not  have  learned  this 
from  Dr.  L— >y  Himfelf(VJ?    The  jetvs  fondly  dreamed  that  their: 
Polity  was  to  laft  with  the  World,  and  perfecuted  the  firft  Martyr 
Stephen  to  the  Death,  becaufe  he  had  taught,  that  Jefus  of  Nazareth 
wou'd  change  the  Cuftoms  which  Mofes  delivered  A£ts  6.  14.     But,  if 
Mr.  Rhind^s  Argument  is  good,  Stephens  Doftrine  was  Falfe,and 
the  Jews  Murdering  of  him  was  only  the  Effect  of  a  laudable  Zeal. 
Is  it  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Divine  Wifdom  to  think,  that  the 
Circumstances  of  the  Church  being  fovaftly  altered,her  Government 
fhould  be  fo    too.     Under  the  Jewi/b    Difpenfation  the   Church 
was  empaled  within  a  narrow  Enclofure,  but  the  Go/pel  was  to  be 
preached  to  every  Creature.     And  is  not  here  a  fair  Foundation  for 
altering  the  Government  ?  And  does  not  the  Apoftle  to  the   He- 
brews C.  7.  V.  12.  lay  it  down  for  a    Principle,  that  the    Prieft- 
hoed  being  changed,  there  is  made  of  Necefjity  a  Change  alfo  of  the  Law. 
How  Impious  is  it  then  to  infinuate  that  fuch  a  Change  is  incon- 
fiftent  with  the  Divine  Wifdom. 

II.  His  Managment  of  this  Argument  againft  the  Presbyterians 
is  Ridiculous.  Take  it  in  his  own  Words  p.  45.  *  Seeing  there 
4  was  one  of  the  higheft  Order  in  the  Jewiih  Church,  it  follows 

*  unanfwerably  (  taking  along  with  you  what  I  have   faid   above 
c  upon  this  Head  )  that  there  ought  to  be  one  at  leaft  in  theChri- 

*  flian  Church.     This,  faith  he,  is  enough  to  prove  the  Point  a* 

*  gainft  the  Presbyterians,  and  I  defy  them  if  they  fhall  anfwer  di- 
6  reQly  to  evade  ir.  This  Defiance  of  Mr.  Rhind's  is  the  \ery  pret- 
tied I  ever  heard  of.  Let  the'Presbyterians c  take  along  with  them 
4  what  he  has  faid  above  upoa  this  Head,//W  is,  let  them  grant  that 
f  it  is  an  Impeachment  of  theDivine  Wifdom  to  think  that  God  would 
'  alter  that  Form  of  Government  which  he  had  initialled  among  the 
6  Jews  to  Elhblifh  another  quite  different  from  it  among  the  Chri- 

ftians, 


£>  1  FtniOHiii  S&qJg:,  p.  z. 


Se£L  IF;       Presbyterian  Government:  £% 

IMans,  and  then  it  will  follow  unanfwerably,  that  as  there  was  one 
high  Priefi  in  the  jewifh  Qhurch,  there  ought  to  he  one  at  leasi  in  the 
ChriftianC/^n:/;,  -  That  is,  as  if  he  had  faid,  Pray  ^yon  Presbyterians, 
let  me  hind  your  Hands ,  and  then  Vll  undertake  to  knock  out  four 
Brains.  I -truely  cannot  Imagine  what  Oafs  of  Men  Mr.  P^kind 
wrote  for.  Presbyterians  will  be  lb  far  from  taking  along  with  them 
bis  Aflerdon,  that  they  cannot  otherwife  look  on  it  than  as  a  mod 
rude  Attaque  on  the  Divine  Majefty.  He  goes  on  with  his  reafon- 
ings.     6  I  ask  them,  jaith  he  p.  44,  whether  it  be  juii  to  condemn 

*  the  Order  as  ofelefs  among  Chriftians,  beeaufe  one  is  not  able  to 
1  perform  all  the  Offices  belonging  to  it?     Or  whether  it  be  not 

*  rather  reafonableto  acknowledge,  that  asthere  was  in  the  Jewifh 
L  Church,  one  Ecclefiaftical  Ruler  of  the  higheft  Order,  and  no 
.*  more,  becaufer  one  was  fufEcient;  fo  fhoold  Chriftians  have  one 

*  at  leaftand  as  many  moe  as  are  needfoll?  The  Presbyterians  are 
heartily  content  with  the  Fropofal :  :  For,  they  believe  every  Gof- 
pel  Minifterto  be  an  Ecclefiaftical  Ruler  of  the  highest  Order,'  and 
are  very  well  perf waded  that  one  of  diem  is  need  full  in  every  Con- 
gregation. They  are  fo  far  from  being  againft  multiplying  of  Bi- 
fiwps9  that  where  there  is  one-  in  England,  they  wifh  there  were  three 
hundred.-  'But,  faith  Mr.  Rhind,-!  Let  them  allow  one  Bifhop  for 
6  every  _■  Diftrifly  in  Proportion  to  tbat,:  -to  which  the  High  Prieft's 
6  -Authority  did  extend,-  and  the  Debate  is  at  an  End.  The  Pref- 
byterians  will  be  content  with  this  likewife- upon  two  very  reafon- 
able  Conditions.  i/.Tfhe  can  prove  that  there  is  any  Divine  In- 
{Utution-  appointing  it  to  be  fo.  But  ■  Mr.  '■  Rhind^s  dilating  to-God 
and  thinking  it  reajonableit  {Jjoulci  be  fo,will  not  be  admitted  by  them 
as-a  Proof  of  this.  zL  If  he  can  prove  that  the.  -Ecclefiaftical  Rulers  of 
the  higher!:  Order  in  the  Chriftian  Church  are  appointed  for  the 
fame:  Functions  the  High  Prieft  was  under  the  Law.  The  High 
Prieft,  "that- 1  may  fpeak  in  M.  Dtfte^V  Stile,  was  to  offer  up  the 
National  or  Popular  Sacrifices  for  appropriating  to  the  Jews  only  (whe-» 
ther  by  Birth  or-Profelytifm,-  it  is  the  fame  Thing)  the  Priviledge 
of  the  6Vg#/M??  and  the  :- Patronage -of  the  Supream  Being.  But  in 
all  the.New-Teftament-1  cannot  find,  that  any  fuch  either  Nati- 
onal or  Provincial  Appropriation  -was -ever  defigned  to  be  the  End 
of  any  of  the^unQions  ofany  Gofp'ej  Ruler.  ■  ■  Nay^wefiridallorv- 

the; 


64  Defence  of  the  Chap.  Ih 

the  contrary:  For, by  the  Gofpel  Confutation,  all  thatworfhip  the 
fameSupream  Being  and  in  the  fame  Way  that  he  has  appointed  are 
within  the  Church,  whatever  National  DiitineYions  they  have. 

III.  The  Argument  is  in  it  felf  weak,  and  concludes  nothing  to 
the  Purpofe  in  this  Controverfy,  becaufe  from  the  whole  Strain 
of  the  Scriptures  it  is  plain,  that  the  Aaronick  Priefihood  was  Ty- 
pical,and  had  at  once  both  its  End  and  Accomplifhment  in  Chrift. 
Mr  Rhind  was  aware  of  this  Exception,  and  therefore  EfTays  to  take 
it  of?  by  two  Anfwers.  \ftm  If  the  Conftitution  of  the  Levitical 
Priefihood  was  Subordinate,  the  Chriflian  mufi  be  fo  too,  other  wife  the 
Type  is  not  adequatly  repreftnied  by  the  Antitype  p.  42.  This  the  Pres- 
byterians grant :  For  Chrift  is  the  great  High  Prieft  of  our  Proftffion 
Heb.  3.  1.  And  all  other  Chriftians  area  Royal  P V it ft hood  1  Pet.  2. 
9.  Subordinate  to  him.  But  otherwife,  that  the  O  ders  of  the  Clergy 
among  Chriftians  fhould  be  udjuftedto  thefe  among  the  Jews  is  a  ri- 
diculous Dream  ;  feeing,from  the  one  End  of  the  New  Teftament  to 
the  other,the  Title  o£  Prieft  is  never  given  to  the  Ministers  of  the  Gof- 
pel  as  fuch.  His  2d  Anlwer  is,  '  That  though  thefe  Farts  of  the 
c  Prieftly  Office  which  did  prefigure  the  Sacrifice  and  Interceflion 
6  of  Jefus  Chrift  were  to  ceafe  upon  his  Crucifixion  and  Afcenfion, 
c  yet  that  the  High  Priefi  was  alio  a  Governour  in  the  Jetvifb  Church, 
£  and  that  the  Ordinary  Prieft  had  a  fbare  in  the  Government  with 
'  Him,  though  Subordinate  to  Him',  and  that  the  Levites  wereSub- 
'  fcrvient  to  both.     And  he  is  Confident  that  the  Presbyterians  will 

*  not  affirm  that  the  High  Priefi:  or  Inferior  Prieftsdid  Typify  any 
6  Thing  under  the  Reduplication  of  Ruiers%  or  the  Levites  as 
6  under  them,  or  that  there  was  any  Thing  Typical  in  their  Sub 

*  ordination  as  fuch.  But  this  Anfwer  is  in  all  ics  Parts  unfervice- 
able,  and  in  fame  of  them  quite  Oppofite  to  himlelf.  For  1.  We  have 
already  f  heard  Mr.  DodwM  declareing,That^>  is  tbe'B'tfhops  Prtfiden-  ■ 
cy  not  in  the  Chrifiian  AfTemblies  only,  but  in  their  Sacrifices  which  can 
entitle- to  a  Principle  of  Vnhy.  Therefore  Mr.  Rhind  deftroys  the 
Argument  by  abftracling  from  the  Sacrifices  and  infilling  on  the 
Government y  and  by  considering  the  Jewijh  Church  Officers  not  as 
Pritfls  but  as  Rulers.     2.  If  the  Subordination  as  -fuch  among  the 

Jemfk 


i  See  belorc  Chap.  II.  SsSt.  II. 


esbvtenan 


'Jemjb  Church  Rulers  was  not  Typical,  then  where  is  there  any  Ne« 
ceffity,  by  that  Argument,  for  any  fuch  Subordination  in  the  Chri- 
stian Church  ?  5.  Why  is  he  To  Confident  that  the  Presbyterians  will 
not  affirmjhat  the  High  Prieft  or  Inferior  Priefts  did  typify  any  Thing 
under  the  Reduplication  of.Rulets?  He  owns  he  had  read  the  Presbyte- 
rian Authors  with  ^Scrupulous  Exaffnefs  particular!  y  the  Alt  are  Dama* 
fenum.  Now  the  Author  of  that  Work  exprefly affirms  it  (s).  *  The 
fi  very-  Ewinevcy,  faith  he,  of  the  High  Prieft,  in  which  the  Epifcopal 
<  Writers  place  the  Order  and  Eutaxy  of  that  Government,  was  Typh 

*  cal)     and  frudowed    the    Superemimnt    Dignity  of  our  High  Prieft 

*  above  ail  other  Priefts,  whofe  Priefthood  has  an  Influence  on  all 
1*  the  Faithfull,  and  makes  them  Priefts  and  Paftorsinan  Ethical 
c  though  not  Political  Senfe.  'Tis  then  plain  that  Mr.  Rhind'**  Con* 
tfdtnce  in  this  Point  has  been  much  greater  than  his  Caution.  4.  Seing 
'  under  the  Jemjh  Difpenfation  the  Ordinary  Priefts  had  a  Share  in  the 
Government  with  the  High  Prieft,  Why  did  not  Mr.  Rhind  tell  us 
'■.what  Share  the  Ordsnary  Priefts  in  the  Church  of  England  have  with 
their  Diocejans  or  High  Priefts  in  the  Government  ?  Icannotfind  it, 
No  wonder  truly,  for  the  great  Bacon  Lord  Verulam could  not.  This 
is  one  of  the  Things  wherein,  he  con  fe  fibs,  he  could  never  be-fatis- 
fied,  viz.  the  Sole  Exercife  of  their  Authority.  '*  The  Biflacjp,  fitith 
1  he  C t% giveth  Orders  alone,  excommunicateth^w,  judgeth  alone. 
£  Thisfeems  to  be  a  Thing  Amoilmtho.J  Example'm  Government^  nd 
'  therefore  not  unlikely  to  havecreept  in,in  the  Degenerate  and  Corrupt 
'Times.  Thus  he,  Where  is  then  the  Subordination  in  Govern- 
ment which  Mr.  Rhind  pleads  for? 

IV.  His  Argument,  if  it  conclude  at  all,  concludes  for  an  Univer-     • 
fal  Papacy   rather  than  a  Diocefm  Prelacy.     For  there  was  but  one 
High  Prieft  over  the  Jews,  and  confequently  there  fhould  be  but  one  \         f 
Supream  Bi'fhop  over  the  Christian  Church.     And  indeed  Mr*  Bed-  ] 

veil  has  roundly  afferted,     that  the   Original    Government  of  the  J 

Chiiftian  Church  was  a  Papacy.  That  the  whole  Chnftian  Churches 

I  were 

1 


(s)  aIe.  Darnafc.  p,  140.  Sfd  cum  fanfti  omnesfint  D?o  facerdotes^atinon  ilia  ipfa  EMl^EN- 
Ifft  lummHaceidtmsui  ijua.illiponumOidin.m  Si.  ^Eutaxianv  TYi-.jCA  fuit,  &  SUi  E/&  EivH- 
NEl\  i  EM  -fimmipontificisnoriii  lupta  alios  omnes  liacctdotes  UiGNlTATEM  aflumbrabaf, 
:u;us  facsrdotmminomtKsfidel.es  yafluit,  &  Echicos,  licet  non  poliucos  in  cxteaio  itgfm  tie 
'accidousSc  raitoies  Jtacit  >  CO  Ccxcaui  Confidciatiops  torching  tilt  Ghmeh  oi  £i%lrwd.$i  1 4« 


Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

were  fubjecl:   to  the  Church  at  Jerufalem,  and  that  the  Biihop  of 
Jerufalem  was  the  Principle  oiCathoIick  Unity,  and  that  there  were 
no  other  Bifhops  in    the  World  but  himfelf,  and  that  the  fetling  of 
Bifbops  in  particular  Diocefles  was  an  Aftergame.     This  is  M.  Dod- 
well's  Dotlrine  (v).  And  it  agrees  very  well  with  the  Argument  fror 
thejeivfo  Priefthood.  .  He   indeed  took  Pains  to  prevent  the  Confe- 
quence  that   this  Doctrine  might  feem  to  have  in  Favours  of  th< 
Church  of  Rome,  by  teaching,  as  wt  fhall  hear  afterwards,  that  the 
Government    was  altered  in  the  Second  Century  ;  but  Mr,  Rhind  by 
declaiming  an  Alteration  Inconfiilent  with  the  Wiidom  of  our  Lord, 
has  plainly  betrayed  the  Protefiant  Caufe.    He  fort  fa  w  that  this  Ob- 
jection would  be  made    againft  his  Argument.     Let  us  hear  how  he 
Wards  it  ofc     This  ,  Cavil,  faith  he,  p.  43.  is,  I  confe fs  very  Ylauftble, 
and  our,  Adverfarics  ao  triumph  upon  it  as  unan  fiver able  ;  but  they  do  not 
perhaps  know  whom  they  oblige  by  this.     Well,  pray  who  are  they  ?  Let 
inffilf them,  faith  he,     That  the  Roman  Catholicks  are  no  hfs  fond  of  it 
than  they.  t  But  let  me  tell  Mr.   Rhind,  that  this  is  to  write  not  only 
weakly  but  ridiculouily.  .  When   the   Prelattfts  go  in  to  the  worft 
Part  of  Popery  by  infifting  on  an  Argument  which,  fuppofing  its  So- 
lidity, muft  needs  found  the  Pope\  Supremacy,  muft  not  the  Presby- 
terians, f  who  have  proved   a  hundred  Times,  that  'tis  abfuid  to  in- 
ferr  the  Form  of  Government  in  the  ChriHian  from  that  oft  he  Jewifb 
Church  )  tell  them  lb  much  tor  fear  of  obliging  the  Roman  Catfwlicks  ? 
This  is  a  new  Way  he  has  got  of  turning  the  Chace,  which  may  be 
admired,  but,  I  believe,  will  fcarcely  be  followed  by  any  Wife  Man. 
But  after  all  this,  how  does  he  defend  his  Argument  againft  the  Pa* 
fijis  ?  He  indeed,  referrs  his  Reader  to  the  Authors  who  have  mana- 
ged this  Controverfy  againft  them ;  but  his  own  Defence  isabfoludy 
Naught.  5Tisthisp.4ga  . '  In  fo confined  a  Society  as  was  the  Jew 
6  V/^Church^ny  more  than  one  Officer  of  the  higheftOrder  wasnced- 
6  lefs;  feeing  the  People  could  eafily  repair  to  him,  fiom  the  remoteft 
I  Corners  o^Judea7u$on  all  the  proper  Occafions ;  and  one  was  lbfB?, 

cient 


(v)v  Parxnes.  Se&,  .6  p»  9  Ecclefiw CrhoKey  univerlae,'  pr>mati]t»  sennit  Eriflopss  Hiero- 
fojjraitanus.  Parem  illi^jersuiimijitc-i  tai  it  pomix>-xce«.iph  Hi  rolafymtfani  jgufeus  ia.  jynago- 
sa'sj^axusum  per  otbem  terra  aim  ubi.i  ue-  lfyeiias.  EtujJarcsa.Uiiijutsa  iibivcs«iica^Fei  Chiij' 
ItiauLjm  oibem  umverjiiijv  Pcaukx  K>oma.uus«.j  , 


;Se&  IP\        Presbyterian  Government}        &j 

-?  cient  for  the  Dlfcharge  of  all  the  Duties  of  that  Offece.  But  fince  the 
f  Partition  Wall  is  broken  down,  the  Church  is  become  a  Society  6f 
1  j  fo  large  an  Extent,  that  all  the  Faithfull  cannot  have  Accefs  to  one^ 
\  nor  can  one  ferve  all  the  Purpofes  of  that  Office.  But  why  may  not 
one  ferve  all  the  Puvfofes  of  that  Office,  now,  as  well  as  during  the 
■whotefirft  Century  and  a  Part  of  the  fecond  according  to  M.  DodmllH 
*Tistrue  the  Profeffors  of  Chriftianity  are  more  numerous  now  than 
they  were  tbm:  Yet  not  more  widely  difperfed.  For  if  we  may  believe 
Antiquity,  Chriftianity  got  considerable  footing  in  the  Apoftles  Days 
eren  in  the  Nations  moft  remote  from  ^erufalem  the  Center.  And  ih.it 
S.  Andrew^  Simon  the  Canaanite,  and  as  fome  fay,  S.  Yaul  himfelf 
planted  the  Gofpel  in  Britain.  And  if  the  Bifhop  fitting  at  Jerufalems 
could  be  a  Principle  of  Unity  to  as  then,  why  might  not  the  Bifhop 
of  Rome,  who  is  much  nearer  hand,  be  fo  to  us  now  ?  Let  'Mr-  Rhind 
fatisfie  the  -Roman  Cat holicks,  how,  forlnftance,  all  the  Faithfull  in 
the  Cities  of  London  and  Weftminjier  amounting  to  about  a  Million 
of  Souls,  how  all  the  Faithfull  in  the  reft  of  Middkfex,EJfex  and  Part 
of  Hartford  Shire  on  this  Side  the  Globe,  how  all  the  Faithfull  in 
theiorreign  Englifh  Plantations  on  the  other  Side  the  Globe  anil 
in  both  the  'Indies  can  have  Accefs  to  the  Bifhop  of  London 
their  Diocefan,  or  how  he  can  ferve  all  the  Purpofes  of  that  Of* 
fice  to  them.  Let  Mr.  Rhind,  I  lay,  fatisfie  the  Roman  Catholicks 
in  this;  and  then!  believe^  wiilfind  it  no  hard  Matter  to  fhew 
how  all  the  Faithfull  through  the  World  may  have  Accefs  to  one 
Pope  at  Rome,  and  how  one  Pope  alone  may  ferve  all  the  Purpofes 
of  that  Office  to  theChurch  Univerfal.  'Tis  plain  then  thatMr.  Rhind's 
A?gyment  mu ft  needs  inferr  the  Neceflity  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy. 

V.  His  Argument  is  rejeQed  as  TnfufBcient  by  the  Epfcofd 
Authors  themielves.  It  will  be  enough  toeftablifli  this  from  the 
Mouth    qUwo  Witnefles.    The  firft  is  Bifhop  Btljon  ( x )  f  From 

thefe  fuperior  and  inferior  Degrees,  faith  he,  amongft  the  Priefts 
6  and  Levites  under  M?/^, haply  may  no  neceffary  Cowfeqaence  be 
c  drawn  to  force  the  fame  to  be  obferved  in  the  Church  ofChriiL 
:  Firft,For  that  the  rribeof  Levi  might  not  be  unguided  without  ma- 
J  nifeftConfafion,  and   was  not  fubjeded  to  the  Regiment  of  any 

I  2  other 


£0  Perpetual  Gov.  of. Guilt's  CUu;ch  CLap.  II.  p.  r« 


£g  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II 

^otber  Tribe,  but  had  the  fame  Manner  of  Government  by  hei 
'•  Prince,  Elders,  Judges  and  Officers  over  Thoufands,  Bonders 

*  Fifties  and  Tens.     And  afterward    this  Preeminence  grew  untc 

*  them  according  to  their  Families  by  Inheritance  and  Birthright 
1  The  Father  was  Chief  of.  his  Offspring  whiles  he  lived  and  altei 
'him  his  Eldzft,  which  k  no  Way  mm  able  in. the  Church >of Xhrifi.  Thus 
BUfon.  . 

A  Second  Witnefs  is  the  famous  Stillwgfleet  a  much  greater  Man 
than  Biljon.  He  not  only  afrVts  (y)  but  proves  irrefragably  that  the 
Chriftian. Church  was  formed  not  upon  the  Ten.plt  but  the  .%?#4garj| 
Model/  where  there  was  no  fuch  .  Thing  as  a  Hierarchy,  but  a  R  u^ 
ler  of  the  Synagogue  one  or  moe,  .  with,  a  iJ?imacy\rt  Voint  of  Qu 
der,  but  an. Equality  of  Power  with,  the  reft  of  the  Elders  of  the 
Synagogue.  Mr.  Rhind  then,  ere  his  Argument  can  hurt  the  Pref- 
byterians  muft  both  anfwer  the  Ketjons.  and  refufe  the-  Authority 
of  his  Brethren  and  Fathers,  . 

And  thus  I  have  done  with  this  Argument;  Andcannot'but  wifty 
that  tho-  Epifcopai  Writers  of  the  New  cut  were  fomewhatlefsjieivi/j^' 
given.  They  are  not  content  ,  to  plead  for  a  Jtivijb  Government  in 
the  Church,  but  have  turned  alfo  our  Communion  Tables  into  Altar  s% 
Cur  Ministers  into  Priejh^  .  and  the  Communion  into  a  Fropir/atorj 
Sacrifice;  yea  M.  Dodwell  (3)  has  found  ths -Ancient  Bifhops 
wearing  the  Sacerdotal  Frontlet  in  Imitation  of  the  Jetvijb  Hi^hPriefti 
Yea. he  has  found  -\-  their.Succemon  Hereditary..  W  ho  knows  where 
the  Humor  may  flop?  If  they  go  on  at  the  fame  Rate,  .  'tis  to  be  fea> 
red  they  may  turn  Chriftjanity  intofomewhat  more  than  a  MyQicai 
Ijraelitifm,  and  revive  upon  us  the  old  Controz>erfy}  that  except 
<$>£  be  Gircumcifed^ .    ive  cannot  be  faved.  . 


Cyllr^iiCf.PartJIi  Chap.  yi.   p$  One  Pridthobd  Chap,  hi  Stfyi.  j  ibid' -Sett. 


- 


3 


SqBl.  IF:       Presbyterian  Government; 


A  K  T  I  C  L  E    III.. 

Wherein  Mr.  RKind'i'  Argument  for  the  Nccef- 
{ityof^JiiliitmgVrthcy  from  the  Rules  of 
political  Ptudence  in  Compliance'  with  the 
jews   and   RorMns^  is  ■  examined*     From  P/ 

45-  t0  P*  A9r 


THIS  is  an  Argument  which,  as  Mr.  RhM  has  difcaurfed 
it,  is,  I  dare  affirm,  a  pore  Orginal  Piece  ;  and  that  as  no 
Man  ever  ufed  it  before  him,  fo  no- Man  readily  will  after  him.  The 
Stimm  of  it  is.  The  Jews  were  Zealous  for  their  Hierarchy,  the 
Romans  were  under  a  Monarchy.  A  Parity  of  Officers  or  levelling 
kind  of  Government  (fuch  as  he,  with  equal  Juftice  and  Accu- 
racy, fuppofes  the  Presbyterian  to  be  )  would  have  quite  alienat- 
ed, the  jews  from,  and  raifed  the  jealoufie  of  the  Romans  againd: 
Chriftianity.  Therefore  it  was  not  Confident  with  the  Wifdom  and 
Goodnefs  of  our  Lord  and  the  Infpiration  of  his  Apoflles,  who  became 
ail  Things- to  all  Men,  to  pr  moke  their  Averfion  by  determining  againji 
their  Inclinations  p.  46.-  And  if  they  had  Inftitete  fnch  a  Repub- 
lican Form  as- the-  Presbyter  tart  is,  their  doing  fo  would  have  juf« 
tified  the*  Perfecutions  were  raifed  by  their  Enemies  againft  them. 
*  For, . /aith  kj,  p.  47.  would  they  be  jyftly  blamed,  if,  for  their 
1  own  Security,  they  fhoidd  endeavour  to  Crufh  a  Society  of  fo 
c  dangerous^  Co.nftitution.  And  therefore  /^leaves-  It  to  the  Confi- 
'  deration  ofalf  Wife  and  Impartial  Readers,  whether  it  be  not  a 
Thought  too  unworthy  to  be  entertained  of  Cfoifi  and  his  Apoflles^ 
I  that  They  .fhould  have  given  Qccdfion  to  fo,  re  aj on  able  d.  Jealoufie, 

6  and 


jo  Defence  of  the  Chap  77. 

'  and  expofed  Chriftians  to  Perfecution,  upon  an  Account  a- 
'  bout  which  they  might  have  innocently  agreed  with  Their 
I  Enemies. 

Here  is  indeed  a  mafterfuli  Stroke.  Here  is  Infinite  Wifdom 
limited  and  Infinite  Freedom  confined  in  the  moft  EfTronted  Man- 
ner. All  the  Bufinefs  of  the  SonsofMenistoknow  whatGovern- 
ment  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  aQually  did  eftablifh,  and  upon 
j  finding  that,  to  take  it  upon  Truft  that  it  was  the  very  Reft.  But 
to  prefcribe,  what  Government  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  were  ob- 
liged in  Prudence  to  Eftablifh,  is  Presumptuous  in  the  higheft  De- 
gree. But  waveing  this,  let  us  try  whether  his  PremhTes  will  in- 
ferr  his  Conclusion. 

I.  As  xoxhzjews.     They  were  Zealous  for  their  Hierarchy.  Ergo, 
faith  Mr»  Rhind,  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  inftitute  one  too,becaufe 
it  would  have  been  difobligeing  to  them  to  inftitute  Presbytry.    But 
is  it  not  much  more  reafonable  to  argue  the  quite  contrary  Way, 
■,*vLz>.  That  becaufe  the  Jews  were  Zeaious  for  their  Hierarchy,  there- 
fore Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  did  not  inftitute  one  ;  becaufe  if  they 
had,  it  would  have  exafperated  the  Jews  to  the  greateft  Height, 
and  provoked  them  to  rivile  the  Chriftians  as  Schifmaticks,  yea  to 
curfe  them  as  they  did  the  Samaritans  for  fetting  up  Altar  againft 
Altar  ?  Yes,  this  is  fo  very  obvious  to  common  Senfe,  that  M.  Doi* 
wdMJ)  Himfelf  gives  it  as  the  Reafon,  why  during  the  firft  Times 
of  the  Apoftles    they  did    for  a  while   forbear  the    Setting   any 
Bifhop  up  in  any  confiderable  Superiority  over  his  Brethren.    *  For, 
■e  faith    he,  if  this  Superiority     of    the     Bijbop  were  a  Subftitut- 
6  ing      him     in       the     Place    of  the    High    Priest,     and    the 
'  Multiplying  fuch   Superiors    in    feveral  Cities  were  the  mul- 
c  tiplying  High  Priests  in  feveral  Cities ;  it  plainly    appears  how 
^  this  rouft  have  been  interpreted  by  thofe  who  were  Jewifhly  af- 
c  feezed,  from  the  Principles  already  mentioned.     They  mult  have 
looked  on  fuch  Perfons  as  not  only  Violators  of  their  Law,  but  as 
breakers  of  their  my  $  teal  Union,  andconfequently  obnoxious  to  the 
lC  fameCV/fj  and  Execrations  whichon  the  fame  Account  had  been 
'?  thundered  againft  the  Samaritans.     Thus  he.     Yea,  he  tells   us 

elfe- 


0]  Oac  Prieflhood .  Chap,  IX.  Sett.  7.  p.  .2+8, 


ScSti  IV;        Presbyterian  Government.         ji 

elfewhere  (£),that  Chrid  was  fo  far  from  inftituting  a  Hierarchy, 
that  he  did  not  fo  much  as  intimate  to  his  Difciples  that  ever  any 
Hierarchy,  diftmEl:  from  the  Jervifh  which  already  obtained;  was  to 
be  fet  up;  yea,  that  if  he  had  intimate  any -fuch' Thing,  thcDifci- 
ples  themfelves  had  been  in  Peril  of  Revoking  from  him  on  that 
very  Account.  I  hope  then  we  are  in  no  great  Hazard  from 
the  Jews. 

II.  As  to  the  RomansSTvs  True  they  were  under  Monarchy,  Ergo 
fay  I.'  \mo.  Such  a  Conflitunonin  the  Church  as  made  every  Bi- 
fhop  a  Mananh  in  his  own  City,-  and  raifed  him  to  a  Throne  (  I 
hope  Mr.  Rhind  knows  the  Epifbopd  Stile )  would  have  heighten- 
ed their  Jealoufie  and  "provoked  their  Indignation  againd  the  Chri- 
ftians.  For3  tho3  bur  Lord  difelaimed  all  medling  with  Secular 
'Affairs,  and  at  length  became  invifible,  upon  which  Accounts  the 
Romans,  had  no  ]uf  Reafon  to  be  in  any  vApprehenfion  from' him-' 
felf ;  yet  who  knows  not  that  States  are  Jealous  even  of  the  f mailed 
Appearances?  Was  knot  .-Ch'ri  ft  Y  being  called  Kjn\  of  the  Jews  that 
Rung  Hrod -  fo'Iharply  that  he  fought  to  murder  him  in  his  Cradle? 
Was  it  not  on  the  fame  Pretence  that  PiUt  condemned  him  in  jodg* 
ment,when  hehad  acquitted  him  in  his  Confcience  ?  If  they  were 
thus  jealous  of  a  Monarch  who  owned  His  Kjngdom  not  to  be  of 
this  World,  and  was  ■  fhortly  to  leave  it  ;  would  they  not  have  been 
much  more  fo  if  a  vifible-  Monarch,  Independent  of  'the  State ?had  been 
fet  up  in  every  City  f  And  has  not  the  Event  fhewed  that  they  had 
Md  Reafon  lor  fuch  Jealoufie,  when  Bifhb'ps  in  mod  Kingdoms  have 
madefuch  Ericrcuchmetits  on  the  Civil  Government,  and  theBifhop 
oifRome  has  fet  his  Foot  on  the:  Necls  of  the  greated  Emperours. 
And  does  not'  Mr.  Doiweil  himfelfcorifefs,"  (f)  That  it  was  the  Su- 
premacy of  the  Bifliop  of  Jerufalem,  upon  whom,  as  he  fancies,  all 
the  Chriftiaff  Churches  through  the  World  did  depend,that  provoked 
the  Gentiles  to  Rage  fo  much  io  Peifecution  againd  that  Church^ 
that  the*  Head  "-being  once  lopt  oHy'Chridianity  might  be  ruined  at 
oace..-2flfo.  Ha  BnUUcd  Form of  Government  would  have  any  Way 

recom- 


rbi'Parsen-s.  vSetft,  t^.p,  <(&.%  [cJ^Patasnes.  Sc&,'-i6l  p..  62.-  Sufpicor;^oc-''fine:acleo  in 
StcStfiam-  Hie.oisl^uicasami.visReGcatk'es.ii^aapite  fablattvrcs  CntiUiam&niveikuiia^coa- 


72  Defence  of  the  Chap.  1L 

recommended  the  Chriflian  Churdhto  the  Favour  of  fecular  Prin- 
ces, or  even  alleviate  their  Spite  againft  Her,  Is  it  not  itrange  that 
pone  of  the  Apologists  for  Chrifiianity  ever  infiftedon  thatTopick? 
Is  it  not  ftrange  that  the  younger  Pliny,  (d)  who  gave  the  Emper- 
our  fo  Difcreet  an  Account  of  the  Chriftians,    never  mentioned 
how  well  their  Government  was  fuited  to  that  ofthe  Empire?  yo% 
Why  fhould  Mr.   Rbind  Imagine  that  a  Parity  of  Officers  would  ap- 
pear any  uncouth  Thing  xothz  Romans:  'For,  had  they  notaCouple 
of  Conjuls  of  equal  Dignity  chofen  annually  ?  Nay,  did  it  not  fhort- 
ly  after  this  grow  in  ufe  to  have  a  Couple  of  Emperours  (   fome- 
times  aioe  )  reigning  vvith  confent,  jEquo  Ju?e  as  Eutropious  {e)  ex- 
prelles  it.     Solar  were  they  from  having  an  ill  Opinion  of  Parity. 
/\to.  Does  not      i.  Rbind  know  that  molt  of  all  the  brave  Spirits 
among  the  Romans  m  the  A  pottles  Days  fecrerly  groaned  under 
the  imperial  Chains;  impatiently  longed  for, and  fometimes  brave- 
ly attempted  the  Recovery  of  their  ancieni  Liberties  and  Govern- 
ment?    Does  he  not  know  that  upon. the  Death  of  Caligula  the 
Senate    decreed  that  the  Memory  of  the  Ce/ars  fhould    be  exsjn- 
guifhed,  and  the  Temples  built  to  their  Honour  threw  n  down,  and 
that,  by  the  Tribune  of  the  People  they   Difcharged  Claudius,  who 
had  been  fainted  Emperour  by  the  Army,  toenteron  the  AdminU 
ftration,though  indeed  they  were  at  laft  overpowered  by  a  military 
Force?  If  therefore  we  were  to  reafon  on  fuch  Common  Place  Ar- 
guments, 'tis  plain  that  a  Monarchical  Form  of  Government  in  the 
Church  would    have  moft  excited  the  Jealoufie  of  the  Prince  \m& 
that  a  Republican  Form  would  have  gained  her  moft  Profelyts  a- 
mong  the  People. 

But,  faith  Mr.  Rhind  p.  48,  we  do  not  find  that  ever  their  Perfe- 
cutors  did  charge  it  upon  them  as  a  Crime,  that  the  Church  was  of  a 
Republican  Con/tit  utwn.  True  indeed  they  did  not :  For  they  knew 
that  the  Chriftians  owned  Chrift  as  their  Head  and  King,  and 
on  that  Account  miireprefented  them  as  Rebells  and  Seditious 
Perfons,  and  railed  Persecution  againft  Them.  Judges  (  iaith 
Suetov  )  (f)  Impuijore  Chrefto  ajfidue-  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit. 

But 


«I.IF««.II.<IH)  '  ' 


frfj  Eg,  97.  Lib.  x.    (e)  Breviar.  Lib.  viii.     (f)  lu  ohud.  Cap.  xxy« 


Se£t  V»        Presbyterian  Government!         75 

But  I  have  infixed  too  long  againfl:  an  Argument  the  moll:  Mag- 
gotifh  was  ever  bred  in  the  Head  of  a  Liveing  Creature. T  doubt 
not  but  the  Reader  is  Curious  to  know  what  could  put  him  upon 
it.  The  Difcovery  of  this  is  no  hard  Matter.  \mo.  It  was  even 
pure  Love  to  the  French  King,  that  he  might  Juftifie  Him  in  all 
his  Barbarous  Ufage  of  his  Proteftwt  Subpcls.  Who  could  have 
blamed  the  Roman  Emperours,  if,  foe  their  own  Security  they  had 
crufhed  the  Christian  Churcb?  in  Cafe  her  Government  had  been 
Presbytry?  This  is  his  DocJrine  \  and  is  not  the  Vfe  of  it  very  obvi- 
ous, viz.  The  Government  of  the  French  Proteftant  Churches  was 
Presbytry;  who  then  can  blame  His  mofi  ChriftUn  Majefiy  for  Crufh- 
ing  a  Society  of  fo  dangerous  a  Conftitution  ?  2.&0.  It  was  to  teach 
•ur  own  Princes  at  Home  how  they  are  in  <all  Time  coming  to 
treat  us.  We  are  Presbyterians,,  and  Presbytry  alone,  is  a  reafonable 
Ground  of  Jealoufie  and  i  ufl:  Caufe  dip  erf  edition.  Thus  Mercifull 
and  Gofpel-Uke  is  the  PreUtkk  Spirit.    But  I  go  on. 


E  C  T.     V 

Wherein  Mr  R  hinder  Proofs  for  evincing  that 
Prelacy  a&ually  was  inftituted,  are  examined* 
From  Pf  50.  to  P    1  T$f 


H.  Rhind  p.  40.  falls  a   Haranguing  with  a  very  difdainfull 
Air,  which  yet  becomes  a  High- Flyer  admirably  well.   *  A 

*  Government,  faith  k,  conftituteby  a  Subordination  of  Rulers  is 

*  aQually  approven  of  by  God,  and  this  he  has  fo  fully  noiified  in  his 

*  Word,  that  to  prove  it,  I  am  not  put  to  the  wretched  Shift  of  ob- 
Vtfuding  upon  my  Readers  an$  remote  Conferences  fetched  from 


K  two 


Defence  of  the  Chap.  11. 


: 


'"two  or  three  controverted  Texts,  as  the  Adverfaries  in  this  Cafe 
€  are  obliged  to  do.  7Tis  very  true  that  a  Hierarchy  under  the  Jew- 
ijb  Difpenfation  was  both  inftitute  and  approven  of  by  God  :  And 
how  very  ferviceable  to  the  Caufe  of  Prelacy  this  is,  I  believe 
the  Reader  is  by  this  Time  fufficiently  convinced.  But  now  he 
refolves  to  rally  his  Forces  and  attempts  to  prove  the  Aft ual  In  flit u* 
tio'n  of  Prelacy  by  fix  Arguments,  the  firli  tour  whereof  are  preten- 
ded to  be  fetched  from  the  Scripture.  And  no  doobt  his  Readet  is  in 
great  Expectation :  For,  after  rhe  Harangue  you  have  heard,  would 
mot  a  modelt'-.  Perion  be  tempted  to  think,  that  Prekcy  were  fo  le- 
gible in  the  Bible,  that  one  needed  only  open  his  Eyes  10  find  it 
there?  And  yet  'tis  Mathematically  certain  it  is  not  there.  How  Ma*, 
pjsmatically  you'll  fay  ?  Why  the  Incomparable  Mr.  D }odm //,  who 
hks  ftated  trie  Controverfie  fairly,  whofe  Authorities  are  Pertinent 
and  juftlyalledged;  and  whole  Deductions  from  them,  and  all  his 
other Reafonings  do  proceed  in  a  A^/;r^'^/Chain,has frankly  own-; 
ed  (g)  it  is  not  there.  Plainly,  that  Prodigy  of  Learning  has  acknow. 
ledged,     That  *  it  is  not  needful  that  the    Form   of  Government 

*  to  be  now  obferved,  fhould  have  been  delivered  in  the  Canonical 
6  Scriptures  ;  That  there  is  no  Place  oidiem  which  openly  profelfes 
e  that;  That  there  is  none  oi  the  Sacred  Writers  treat  of  Church  Go- 

*  vernment  on  Defign.  Nay  hat  ih^  Holy  Ghoft  has  never  defenbed 
s  any  one  Form  of  Government  that  was  to  take  Place  every  where 
&  and  at  all  Times.  Mr .Rhivd's  Attempt  then  was  too  hardy,  and 
lie  was  too  defperate  -  to  undertake  that  which  the  ableft  Champion 
Prelacy  ever  had  owns  to  be  impoflible  ;o  be  done.  And  now  I  come 
in  fo  many  Articles  to  examine  his  Proofs,  and  5nsa  Lucky  Prefage  that 
they  will  not  be  very  dangerous;feemg  We  are  fure  neither  to  beop- 

preffed 

(g)  Tarauies.  Ject.    14.  :\  57.  Opus  noneftirt  ftginv'nisTVcJcflaiHci  jb«:ma  Kodieobfenan* 
(3a.traJita  .  t'ue-.ic  in  fcriptuns  canonic  s.-,,..  .  Nullos  emm  tti  o<r  wi  jnefierafurapcrtt  iacri  fen'^jj 
tons  locus.  <£ttiz  tfurdtrm  tfllifsqni  itadcrcgimin.:..,  asafiJEccbffafticQ  -fasti  fd  voiaf  ec  sa'ptofy 
aut5'c:ipto;i3  Audror  .iVpu-uvs  (andus.,  u    ton  ram  (jnaiij    llfe1»am~  RcgJHxitus  iibkjue  6^  ii,  012  ne 
cySvaundur^u  jfdticr^i-rc,  r^Nu%u;i]p<  icripto^sJicfliattS  ^jpr^ifc  tfid'Jci\iin  s,uz<^a  ileuta  t\^;   » 
-.erit  in  Rioinr'ne  £cc3ciia»\m  n-i,,a-''o  cumprim jn/dif&di&erii  a  lynagtffatti.TiConm)  unous.-  £'ccle-< 
fc. .  NaK]«?.ni;  latis  apent  (\mnzftm  Sohii- ttnectjortf  &eii  fpfit*.Si«dipc-donaiibii3;  qi^oient  |  | 
vicitfim  locis  &officiis.\iilq  jam  .OfTklarios  extiaQ^diuasws'qia  ilo  igio  lIwLq  &i\urt  mbiinw    -, 
«MCjBt,ab  prda44i3: ii;is:acci*ate,/tcexuunt^,-- 


Se&  V.         Presbyterian  Government:        75 

- 

prefTed  with  M,  Dodwellh  Authority*  nor  ftraitned  with  his  Reafo* 
nings,  but  on  the  contrary  will  find  him  frequently  helping  us  t| 
aniwer  ^A,Rbind. 


11    iWHWBWOTBgBWWariWl,^ 


ARTICLE    I. 

Whefein  Mr.  RhindV  Proof  for  the  Infiitution  of 
Prelacy  from  its  obtaining  in  the  Days  qf 
Chrift^  is* Examined.     From  P,  50.  to  P.  6m 


R  RhM  in  Difcourfing  this  Proof  proceeds  in  the  following 
Method.     I.  He  attempts  to  reafon  his  Reader  into  a  Be- 
lief that  Chrift  as  Monarch  of  the  Church  behoved  to  inftituteO/^ 

fleers  of    different  Orders  under  Himfelf,  by    Which   W6    muM   either 

fuppofe  him  to  mean  Prelacy,  or  elfe  his  Argument  concludes  no- 
thing agaiofl:  the  Presbyterians.  II.  He  adduces  the  InMance  of 
the  Twelve  Apoftles  Subordinate  toChriit?and  the  Seventy  Difciples 
inferior  to  them  in  the  Government  of  the  Church.  III.  He  la- 
bours wirh  great  Indoftry  to  prove  that  the  Text  Matth.  20.  25. 
The  Vrimes  of  the  Gentiles  exercije  Dominion  &c  with  its  Parallels 
carries  in  it  no  Insinuation  in  iavour  of  Presbyterian  Government ; 
and  that  much  kfs  emits  Inflitution  be  inferred  from  it.  All  this  I 
Jball  examine  in  Order. 

I.  He  attempts  to  reafon  us  into  a  Belief  that  Chrift  as  Monarch 
of  the  Church  behoved  to  iaftkute  Prelacy.  This  he  does  by 
asking  two  Qpettions.  Firft,  asks  he,  After  what  manner  was  the 
Church  Govermd  in  the  Days  of  Chnfl  ?  £  anfwer,  after  no  Manner 
ft  all.    I  doubt  not  bat  this  Aafwer  will  furgrize  him3  but  I  am 

K  2  fure 


j4  Defence  of  the  GBap.  //. 

fure  to  convince  him  'tis  a  good  one.  Hear  M.  Sage(h)  6  It  is  ob'vi- 

'  oufly  obfervable  in  the  Evangelical  Records  that  the  Chriftian: 
6  Church  was  not,could  not  be  founded  till  our  Lord  Was  rifen,  fee- 
*  ing  it  was  to  be  founded  on  his  Refurreetion.  Is  not  this  plain 
Senfe  and  Truth  too?  and  if  the  Chriftan  Church  had  no  Being 
before  Chrift's  Refurreetion,  then  certainly7  no  Government ;  -ifn» 
Government,  then  certainly  not  PreUttcd  Government,  and  confe- 
quently  M.  Rhtndh  Argument  is  loft  to  all  Indents  and  Purpofes. 
3  lis  clear  asLtghr,  that  fuch  a&lifted  themfelves  with  Chrift  in  the 
Days  of  his  Flefh  were  under  no  diftincl  Government  but  that  of  j 
ths-Jewifb  Church  with  which  they  were  ftill  incorporate,  and  from  i 
which,  as  we  have  already  proved,  no  Con feq<je nee  can  be  drawn 
for  the  Nature  of  the  Cbfifiii*  Government.  'Tis  Plain  then  that  all 
further  Confideration  both  of  M.  RhincC%  Reajonings  and  Infiance 
are  utterly  Needlefs. . 

But  fhort  Anfwers  cut  one's  Houghs,  and  are  apt  to  be  very  pro- 
voking. Wherefore,  that  his  Harrangue  may  not  be  loft,  I  fhall 
anfwer  his  Queftion  accordmg-  to  hrs  Heart's.  Wifb  -  viz.  That 
Our  B 'h -fi 4  Lord  him f elf  was  itsjole  Kjng  and  Head,  And  if  this  will 
content  iiim  for  making  the  Government  of  the  Churcii  Monar- 
chical, I  dare  promife.him  no  Presbyterian  will  contradict  him. 
But  then,  upon  his-  Conceflion,  be  has  a  fecond  Queftion  to  a:>k. 

Was  there  ever  a  Government  of  a  Monarchical  Conftitution, 
€  where,  the  Monarch  did  not,  yea  behoved  not  to  derive  of  his 
e  Authority  in  an  orderly  Gradation  upon  feveral  Subordinate  Mini- 
f  ften>?  You  fee  here  good  .Reader  M.  Rhinos  Modefty,  But 
was  Chrift  under  the  lame  Necefliry  with  other  Monarchs  ? 
O  yes,  Shall  we  Juppofe,  faith  he,  that  he  who  is  Kjng  in  T^xonjball  do 
©therwife  in  His  Churchy  than  all  wife  Princes  have  ever  done  in  their 
Kjngdoms  ?  So  now  you  have  Mr.  Rhind\  Heart.  Chrift,  the 
Wifdqmof  God -mull  rake  -his  Meafures  from,  the  wife  Princes  of  the 
Earth.  But  what  though  all.  this  .were  True;- that  not  only  all 
the  wtfe  Princes  ot  the  Earth,  but  tvencur  lord  Himlelf  not  only 
had,  but  .behoved  to  derive  of  their  Authority  in  an  orderly  GradA* 
tiop,  upon  feveral  Subordinate  Officers  \  and  that  a  Parity  of  Rates 

under 


&)  Vi»d.  of  the  Pi-ai.  of  .the  Cypr.  Age  Chap.  VI.   Se&.    f. 


Sfed/  VL         Presbyterian  Government.         jj 

under  a  Monarch  would  make  a  Monftrous^  and  in  it  felf  a  Coniradi- 
Bioui  Conftitution,  how  would  thisaffeft  the  Presbyterians?  For  tho* 
they  deny,  that  Chrift  while  on  Earth  inftitute  a  Subordination  of 
Officers,znd  have  a  very  good  Reafon  for  it,  as  we  fhali  juft  now  hear  s 
yet  -they  both  plead  for  and  a&ually    exercife  a  Government  by 
Subordinate  Officers*.  And  I  hope  'tis  very  eafie  to  conceive  how 
a  Thing  may  be  not  only  of  Scripture  in    the  General,  but  even  of 
New  Testament  Inftituuon,  which  yet  was  not  Inftitute  by  Chrift 
while  he-  was   upon   Earth.    'Tis  then  evident  that  Mr.  Rhind's 
Keafoning,  fuppofe  it  had  no  other  Faults,  yet  imports  nothing  a-* 
gainft  the- -Presbyterians. 

Bur,  if  .Mr.  RMnd  pleafe,  let  us  abftract  from    what  Chrift  he* 

h&ved  to  dry  and  consider  •  what  he  did.'  I  affirm  that  while  he 

was  upon  Earth  he  was  fo  far  from  Inftituteing  Subordinate  Pa- 

ftors,  that  he  did  not  fo  much  as  inftitute  Subordinate  Officers*  And 

this- brings  me  to   Mr.  RMndh  Inftance.' 

IL  He  adduces  the  Inftance  of  the  Twelve  Apofties  Subordinate: 
to- Chrift /and  the  Seventy  Difciple's  Inferior  ro  them  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  'Tis  needkfs  tofpend  Words  on  it.  Let 
us  (ee  if  the  ,EpiJ  copal  Authors  have  not  fitted  him  with  an  Anf- 
wer. 

The  fir  ft  is  Dr.  Wfntby  a  late  frefft  Writer. '  «  Whereas,  faith 
i  he,  (ij  fome  compare  the  Bifhops  to  the  Apofties,  the  Seventy  to 
4  the  -Presbyters  of  the  Church  [  and  thence  conclude  that  divers 
4  Orders    in  the  Miniftry   were  inftituted  by  Chrift  Himfelf.     ft 

*  mail:  be  granted  that  the   Ancients  did  believe  thefe  two  ro  be 
/  divers  Orde-Sj  and  that    thofe    of    the    Seventy    were  Inferior 

*  to  the  Order  of  the  Apofties;  and  fometimes  they  make  the  Com- 

*  'panfon  here  mentioned  :  bm  then  it  muft  be  alfo  granted,  that 
f  this  Compact  [on  will  not  fir  icily  hold;  for  the  Seventy  received  not 

*  their  Miftiori  as  Presbyters  do  from  Bifhops,  but  immediatly  from 

*  the  Lord  Chnli,  as  well  as  the  Apofties;  and  in  their  firft  Mif- 

*  lion  were  plainly  lent   on  the  fame  Errand  and  with  the  fame  Pow<* 
f/>'  Thus  Or.  Whitby.  ■'■ 

*  The  Second  is  M.  Sage.    «  Our  Martyr  Cyprian,  faith  he3(k)   C&§ 

1  appears  ' 


fij  _ A.nnoc.  on  Luxe- 1 ©,  i .    £kj  Jfcya.  -ubi  fop ra  i 


jS  Defence  of  the  Chap."  IT: 

c  appears  from  bis  Reafonings  on  divers  Occafions  )  feems  very 

well  to  have  known,  and  very  diftinclly  to  have  obferved,  that 

v    the  Apoftles  themf elves  got  not  their  Lommiffion  to  be  Govemours 

of  the  Chrifiian  Church  till  after  the  Refurreftion.     And  no  wonder, 

for  this  their   Com  million  is  moft  obfervably  recorded  John  20. 

21.  22.  23-     No  inch  Thing  anywhere  recorded  concerning  -he 

Seventy.     Nothing  more certain,than  that  that  CommifTion  which 

e  is  recorded   Luke  10.  did  conftitute   them  only  temporary  Mif- 

-*  fion'ariesand  that  for  an  Errand  which  could  not  poflibly   be  more 

1  than  temporary .  That  Commiffion  contains  in  its ow n  Bof -m  clear 

c  Evidences, that  it  did  not  inftal  them  in  any   (landing  Office  at 

6  all,  much  leis  in  any  ftanding  Office  in    the  (  hnftian  Church, 

*  which  was  not  yet  in  Being  when  thty  got  it.     Could  that  Commiffion 
i€  which  is  recorded  Luke  10.  any  more  conftitute  the  LXX  ftand- 

*  ing  Officers  ot  the  Chriftian  Church,  than  the  like  Commiffion 

*  recorded  Math.  10.  could  conftitute  the  Twelve  fuch  ftanding 
?  Officers?  But  it  is  Manifeft,  that  the  Commiffion  recorded 
g  Matth.  10. did  not  conftitute  the  Twelve Governoursof  theChri- 
-e  ftian  Church ;  other  wife  what  need  of  a  new  Commiffion  to  that 
6  Purpofe  after  the  Refurrection  ?  Prefumable  therefore  it  is  that 
c  S.  Cyprian  did  not  at  all  believe    that  the  Seventy   had  any  Suc- 

*  ceffors,  Office  Bearers  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  feeing  it  is  fo 
c  obfervable  that  they  themj elves  received  no  Commiffion  to  be  fuch  Of 
t  fee  Bearers.  Thus  M.  Sage,  And  what  now  is  become  of  the 
Qrderly  Gradation.  The  Apoftles  themfelves  were  not  conftitute 
Governing  Officers  before  Chrift's  Refur  reel  ion,  How  then  could 
the  Seventy  be  inferior  to  them  in  the  Government  of  ths 
Church  ? 

And  thus  now  we  have  heard  Mr.  Rhintfs  whole  Proof  of  the 
obtaining  of  Prelacy  in  the  DaysofChrift;  For  not  onelnftanceor 
Declaration  mo'e  has  he  for  this  Purpofe.  Yea  indeed  he  is  fo  ingenu- 
ous p.  5$.  as  to  difclaim  a  pofitive  Inftitution  ;  and  only  pleads  p. 
6 1.  that  the  Subordination,  which  obtained  among  the  Twelve  A- 
poilles  and  Seventy  Difciples,  declares  what  Form  of  Government 
thrift  liked  beft,  and  confequently  is  a  Precedent  Equivalent  to  an 
In  dilution.  And  We  have  heard  that  there  was  no  iuch-  Subonii- 
vj>Awn}  and  that  therefore  it  can  be  no  Precedent, 

But 


Sc&l  V*  Presbyterian  Government]         79 

But  Mr.  Rhind  isrefolved  to  he  equal  with  the  Presbyterians,  and 
to  make  it  good  that  there  is  no pfitiveln&ituuonot Parity  in  the  Four 
Gofpels,> 

III.  He  labours  with  great  Induftry  to  prove  that  the  Text  Matth. 
20.  25.  *  The  Princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercife  Dominion  &c  with  its 
€  *  Parallels  y  carries    in  it  no  Insinuation  in  Favour  of  Presbyterian  Go- 
1  vernment ;  and  that  much  lefs  can  its  Inftitutiori  be  inferred  from 
it.  For  my  own  Part,  J  cannot  find    any    one  Presbyterian  Author 
that  ever  infixed  on  the  faid  Text  for  a  Fojitive  Institution  ofPresby-" 
try,  but  they  urge  it  as  an  exprefs  Interdiction  of  Prelacy-  and  from"1 
thence  in  Conjunction  with  other  Scripture  Warrants  inferr,  that, 
by  Scripture  Initiation,  the  Government  of  the  Church  fhould  be 
Presbyterian* .  But  by  no  means  will  Mr."  Rhino,  allow  that  the  faid  : 
Text  has  the  lealVAfpefl:  that  Way  \  and  he  afHims  p.  5  5.  That  the-- 
Intent  of  it  is  to  correct  the  Difciples  Mi  flake  concerning  the  'Temporal 
Kjngdom  of  the  MeHIas^zW  to  warn  them  against  Pride  and  Tyra?.y,  but 
not  at  all  to  forbid  a  Subordination  of  Officers ?  Payors ,:,'be  ftiduldhave  '■ 
faid.     Now  that  I  may  do  Mr.  /U/Wjuftice,  I  (hall  con fider  every 
Thing  he  has  advanced  for  wrehVmg  this  Text  out  of  the  Preshy* 
t&riarPs  Hands.  • 

1.  Itfeems,  laith  he  p.  53 ,  to favour  an 'Equality,  but  he  it  known  to  jots. 
Others  have  madeufe  of  it  with  much  more  reafon  to  prove  a  Preeminence. 
The  Reader,  no  doubt,  will  be  in  Pain  to  know  whothefectf^i  may 
be.  Plainly  'tis  BelUrmin,  who  from  thence  attempts  to  prove  the 
PflpeY  Supremacy;  with  as  much  Reafon  no  Doubt,  as  he  does  the 
Lawfulnefsof  denying  the  Cupto  the  Laity  from'thefe  Words  Drink 
ye:all  of  it, ' 

2.-'  There  are  no  other  Texts,  faith  he  ibid,  in  the  four  Go fpels  which  ths 
Presbyterians^,  .  that  I  can  remember,  fo much  as alkdge to  this  Purpofe* "« 
■  But  here  his  Memory  has  failed  him  :  For  if  hehadconfuited  Didocla- 
vmsovSitttiftgfleet  'f- 'he  might  have  found  another  Text,  viz.  Matth. 
18.  1  yTell  -he  Church,  ■  which  the  Presbyterians  iniiit  on  to  the  fame 
Furpofe  with  the  former.  . 

3.  6  The  learned  eft  ^horsofrhat  Perfwafion,/«7A  hep.  54.  ean- 
l  didly  own,  that  the  Equality  which  they  contend  for  cannot  be  - 

6  in>;- 


•j  41c.-DAaus;  Caf.'-IV.  j».  j^.,— Irenic.1  ParcJ --IL  Chaf.*.ys 


8a  Defence  of  the  Chap  IL 

*  ferred  from  this  Place.  Well,  who  are  thefe  learnedest  Authors  ?  He 
inftancesM.  Pool.  But  why  does  he  mention  him?  Heanfwers, 
'  becaufeheis  of  fo great  Authority  with  them  at  this  lime.  Wei], 
(hall  the  Presbyterians  confult  him  ?  By  all  means,  and  faith  he,  c  they 

*  will  be  convinced  that  I  have  done  him  no  Injuftice.  But  what 
Book  of  his  fhall  they  confult?  The  Annotations,  faith  he,  which 
fafs  under  his  Name*  Now,  good  Reader,  M.Pool  was  Dead  and 
Rotten  ere  the(e  Annotations  were  written.  Plainly  it  w^s  Dr.  Collins 
wrote  them,  who  was  indeed  a  Dijfenter,  though  I  have  not  yet 
heard  whether  he  was  a  Presbyterian.  But  whatever  he  was,  he  was 
very  much  interior  in  Abilities  to  M.  Vool.  Are  not  Presbyterians  now 
mightily  fhaitned  -Mth  M.  PooPs  Authority. 

4.  They  are  tbeleffer  Presbyterian  ^«f/?0r.*,faithheibid.  by  whom  it  is  \ 
fiilUnjzfteden.     lam  truly  lorry  that  Mr.  R/j/W  fhould  fo  frequently 
(hew  himfelf  unacquainted  with  the  Writers  on  bothSides,after  he  had 
told  he  had  read  them  with  a  Scrupulous  Exaclnejs;  or  which  is  much 
worie,  that  he  fhould  fo  often  bid  Defiance  to  the  Sincerity  which 
the  Nature  ofhisCompofure  required*  Caivin,heza,Chamier,    Cart* 
tvright,  Didoclavius,  Turr-etine,  the  Belgick,  the Englijb,  Diodatfs  An- 
notations do  all  of  them,     befides  Scores  of  others,  a  (Ten  that  not 
only  the  tyrrannical  Exercife,hut  a  Dominion qv  Prelacy  it ielf  is  thereby 
forbidden  to  the  Pallors  of  the  Church.     Were  thefethe  lefir  Au~ 
thors?  But  why  do  I  mention  them?  The  English  Divines  thcm- 
felves  from  that  very  Text  prove  the  Pope's  Supremacy  to  be  un- 
Jawfull  by  what  humble  Methods  foever  attam'd  to,  or  wirh  what 
Moderation  foever  exerced.     And  how  the  Pope's  Supremacy  fhould 
be  unlawfull  by  Vertue  of  that  Text,   and  yet  the  Supremacy  of 
the  Primate  of  all  England,  who  is  alter-ius  Orbis  Pap*,  not  be  fo ; 
.it  will  be  hard  to  give  a  Reafon,  except  that  which  the  Lord  Falk* 
land  in  his  forementioned  Speech  has  fuggefted     viz.  That  they  op* 
pofethe  Papacy  beyond  Sea,  that  they  mayfettltone    beyond  tb»   Water. 
Hear  Dr.  Wlmaker.    It  is  not,  faith  he,  (J)  Humility  in  the  Domi- 
nation  that  is  required,  but  the  very  Domination  it  f elf  that  is  forbidden. 
And  then  goes  on    anfweting  the   Ctiticifms   advanced  by   Mr. 
Jihindy  but  whereof  Bellarmin  was  the  true  Father.     The  Church 

of 


£/]  De  Poncif-.  Queft.  I.  Cap.  j.  St&.  r„ 


Se&.  V*         Presbyterian  Government 3        8i 

of  England  Divines^  to  give  them  their  Due,  have  oftimes    made 
a  Noble  Stand  againft  the  Church  of  Rome.     No  wonder,  They 
had  both  Truth  on  their  Side,  and  confiderable  Dignities  to    lofe 
in  cafe  they  got  the  Worfe.    But  of  all  Men  in  the  World  they 
are  the  mod  to  be  pityed  when  they  have  to  Difpute  again  ft  the 
Presbyterians,  for:  the  very  fame  Arguments  wherewith  they  defeat- 
ed the  Romanics,  with  the  very  fame  Presbyterians  defeat  them  $ 
whereby  they  make  the  exac"l  Moral  of  the  Goofe  in  the  Fable  which 
was  wounded  with  an  Arrow  feathered  from  her  own  Wing.  5.  The 
Original  Word,  faith  he  p.  56.  which  our  Tanjlators  have  rendered  To 
exercife  Authority  (  Dominion  he  ihould  have  faid  )  does  properly 
fignifie  fuch  an  exercife  of  it  as  is  Tyrannical-,  which  he  endeavours 
10  prove  Fir@  from  Beza,  Secondly  from  the  Se^tuagint,  Thirdly  from 
S.  "Lake  Acts  19.  16.  which,  faith  he,  is  the  only  other  Place  where  it 
oceans  in  ail  the  New  Tejlament,  and  certainly  implies  Violence  and 
Tyranny ',  being  ufed  to  fignifie  how  the  Domoniack  overcame  the  Sons 
of  Sceva.     Now  let  us  examine  this.    In  the  First  Place,  BczajOn. 
that  Place,  is  not  Criticizing  on  the  Word,  or  telling  what  it  na- 
turally imports,  but  is  Deicribingthe  aclual  Practice  of  the  Princes 
of  the  Gentiles.  And  exprefly  faies  (mj  c  That  our  Lord  there  dehorts 
'  that  none  amongft  the  Minifters  of  his  Word  feek  Preeminence 
and  Power.     Secondly,  As  for  the  Sept uagint,  he  has  produced  no 
Place  where  they  take  the  Word  in  fuch  an  ///  Senfe.     'Tis  none 
of  my  Bufinefs  therefore  to  confider  where  they  do  fo;  but  this 
is  certain  that  they  frequently  ufe  it  in  a  good  Senfe.    For  Inftance 
I  \Gen.  1.  28.  Have  Dominion  over  the  Fijbes  of  the  Sea,     Pfal.  72.  8. 
\  [He  fiall  have  Dominion  from  Sea  to  Sea.     Pfal.  no.  2.  Rule  thou  in 
'  \in  the  Midft  of  thine  Enemies.     In  all  thofe  Places  the  Greek  Word 
ufed  by  Them  is  the  fame  with  that  in   the  Text.     But  will  any 
Body  fay  that  Adam\  Solomon's  or  ChriJPs  Dominion  was  to  be  Ty- 
rannical. Thirdly,  Is  that  Place  Aols  10.  16.  which  relates  the  De- 
"  jmoniack's  overcoming  the  Sons  of  Sceva  the  only  other  Place  in  all 
the  NewTeftament  where  the  Original  Word  is  ufed?     I  wifh 
;;|fome  Body  had  helped  Mr.  Rhind  to  &  Greek  Concordance.    Foe 

L  1  Peter 


m    Locum. 


[m]    Exliortatur  ne  tjqis   inter  MiniftrcS'  Verbi  fui  quxrac    Piascellentiam  ec  l'oteitaceai.    S."Z-.i 

mm- 


th  Defence  of  the  Ghhp.  1L 

i.  Peter  §;.^  where  Minifters  are  forbidden  to  carry  a*  Loth  over 
God°s  Heritage  the  Original  Word  is  the  fame.  Thus  you  fee 
all:  this  Criticifm  is  quite  loft. .  But  why  did  not  Mr.  /M/W,when 
he  was  in  the  Criticizing  Vein,  obferve,  that  though  the  compound 
Verb  which  Matthew  and  Mark  ufe  fignifk  fometimes  VioUnce  and 
Tyranny,  yet.  that  LA  in  the  Parallel  Place  ufed  the  fimple  Verb, 
which,  however  it  may  be  fometimes  applyed,yet  in  its  own  Nature 
ligniflesonly  Dominion  without  the  Superaddition  of  Tyranny  ox  Viol- 
ence, Why,  I  fay, did  not  Mr.  Rbind  obferve  this  ?  The  Reafon  is 
Plain,  it  would  have  made  aginft  him  and  quite  fpoiled  his  Argu- 
ment; and.  why  fhould  a  Man  harm  himfelf? 

6.  He  endeavours  to  make  good  his  Glofs  on  the  Text  by  Cri- 
ticizing  on  the  Word  Euergetes  which  our  Tranflators  render  Bene- 
factors.    *  If,  faith  he  p.  57,  iheteGentile  Princes,  whom  their  mean 
'  "Flatterers  firnamed   Euergetes,  were  fome  of  them  Guilty  of  Viol- 
c  ence',  then  doubtlefs  the  Authority,  which  wasexercifed  by  thofe 
4  who  were  fo  called  is  meant  to  be  Tyrannical,  and,  in  that  Re 
*  fpecl,  'tis  that  our  Saviour  forbids  his  A poftles  to  Copy  after  them. 
Now,  that  fome  ofthefe  who  had  this  Sirname  given  them, did  ab ufe 
their  Authority  to  the  worft  ofPurpofes,  he  proves  by  the  Inftance 
of  Ptolemy  .  VII.    King  of  Eftypt  firnamed  Euergetes  II,    v\  ho  wa 
indeed  a  very  ill  Prince.     This  is  a  very  deep  Criticifm.     But  in 
the  Fir  ft  Place  who-  fhall  lecure  us  that  our  Saviour  fo  much  a 
alluded  to  any  of  thofe  Princes  that  had  born  that  Sirname,  there 
being  no  hint  thereof  either  in  the  Text  or  Context.     idly.    Be 
it     that    He.  did,  allude     to    them,     yet     who     fhall    fecure 
us,  that  it  was  to  fuch   ?s  were  ill  rather  than  fuch  as  'Were  good  of 
them?  ButitisNaufeous  to  difputeagainft  aTriffle,  though  ihere 
v/e;e  other  Princes  whom  their  Flatterers  upon  Occafion  now  and 
shen  called  Euergetes  or  Benefactors  in  a  Way  of  Complement,  yet  I 
dq  not  find  any  that  bore  that  for  their  Sirname^  fave  twoof  the  Race 
of  the  ?tolemeys  in  Egypt.;  And  as  the  Second  of  them  was  very  vitious, 
as  Mv.  Rbindhas  obferved  j  fo  thefrft  of  them  viz.  the  Son  of  Ptcle- 
tney  Phigdelphus.was  a  brave  Man,  engaged  in  a  Juft  War  againft  An- 
tiopkus  £afiinicus  for  the:  Murder  of  his  Sifter  and  her  little  Son,  had 
Succefsinir,  and    in  Token  of  his  Devotion  and  Gratitude  offered 
Sacrifices  to  ths,.  God  of  Heaven,  at  Jerujalem,,  On  which.  Account 

Jojepbtts 


Seft  JW,  l  Presbyterian  Government:        83 

Jofipbus  (n)  makes  honourable  Mention  of  him.  No  w,  when  there 
were  only  two  Princes  that  bare  that  «S/>/^^,whereof  as  the  one  was 
Bad,  To  the  other  was  Good;  why  fhould  Chrift  allude  only  to  the 
111  one?  For,  to  affirm  he  did  fo,  without  proving  it,  is  to  beg  the 
Queftion. 

7.  Mr.  Rhind  argues  f  from  c  the  Oppofition,  which  our  Lcr^flates 
f  'twixt his  own  Example  which  he  propofes  for  their  Imitation,  and 

*  that  of  the  Princes  of  the  Gentiles  which  he  forbids  theApoftles  to 
c  follow.    It  cannot,  faith  he,  be  faid  without  Blafphemy,'  that  he 

*  put  himfelf  upon  a  Level  with  his  Apoftles,  withRefpecl  to'Au- 
c  thority  and  Jurisdiction ;  and  confequendy  that  Authority  which 

*  they  were  to  exereife,  in  Imitation  ofhim,does  not  import,  a  per-- 

*  fed  Equality  among  them  in  Oppofition  to  that  Imparity  which 

*  obtained  in  the  Heathen  Governments.  The  Anfwer  is  eafiej, 
Mr.  Rhind  has  miftaken  (  whether  willfully  or  otherwife  1  Ihall  t)6t 
determine )  the  Defign  of  the  Argument  and  the  Way  "how  it 
proceeds.  For  when  our  Lord  commanded  ver.  27.28.  c  Whcfo- 
'  ever  willbe.chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  Servant;  even  as 

*  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  miniftred  unto,  but  tominifter9 
He  argued  from  the  greater  to  the  lejjer  thus :  For  as  much  as  I  your, 
Lor  hand  Mafttr  have  humbled  my  (elf  to  the  bafeft  Service,  there- 
Fore  you  who  are  indeed  Servants,  and  each  ufon  a  Level with 'Other  ,fhould 
be  a  (ha  med  to  be  thinking  of  or  afpireing  to  be  Lords  and  Mailers 
over  one  another.  This  makes  our  Saviour's  Words  Plain  and  In* 
telligible,  whereas  Mr.  Rhwdys  Glofs,  inftead  of  extingmfhing, 
would  have  enflamed  their  Ambition ,  by  fuppoiing  it  Lawfull  for  one 
or  two  of  them  to  Lord  it  over  the  Rett. 

8.  '  Our  Lord,  faith  he  ibid,  cannot  be  fuppofed  to  forbid  in  this 
f  Text  fucha  Subordination  of  Rulers  in  the  Church,  as  was  that, 
1  which  at  that  Time  obtained  in  moft  of  the  Gem  He  States ;  fee- 
f  ing  this  were  to  condemn  that  Form,  by  which  he  thought  fit 
f  the  Church  fhould  be  governed  in  the  Days  of  his  Flefh,  which 
f  was  Monarchical.  The  Anfwer  isfhort.  .  1.  We  have  already 
heard  M.  Sage  owning  that  there  was  no  Chriftian  Church  in  Being 
Bt  that  Time,  consequently  no  Chriftian  Governours,  confequently 

L  2  no 


(V).  Contra  &  pion.  LiT?.  JI.  p.  [mitt]  8*f    Vide  cciam  Juftin.  Hift.  Lib.  XXVIfr  f  P-  S3t 


84  Defence  of  the  Chap  1L 

no  particular  Form  by  which  the  Church  was  then  governed.  idly, 
fuppofing  both  the  Trvtlve  and  the  Siventyhzd  been  Governours,  yet 
we  have  heard  Dr.  Whitby  confeffing  that  they  were  both  veiled 
with  the  fame  Power.  There  being  then  no  Subordination  of  Paftors„ 
no  different  Ordersof  them  under  Chrift  at  that  Time,  itneceffarly 
follows  that  Chrift's  Words  in  the  controverted  Text,  according  to 
Mr,  Rhino's  Peremptor  Sentence  p.  61,  '  Douhtleis,  whatever  Kind 

*  of  Government  obtain'd  in  the  Church  in  the  Days  of  Chrift  was. 

*  deflgned  to  be  perpetual,  muft  needs  condemn  fuch  a  Subordi- 
nation in  all  Time  coming. 

Laftly.  Mr.  Rhind  argues  p.  60.  That  if  the  Senfe  of  our  Saviour's 
Words  were  not  according  to  his  Glofs,  '  trs  probable  he  would  have' 

*  ftated  the  Oppofnion,noc'twiMt  them  and  the  Princes  of  the  Gentiles-,, 
\  but  rather  'twixt  them  and  the  High  Prieft,  Pried  and  Levites  a- 
4  mongthejews.  'Tisanfwered.  Chrift  had  the  greater!:  Reafon  to 
State  the  Oppofuion  as  he  did .  He  had  the  fireateft  Reafon  not  to 
State  it  as  Mr.  Rhind  thinks  probable  he  would  have  done.upon  Sup- 
pofition  of  the.  Presbyterian  Senfe.  Fir  ft,  he  did  State  the  Oppo- 
fuion 'twixt  them  and  the  Princes  of  the  G<^/7^,becaufe  the  Difciples, 
having  a  Notion  of  a  Temporal  Kingdom  of  the  Mefjixs,  and  being 
fwelled  with  the  Expe£tstion  of  Dignities  in  the  Same-,  our  Saviour 
thought  it  need  full  toanfwer  them  agreeably  to  the  Notion  they  hid 
entertain'd,and  withal  to  infmuats  to  them  that  no  one  of  them  was  to 
expect  any  Superiority  over  the  reft  in  any  Capacity  Civil  or  EccleG-; 
aftical ;  but  that  they  were  ail  to  be  on  a  Level  in  Point  ot  Authority, 
And  thus  in  Fact  we  find  afterwards  they  were,  thoughindeed  on 
the  Account  o>\  Per  fond  Excellencies  fome  of  them  feezed  to  be  Pillars, 
Secondly,  He  did  not  State  the  Oppofuion 'twixt  them  and  xhejewijb. 
High  Prieft,  Prieftsand  Levkes,  becaufe  the  Difciples  themfelves  did 
not  yet  think  of  any  other  Church  Government  than  what  atprefent 
obtained  among  the  Jews,  and  Chrift  did  not  find  them  yet  ripe  for 
receiving  any  Intimation  thereof;  but  thought  itenough  to  give 
them  a  general  Rule  to  be  obferved  by  them  afterwards  ;  and 
whereof,  when  it  was  tobeputin  Practice,  they  would  eafily con- 
ceive the  Meaning,  after  their  Under (l anaings were  opened,  *  and  Things 
brought  to  their  Remembrance  by  theHtily  Ghoft  which  wastobecorn- 
jraunicated  to  them.    This  1  bought  is  ftggdUdto  us  by  ,  Mr.  DqAs 

mil 


Seflt.  V;         Presbyterian  Government]  85 

wU(o).  c  The  Apoilles tliemfelves,/^///;  be,do notfeem  to  have  known 
'  any  Thing  concerning  the  Government  of  the  Church  till  their- 
'  Reparation  from  the  Synagogues ;  they  were  by  Birth  Jaw  and 
*  Zealous  of  the  Law  and  Cuftcmes  of  their  Fathers,  and  if  our  Lord 
'  before  that,  had  revealed  any  Thing  to  them  which  looked  that 
*~  Way,  that  is  to  a  Change  of -Government,  they  had  been  in  Hazard 
'  of  revolting  from,  inftead  of  obeying- him.  ■  And  therefore  one 
1  Lord  dealt  cawioufly  with  them,  and  would  not  put  new  Wine 
'into  Old  Bottles,  nor  .while  their  Minds  were  yet  alienated,  hear- 
<  in  New  Revelations  upon  them  concerning  Facls  from  which  they 
'  would  have  had  an  Averfiom 

,  And  thus  now  T  have  considered  every  Thing  Mr.  Hhind  has  ad- 
vanced upon  that  controverted  Text  ;  and  I  hope  it  fufBciently  ap- 
pears, that  not  one  of  his  Thoughts,  nay  nor  all  of  them  jointly  are 
of  the  lead  Force  to  wred  it  from  the  Presbyterians,  ortojuftlfie 
the  Glofs  he  has  put  upon  it :  For,  befidesall  has  been  already  fugged- 
ed  ;  that  not.  only  <  the  Tyrm-n  i  od  Ex  ere  if e,%$  Mr.  Rhind'would,  but 
the  Dominion  hklhoo,  -as  the -Presbyterians  would,  isdifcharged  by 
that  Text,  is  evident  both  from  xho-Occufion  of  it  and  likewife  from 
our  Saviour's  'knwn  Cha-iaftn.  Fhst.-  From  the  Occafioxofn  which 
was-the  Mother  of  Zs-bedee^s  Children  her  asking  a  Boon -for  her  Sons. 
How  earned  foeyer  (lie  might  be  for  their  Promotion  ;  unlefs  we 
fhould  fuppofe  her  to  have  been  a  Monfter  of  Women,  and  another 
Jezebel,  (he  could:  not  have  been  fo  Impudent  'as  to  ask  for  them  a 
Fowct  of  Domineering  Tyrmkallj  over  their  Fellows.  Could  fhe  have 
got  them  raifed  to  the  Dominion,  no  doubt  fhe  had  been  glad  to  fee 
them  manage  it  veriuoufly  and  with  Temper  and  Moderation  :  Bus 
our  Saviour  would  not  allow  the  Dominion  itfelf,  and  fo  there  could 
be  neither !  lace  nor  Temptation  for  xhtTyrannical  Exercife  of  k.  Se» 
canity,  From  our  Saviour's  known  Characlcr.  He  not  Only  taught 
Loyalty  and  a  Regard  to  the  Civil  Powers,  but  gave  tooa  moil  bright 
and  fliineing  Example  of -it  in  his  Practice.  Was  it  confident  with 
this  Character  to  reprefent  indefinitly    (  which  is  much  the  fame 

Thing 


[o~]  Parages.  Seel.  14.  p.  58.  Anrefecefiam  a  fynagogis,  nee  de  regimiiie,  necde  ipfo  feceflu,  ipfi  refci- 
Vifle  vzdentur  Apoftoli.-*-  Eranc  etiim  ipfi  orcu  J ua-C'^patmrumq  ;e  confuetudinum  legisfque  ftudiofi. —  Si  quid 
ancea  patefeciflec  DomiriuS'  quod  eofpe&are  cie'der.ur  ;  periculum  era:  ne  deficerent  potius  quani  parerent.-- 
Cauteergo  egu  Don.i  ius,  uec  vinura  novum  vans  credidit  veteribus,  nee  proiuds  alienis  animis  novas,  de 
faclis  a  qiujaus  abhorrebant,  ipgefsit  Reyelatic-nes,-  ■ 


86  *  Defence  of  the  Chap  II. 

Thing  witJiUniverfally  )  the  whole  Princes  of  the  Earth  as  a  Knot 
of  Tyrants  counteracting  the  Defign  of  their  Office  which  is  the 
Good  and  Happinefs of  Mankind,  by  their  Violence  and  Oppreffion  ? 
What  elfecould  have  been  the  EfYecl:  ofthis3but  to  produce  in  his  Fol* 
lowers  an  utter  Averfion  to  Monarchy,  and  to  make 'em  all  States 
Wbiggs?  This  Senfe  then  is  abfurd,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be 
put  upon  our  Saviour's  Words.  And  I  cannot  enough  wonder 
how  Mr.  Rbind  could  (tumble  upon  it.  Had  it  dropt  from  fome 
old  Republican,-  the  Matter  had  been  the  lefs ;  but  in  Mr.  Rhind% 
who  has  made  Loyalty  fo  great  a  Part  of  Religion,  and  has  re- 
commended it  to  the  World  in  fo  very  pointed  *  Sermon,  'twas  an 
unpardonable  Efcape.  'To  confirm  my  Thoughts  upon  this  Text, 
let  us  hear  Dr.  Whitby  on  it.  '  Nor  do  I  think,  faith he^  f  Chrift 
e  only  hear  forbiddeth  fuch  Dominion  as  is  attended  with Tyran- 
'  ny,  Oppreffion  and  Contempt  of  their  Subjects.  First  becaufe  S. 
1  Luke  ufes  only  the  Simple  Verbs  which  bear  no  fuch  ill  Senfe. 

*  2^/y,  Becaufe  Kings  and  Governours  were  not  always  guilty  of 

*  this  Male- Adrniniftration.  And  idly,  Becaufe Chrift  does  not  op- 
1  pofe  unto  their  Government  a  juft  Dominion,  but  a  Miniftry 
f  only. 

And  now  upon  the  Whole  I  referr  it  to  the  Reader,  if  the  Ar- 
gument for  Prelacy  from  its  obtaining  in  Chrift's  Days  is  not  even 
Ridiculous;  when  the  greateftEpifcopal  Writers  own  there  was  no 
Chriftian  Church  in  Being  at  that  Time,  therefore  no  Subordination 
of  Paftors  in  it,  therefore  no  Prelacy.  Or  fuppofing  the  Twelve 
and  the  Seventy  had  been  Church  Officers,  yet  that  they  had  both 
the  fame  Power,  and  fo  it  becomes  an   Argument' for  Parity. 


■j  .Annot.  On  Mattb.  XX,    23, 


ART. 


f 


Se3v  V4  -         Presbyterian  Government.         8  y 


A-R-.T  IGLE    II 

Wherein  Mr.  R  hind 's  Proof  for  the  aUual  In- 
ftitHtion-  of  'Prelacy  pom  its  being  continued  in 
the  Days  of  the  Apflles,  and  from  a  Succejjion 
in  the Afojiolate%  and  from  its  having  been  con- 
firmed by  Miracles,  is  examined.,  From  P.  6 1.  to 
ft  74. 


PGM  this  I  toll  I.  Examine  Mr, :R^/^s  Tranfition, which 
is  indeed  very  Remarkable.  ~  H.  Bis  general  Reafonings 
from  the i  Mis  and  Epijlles.  III.  His  particular  Argument  from  a 
Succeflion  in  the  Apoftolate.  IV.  His  Demonftration  for  the  Divine 
Right  of  Prelacy  from  its  being  confirmed  by  Miracles. 

I.  I  am  to  examine  Mr.  Rhinos  Tranfkion,  which  is  indeed 
very  remarkable:  I  mean  it  would  he  fo  in  any  other  Author, 
though  it  is  very  familiar  with  Mr. Rhind.  He, -prefurning  he 
bad  proved  That  our  Saviour  by  His  Authority  eftablifhed  the  Im- 
parity he  pleads  for,  contends,  not  only  thatthat  Eftablifhment  was 
not  Abrogate  afterwards,  but  that  even  -ChrLft  himfelf  could  not 
abrogate  it:  For,  faith  he  p.  6ii  it  would  repel  odioufliupn  bisWif- 
dom  to  have  fettled  a  Government \  which  mu:ll  be  almofi  as  foon  altered, 
m  instituted.- ?•  It  is  indeed  the  known  Character  of  the  Generality 
of  the  Writers  on  the  Epi/copalSidQ,  that  they  dictate  their  crude  No- 
tions with  the  fame  Mailer  full  Air  as  if  they  were  demonftrating 
one  ol :  Euclu^s  Proportions;  yet  generally  this  Pcfittvenefs  amounts 
so  no  mors  than  ill  Manners,'  and  therefore  may  either  be  neglected, 

OL' 


88  Defence  of  the  Chap.  //. 

or  chaftifed  with  a  little  Raillery.     But  that  a  Nothing  of  a  Crea- 
ture fhould  at  every  Turn  give  Meafures  to  the  Divine  Wifdom 
is.  Infuppoi  table,  and  mod  of  all  in  this  Cafe.     For  ift.  Who  that. 
has  any  Reverence  for  our  Bluffed  Saviour  will  prefume  to  affirm 
that  beciufe  he  ufed  one  Method  forconftitutingthe  Church,there- 
fore  it  was  inconfident  with  his  Wifdom  to  alter  that  Method  in 
Governing    Her  when    condituted  ?     idly.  M.  Dodwell,  who  has 
reafoned  in  a  Mathematical  Chain,  has  very  prolixly   attempted   to 
prove  (p)  That  the  Original  Government  of  the  Chridian  Church 
not  only  might  be,  but  actually  was  altered.     Yea  that  the  Epifcopal 
Conftitution  of   Government^  which  now  obtains^  is  later    than  all  the 
Writings  of  the  NewT est  ament. and  there  fore  is  not  to  be  fought  for  there.  If 
it  was  not  inconfident  with  the  Wifdom  ofChrift  to  alter  the  Go- 
vernment of  the  Church  from  a  Papacy  to  a  meer  Prelacy ,why  fhould 
it  be  fo  to  alter  it  from  Prelacy  to  Presbytry?     ^dly.  Mr.  Rhiad  lum- 
fclfmuft  needs  confefs  that  the  Original  Government  of  the  Chri- 
flian  Church  is  altered,     For   by  his  own  Principles    there  were 
Bifhops  in  the  Time  of  the  Apoftles ;  for  Indance,  He  has  declared 
p.  78.  Timothy  and  Titus  to  have  been  the  ordinary  an.*  fixed  Pre- 
lats  of  Ephelus  Mid  Crete.     Yet  the  Apodles  were  then  Superiour 
to  them.     But  now  all    Bifhops  by  Divine  Right  are  Equal,  and 
have  no  Superiour  above  them.    If  then  it  is  confident  enough 
with  the  Wifdom  of  Chrid  that  there  fliould  be  at  this  Day  §u 
pops  without  fuperior  Apoftles,  notwithstanding  it  was  other  wife 
at  the  Beginning,  How  is  it  inconfident  with  his  Wifdom  that  there 
fhould  be  Presbyters  without  fuperior  Bifhops?  But  then  Laftly  to  corn- 
pleat  all,  It  Mr.  Rhino's  Affertion  be  true,  then  Prelacy  is  undone 
for  ever.    For  it  has  been  already  proved  from  the  Epifcopal  Writers 
of  the  bed  Note,  that  our  Lord  did  not  eftablifh  an  Imparity,  that 
the  Twelve  were  equal  among  thernfelves,  the  Seventy  among  them- 
felves,  and  the  Twelve  and  the  Seventy  compleatly  equal  without  any 
Subordination  of  the  latter  to  the  former.    If  then  the///?  Inditmion 
could  not  be  altered,  Parity  mu4i  obtain  forever. 
II.  -I  am  to  examine  Mr.  Rhino's  general  Reafonings  from  the  Acts 

and 


[p].Pa..-  .i^    p.  ■-■..  ftodierni  Reginijnis    Ecclefaftici    Conftkutie,  licet  emanaric  ab  Apoftslis, 

eft  tumeu  fcriptis  N.  T.  omaibas  rec&acior,&  proinde nonibi expe&aada.-..-  .    • 


Se&  V;         Presbyterian  Government.         %& 

and  Epiftles.  He  cannot  find  in  his  Heart  to  enter  on  'em  till  he  have 
fpentaP^the  62   mPhilippicks  againft  the  Presbyterians  for  their 
tnvmcMeObfttnacy  which  will  not  yield  even  when  he  h-vells  Demon 
Jlrauons  againft  them.  Hard  hearted  Creatures  they .'  But  Mr.  Rhind 
mult  e  en   comfort  himfelf  with  this,  how  fmall  foever  his  Succefs  is 
likely  to  be,  that  yet  he  is  in  the  Way  of  his  Duty.    I  ftiall  give  the 
Reader  every  Word  of  his  W«w'»^,  that  he  may  judge  whether  his 
fatty  mult  not  be  f  to  ufe  his  own  Courtly  Phrafe  )  an  Implicit*  Her  A 
indeed  that  keeps  it  fejf  in  Countenance  by  them.    The  Alls  and  £• 
T'F'es>  «ith  he :  p.  6$.  favour  the  Presbyterians  as  little  as  the  four  Gofpells 
i7'     '^T*?   as  much,  they   are  not  likely  to  be  great 
<W%  a  Ltf'  and  W«,^  ^,are  fo  far  from  intimating  that 
{  the  hrtt  Eftabliffiment  was  altered  by  the  Apoftles.that  on  the  contra, 
ry  they  plainly  fbew  its  Continuance.    Why  then  Adieu  Prelacy iot . 
?Wfl  *%A     fi- a  ,Eftiblifliment  was  only  of  the  Apoftles,  they  were  \ 

aaed'infSrf Tp  he  ChUrCh'  f°ra  While  theon'y  0ffi«rs>  "d  AS  * 
acted  in  a  perfeft  Parity.  '  Don't  the  ASt  and  EM/es,  proceed,  be,  all 

i  a'°"Sfake  Mention  of  feveral  Orders  of  Men  who  were  undifputed- 

'  JLl  nffi    °™cf  ^t ls>wh°  were folemnly  feparated  for Ecclefiaf- 

<  eSchrf^?^  5p0firi?TPfI?ands?  And  don't  theyaffign  to 
each  their  Different  Powers?  Ianfwer,  not  all  along  ■  for  as  I  have 
faid  )«ftnow,there  w.,«firft  but  one  Order  viz.thatof  the  Apoftles "and 
even  thefe  too  folemnly  feparated  for  their  Office  without  Impofidon 
of  Hands  at  leaft  we  read  nothing  of  it  in, he  Scripture.  Whe 
goes  on,  does  more  frequently  occur  thro'  thefe  facredWritings,  than  the 
Mem  ton  that  u  made  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  the  one  Subordinate  to  % 
other  and 'of the  Apoftles  Paramount  to  them  all.  'Tis  anfwered  There 
ismdeed  frequent  Mention  of  Presbyters  *aA  Deacons,  the  one  Subor 
dinate  to  theother  and  of  the  Apoftles  Paramount  to  them  all  but 
how  came  he  to  ofe  Prelats  in  his  Enumeration,  X  ought  to  have 
beeninferted'twixt  the  Apoftles  and  Presbyters?  Were  ?here  none 

wfththt  Dayfr^  Ap°ftieS?  K "0t'  ^hathath  theChu  htodo 
foreind^pT  If,therevwere>  why  did  he  drop  theminhisCa™ 
7;!  Pa es  lTfTbea,  be  f«"»  afterward,  tho'at  theDiftance 
ofZlC'J^n  TlmoihH^  ?W  Wethe  ordinary  and  fixed  Prelats 
tk&reiulT  Tllf  Reafc"  °f  this  Artifice  is  obvious.  The 
ZmldivetiA  f  T1^  h3Ve  qu'«fpoiled  hisReafonbg;  it 
Should  have  made  four  Orders  of  Officers  in  the  Apoftolklt  Times, 


va. 


go  Defence  of  the  Chap.  77. 

viz*  Apoftles,  Prelats,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  if  there  ought 
to  be  as  many  different  Orders  now  as  there  were  at  firft,  whichisthe 
Scope  of  Mr  Rhindls  Re^foning,  and  without  which  it  fignifies  no- 
thing ;  then  Prelacy  is  loft :  For  they  have  but  three  different  Orders 
smong  them  viz.  Prelats,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  for  which  they 
do  fo  much  as  pretend  Divine  Right.  But  to  go  on  with  Mr.  Rhindcs 
Reafonings.  What  though  the  Alts  and  Epifiles  make  Mention  of 
the  different  and  Subordinate  Orders  of  Apoftles,  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons, what  follows  ?  Why,  faith  he,  could  one  rvifh  a  clearer  Proof  than 
this,  to  evince  that  there  was  then  an  Imparity  among  Church  Officers.  I  an- 
IVer,  none.  For  every  Presbyterian  owns  that  there  was /.^»  viz.  in 
the  Days  of  the  Apoftles  an  Imparity  not  only  among  the  Church  Of- 
ficers, but  Paftors  too.  No  doubt  the  Apoftles  were  fuperior  to  the 
Presbyters.  But  he  has  a  Second  Inference  to  make  viz.  •  That  the 
1  famealfois  a  moft  clear  P>Wthat  that  Imparity  was  of  Divine  In- 

*  ftitution.  ThePresbyteriansgranth:  For  the  Apoftles  were  cer- 
tainly acled  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  His  Third  Inference  which  com- 
pleats  the  whole  ls,that  confidently  that  Imparity  viz.  of  Paftors,  ought  to 
be  ft  ill  continued.  But  here  the  Presbyterians  and  Mr  Rhind  part  Ways : 
for,tho'  the  Presbyterians  acknowledge  that  the  Apoftles  were  fuperior 
to  the  Presbyters  ;  Yet  they  affirm  that  a  Superiority  among  Paftors  is 
imlawfull  now,  becaufe  the  Apoftolate  was  an  extrordinary  Office  not 
to  be  continued,  the  Apoftles  extraordinary  Officers  not  tobefucceed- 
edto,  except  in  the  Ordinary  Functions,  Preaching,  Difpenfing  the 
Sacraments  and  Governing  the  Church,  in  which  they  are  fucceded 
to  by  every  Minifter.      And  this  brings  me  to  examine 

III.  His  particular  Argument  from  a  Succeffion  in  the  Apoftolate. 
Heexprefly  denys  p.  6*4  &cthat  '  the  Apoftolate  was  an  extraordi* 

*  nary  Office,  or   that  the  Apoftolick  Government  was  Temporary, 

*  and  offer  ts  that  the  Bifhops  of  the  Church,  meaning  Prelats  as  fuperior 

*  toPresbyters,  dofucceed  them  therein.  Is  this  true?  Firjl,  Davenant 
Bifhop  of  Sarum  not  only  denys  but  difprovesit  (^),  Multitudes  of 
others  of  the  Church  of  England  do  the  fame.  1  he  Church  of  Rome 
a  Society  of  a  very  large  Extent,  of  a  long  Standing,  and  fuch  as  has 
produced  not  a  few  Wife  and  Great  Men  expreily  contradid  it3  deny- 
ing 


I  <i  ]      I;  Celoii  p.  4-  j. 


Se#i  V.        Presbyterian  Government:         91 

\    ing  that  any  of  the  Apoftles  had  SucceiTors  fave  Peter  in   the  Papal 
Chair.  Secondly.  Which  mull  conclude  Mr.  Rhind,  M.  Dokmll  (r) 
Hi  mfelf  has  deny  edit,    and   afTens    that  the  Office  of  the  Apoftolate 
failed  with  the  Ufi  Apo file 9  and  that  never  anyofthemhadaSucceffor  hut 
Judas  f#*  Traitor.  Did  this  efcape  M.  Dodwell  through  Inadvertency  ? 
He  repeats  it  over  and  over  and  over  again  in  different  Places.     Buc 
Thirdly^  which  is  worft  of  all,  Ignatius  himfelf,  who  is  both  Stem  and 
Stern  of  the  Epilcopal  Caufe  always  makes  the  Presbyters  to   fucceed 
to  and  represent  the  Apoftles,  but  the  BiOiops  never.    (J)    i  I  exhort 
c  you  that  you  ftudy  to  do  ail  Things  in  a  Divine  Concord,,    the 
.  '  Bifhopprefiding  in  the  place  of  God,  your  Presbyters  in  the  Place 
'  of  the  Council  of  the  Apoitles.  (t)  Aifo  befubjea:  to  your  Presby* 
£  tersastothe  Apoftles@f  Jefus  Chrift  our  Hope,  (v)  Reverence  the 
K  Presbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of  God  and  College  of  the  Apoftles.  (x) 
c  Continue  infeparable  from  Jefus  Chrift  our  God  and  from  the  Bi- 
i  fhop  and  from  the  Commands  of  the  Apoftles.    He  that  does  any 
Thing  without  the  Bifliop  and  Presbyters  and  Deacons  is  not 
■  *  pure  in  his  Confcience.    (7)    Follow  your    Bilhop,    as  jefus 
e  Chrift  the  Fatherland  the  Presby  try  as  the  Apoftles.  I  hope  then  this 
Matter  is  abundantly  Plain,  fo  far  as  human  Teftimony  is  needfull. 
But  then  Lafily.  If  to  all  this  we  add  the  Judgment  of  the  Scripture, 
it  may  be  put  beyond  Doubt/    I- am   indeed  amazed  to  find   any 
Man  who  has  read  the  firft  Chapter  of  the  Jms  of  the  Apoitles 
plead  for  a  continued  Succeflion  in  the  Apoftolick  Office.    Judas 
had  difpofed  of  Himfelf,  and  the  Vacancy  was  now  to  be  fupplied ; 
the  requifits  neceflary  for  qualifying  one  to  ftand  Candidate  for  the 
Place  are  fet  dpwn  Per  p.  21.22.    e  Wherefore  of  thefe  Men  which 
j  *  have  Com panied  with  us,  all  the  Time  that  the  Lord  Jefus  went  in 
*  and  out  among  us:    Beginning  from  the  Baptifm  of  John,  unto 
■f  that  fame  Day  He  was  taken  up  from  us,  muft  one  be  ordain'd  to 
f  be  a  Witnefs  with  us  of  His  Refurreclion.    In  which  Words  we 
are  plainly  told  that  none  could  fucceed  into  the  Apoftolate,  bus 
fuch  as  had  known  Jefus  before  His  Death,  and  feen  Him  after  His 

M  2  Re- 


[r]  Defecerat  cum  ultimo  Apoftoloetiam  Apoftolatus  officium;  cum  nulliimquain  prseterquam  Judas  pro- 
dison,  fufficerentur  Apoftoloium  fucceflbres.  Pararnef.  Se£t- 6.  p.  n.  Sea.  ij.  p.  6z.  SsSt.  16.  p.  68.  [;J 
Ep.  to  the  M*gnes.  Sett,  j.  [t]  Ep.  to  the  Trail.  Sett.  2.  [v]  Ibid.  Sett.  3.  [x]  Ibid.  Se&.  7.  hi  Ep.  to  th^ 
fnyrnMtu.  Sea. 7.  Edit,  ifi  x^3,  by  Dr.IPifc. 


cfi  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IL 

Refurre&ion  and  at  His  Afcenfion.  If  any  Man  now  living,  Bi- 
fhopor  any  other,  can  be  found  thus  qualified,  we  are  content  He 
be  efteem'd  a  SuccefTor  in  the  Apoftolate,  but  other  wife  it  is  a  very 
fhamelefs  Thing  to  talk  of  it. 

But  Mr.  Rhind  is  of  a  different  Judgment,  and  therefore  is  refolv* 
ed  at  any  rate  to  difprove  the  AfTertion,  that  the  Apoflolate  was  an  ex- 
traordinary Office,  or  that  the  Apoftolick  Government  was  Temporary*  I 
fhall  examine  what  He  has  advanced  for  this  Purpofe. 

Firft.  He  will  not  allow  it  to  have  been  extraordinary  or  Tempo- 
rary upon  any  Account,  becaufe  it  was  not  fo  upon  one  particular 
Account,  viz.  The  Apoftles  being  hie  fed  with  extraordinary  Gifts. 
The  Reader  may  poffibly  fufpecl  that  I  mifreprefent  Him;  but  take 
it  in  His  own  Words.  *  The  Apoftles,  faith  He  p.  64.  were  indeed 
'  blefled  with  iundry  extraordinary  Gifts,  which  proves  them  to 
1  have  been  extraordinary   Perfons;    and  it  was  highly  necefTary 

*  They  fhould  be  f.cb.  But  it  does  not  at  all  follow  from  this,  that 
1  the  Apoftolate  was  -onexrraordinary  Office,  or  that  the  Apoftolick 

*  Government  was  Temporary-  — But  who  can  drfcern  the 

leafr.  Shadow  of  an  Argument  in  this?  Where  is  the  Presbyterian 
who  ever  faid  that  thefe  extraordinary  Gifts  wherewith  the  Apoftles 
were  bleiTed  are  alone  an  Argument  that  Their  Office  was  extraordi- 
nary ?  What  Presbyterian  ever  denyed  that  Presbyters  and  Deacons, 
yea  and  fome  of  the  Laity  "were  fometimes  blefled  with  Them  ? 
The  Presbyterians  own  thefe  extraordinary  Gifts  were  necefTary  for 
the  fuccefsfuil  Difcharge  of  the  Apoftohck  Office,  They  own  that 
fome  of 'em  were  peculiar  to  the  Apoftles,  particularly  the  giving 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  His  extraordinary  Charifmata;  but  befides 
thefe  They  had  an  immediat  Call,  an  univeyfal  CommiffJon,  and  were! 
Under  zn-mfallible  Conduct,  all  which  concurred' to  make  them  ex- 
traordinary Officers,  and  in  which  every  Body  fees  They  neither 
are  nor  can  be  fucceeded  to.  If  any  one  now  in  Being  can  by  claim 
to  thefe  Characters,  we  -Hull  allow  Him  to'bca  SuccefTor  to  the 
Apoftles,  and  even  difpenfe  with  the  other  exn^ordi nary  Gifts. 

Notwithftanding  this  Reafcning  of  His  was  fo  ill  founded,  yet 
He  goes  on  to  harangue  upon  it.  '  If,  [atthhe  ibid,  the  Presbyterians 

*  will  have  thefe  extraordinary  Gifts  to  be  an  Argument  of  an  ex- 
I  traoidmary  Office,  yet  wiuit'  they  at  the  fame  Tune  grant,  that 

that 


Se£t.  V;       Presbyterian  Governments  95 

'  that  Office  flhould  continue  as  long  as  thefe  Gifts  were  Neceffary, 
€  at  leaft  as  long. as  they  aQually  lafted.  And  upon  this  Conceffion 
He  attempts  to  prove  />.  67.68.  by  the  Inftance  of  Melito  Bifhop  of 
Sardis,  Irenxus  Bifhop  of  Lyons,  Gregory  the  Wonder-Worker  Bi- 
fhop of  Neocxfaria,  Cyprian  Bifhop  of  Carthage,  and  by  the  Tefti- 
mony  of  Eufebius 'that  thefe  Extraordinary  Gifts  lafted  for  fe  vera  1 
Ages;  and  from  thence  inferrs  that  confequently  Epifcopacy  mufS: 
have  lafted  fd  long.  This  Reckoning,  faith  He,  is  good  enough,  ad 
Horn  in  em,  and  does  fafficiently  expo  fe  the  Weaknefs  of  the  Presbyterian 
Evafion.  But  it  is  neither  good  ad  Hominem  nor  ad  Rem,  nor  ex- 
pofes  any  Thing  but  Mr.  Rhind\  Want  of  Arguments.  Fir  ft  it 
is:  not  Good  ad  Hominem:  For  the  Presbyterians  make  no  fuch  Eva- 
fion ;  as  we'  have  already  '  heard. ;  Nor  Secondly  is  it  good  ad 
Rem:  For  the  Xriftancesof  Miraculous Bi (hops  which  He  has  infix- 
ed on  are  very  Irijtfdicioufly  chofen.  I  do  not  deny  that  extraordi- 
nary Gifts  were  continued  in  the  Church  even  down  to  the  Third 
or  Fourth  Century,  or  longer  if  Mr.  Rhind  Pleafe  ;  but  then,  fd 
far  as  relates  to  their  having  been  poff'^ffed  by  Btfbops,  He  has  had 
the  ill  luck  to  pitch  upon  the  moft  fufpecled  Inftances.  Firft.  As 
for  Melito.  This  was  the  Eunuch  who  was  Bifhop  of  S^rdis.  I  fhall 
eafily  believe  what  Tertullian  as  cited  by  S.  Jet  em  and  Polycrates  as 
cited  by  Eufebius '.fay  of  Him  viz.1  That  He  was  a  Man  Divinly  inffir* 
vd9  and  in  all  Things  directed  by  the  Afflatus  and  SuggeHion"  of  the  Holy 
Ghofly  if  no  more  be  meant  thereby,  than  that  He  was  a  Man  of  emi- 
nent Piety:  For  the  Spirit  of  Chrift'  dwells  and  a£ts  in  every  Man 
that  isChrifPs ':  Andlthin'k  'tis  plain  Polycrates"  in  Eufebius  meant  no 
More:  For  lie  fays  only  that  He  was  led  in  all  Things  by  the  Grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  But  if  Mr.  Rhind  will  needs  have  us  to  uriderftand 
thereby,"  that  He  was  in  all  Things  under  an  infallible Conduct ',!  a  flu  re 
Him  I  do  "not  believe  it:  For  tire  Apoflks  the'mfelves  were  not  al- 
ways fo  ;'  even"  Peter  fometknes  ftept  awry,  and  walked  not  with  a' 
ftraight  Foot  Gal.  2,  14,  and  I  hope  to  make  Mr.  Rhind  Himfelf 
confefsthit  Good  Melito  was  wrong  in  feme*  Things.  -  The  Church 
of'England  never  keeps  EaSfer  upon  the  Day  of  the  full  Moon,but  upon 
tho.. Sunday  after, -when  it  falls  Upon  a  working  .Day  ;  or  that  Day 
feven-riigh:,wherv  it  falls  upon  a  Sunday.  But  Melito  always  kept  Eafier 
■  after  the.  Jt;wji?_.Failnon  upon  the  very  Pay  pfthe  full 'Moon,  v^heihei?1 


94  Defence  of  the  Chap,  //. 

it    fell  on  Sunday  or  Saturday  Sec.  and  Polycratei  in  Eufebius  cites 
Him  forthat  very  Purpofe  in  Oppofition  to  Pope  Viftori    'Tis  Plain 
then  that  Me  lit  o  was  fomedmes  Wrong,  or  the  Church  of  England 
is.     Mr.  Rhind  may  criufe  as  likes  Him  beft.     Secondly,  As  for  Ire* 
vxus  Bifhop  of  Lyons.     Mr.  Rhind  faies  that  He  converted  many  Pa- 
gans in  his  Diocef  by  the  Miracles  which  He  wrought,  but  He  has  not  in- 
(ranced  any  of  them,  nor  told  us  where  the  Relation  of  them  is  to 
be  found,  and  I  am  not  willing  to  condefcend,  left  I  fhould  be  fu- 
fpefted  to  do  it  too  favourably  for  my  Self.     He  tells  us  indeed  both 
from  Iren&us  Himfelf  and  Eufebius  that  miraculous  Gifts  and  Powers 
were  very  Common  in  His  Time ;  but  what  iaies  this  to  Iren&us*'*  Share 
in  Them  ?     When  Mr.  Rhind  is  more  particular  I  fhall  be  fo  too. 
Thirdly,  As  for  Cyprian.     All  that  Mr.  Rhind  alledges  is,  that  Hs 
afures  us  concerning  Himfelf  that  He  was  bleffed  with  uncommon  Mea- 
sures of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  fo  I  believe  is  every  Good  Christi- 
an, and  do  think  Mr.  Rhind  was  very  Wife  in  not  being  more  par- 
ticular upon  Cyprians  Miraculous  Gifts.    But  then  Laflly,  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  or  the  Wonder- Worker  is  Mr.  Rhindh  great  Man, 
yea  even  a  Second  Mofes  for  Miracles.    Well,  what  Vouchers  does 
He  bring  for  them.?       Two  indeed  of  a  very  great  Name  yiz. 
Gregory  Nyffen  in  the  Life  of  the  Wonder- Worker,  and  S.  Bafil  de 
Spiritu  Sanao  Cap.  29.    But  what  Credit  is  to  be  given  to  them? 
In  the  fir  ft  place  hear  the  great  Spanheim  (zy   c  The  Learned, 
■  faith  He,  defervedly  doubt  about  the  Canonical  Epiftle  afcribed 

*  to  the  Wonder -Worker,     But  much  more  about  the  Prodigies  and 

*  Miracles  which,  almoft  without  End,  are  attributed  to  Him  by 
c  Nyfin  in  His  Life  and  by  Bafl  Himfelf;  whence  He  got  the 
'  Name  of  the  Wonder-Worker  and  another  Mofes.  Certainly  many 
e  Things  in  Nyffen  breath  the  Credulity  even  of  an  old  Wife. 
Thus  Sfanheim.  2dly,  Erafmus,  in  the  Epiftle  Dedicatory  prefix- 
ed to  HajiPs  Works,  rejects  the  latter  half  of  His  Book  de  Spirit u 
Santlo  as  Spurious,  and  at  the  end  of  Cap,  14.  obferves  on  the  Mar- 
gin, that  here  the  Author  Changes.     Coniequently  the  29.  Chapter 

which 


[z]  Iruod.  zd  Hift.  Nov.TefL  Se£L  III.  p.  332.  De  Epiftola  Canonica  eidem  sH  fcripca,  merito  atnbiguns 
r.vnJin.  A:  multo  niagis  de  prodigijs  et  miraculis,  propemodum  fine  fine,  quse  llli  a  Nyfseno  in  ejus  vka, 
e:  Pa  (Tim  a  B-ifiUo  ipfo  Sec  tribuunEur.  Unde  Tbaumaturgi  nomen  ec  altehus  Mofif.  Mulca  certe  apud 
ll)f;enum  anilem  quandam.credulicatcm  fpiraic.  *~ 


Se&,  V.-  Presbyterian  Government]         95 

which  Mr.  Rhind  inflfts  on  is  of  no  Credit,  ^dly  Coke*  Church 
of  England  Divine  and  iometkne  Fellow  of  Brazen  Nofe  College, 
Oxford ,  proves '(*)  from  the  Body  it  felf  of  that  29.  Chapter  that 
it  is  Spurious.  And  Laftly,  which  is  worft  of  all,  Dodwell  Him- 
felf  (  b  )  reprobates  thefe  Dreams  and  Miracles  of  the  Wonder-Work- 
er. Was  not  now  Mr,  Rhind  very  well  ptovided  wrh  Miracle- 
working  Bifhops  when  thefe  were  the  beft  He  could  pitch  on. 

Secondly/Mr.  Rhind  having  vainly  (pent  ten  Pages  in  pleading  for 
aSucceflion  in  the  Apoftolate  without  the  leaf!  Limitation,  or  drop- 
ping fo  much  as  one  Syllable  for  explaining  himfelf ;  at  length  p.  70. 
He  tells  us;  that  by  *  the  Apoftolick  Office,  abflraQing  from  it  all 

*  Accidentals,  he  means  that  Superiority  of  Power  with  which  the 
6  Apoftles  were  inverted  in  the  Ordination  of  Inferior  Church 
*■■  Officers,  and  in  Governing  them  and  the  Church ;  And  pleads 
c  that  k  was  not  extraordinary  in  this  Refpeft  ;  and  asfuchto  ceafe. 
But  the  Prelats  (  fuppofing  there  were  'then  any  fuch  )  were  Church 
Officers  inferior  to  the  Apoftles,the  Apoftles  were  inverted  with  a  Supe- 
riority of  Power  in  the  Ordination  oUhem.  I  ask  now  whether  that  Su- 
periority was  Ordinary  or  extraordinary.  If  Ordinary,  then  there 
ought  rtill  to  be  Officers  Supriar  to  Bifhops.  If  extraordinary,  then 
the  Superiority  of  Power  with  which  the  Apoftles  were  inverted  in 
the 'Ordination  of  Inferior  Church  Officers,  and  in  Governing  them 
and  the  Church  mult  be  extraordinary  too.  I  challenge  Mr.  Rhind 
and  all  his  Party  to  take  off  this  By  a  fufficient  Anfwer. 

Thirdly,  He  argues' p:.  72.    'If  that  Form  by  which  the  Church 

*  was  governed  in  the  Days  of  the  Apoftles,  be  in  all  Refpecls 
'  as  good,  and  in  many  undeniably  better  than  any  other,  then 

*  I  thinklmay  fafely  conclude,  that  it  never  ought  to  be  altered. 
If  Mr.  DodwsWs  Judgement  be  of  any  Weight,  then  this  Reafooing 
is  horridly  falfe  ;  For  he  teaches  (c)  That  the  Form  of  Govern- 
ment which  obtained  in   the  Days  of  the  Apoftles  was  altered, 

notwithitandins 


f_  a  ]  Cenfura  quoruadam  Script,  vet.  p.  12.3.     [b]   Differr.  IV.  in  Cypr.  Num.    16.      fc]    Parsed;  Seft. 
39.  p.  180.  181.   Dura  Coiligenda:  efTent  et  pian.randa;  "Ecclefiae,  admodum  ucilis   erac   PiimaaiS  ills  Ecclefias, 

BiarofblymkariffiJ! *Et  quo  latins  Gollegij  Apofcolici  ct  Epifcopi  Hierofolymitanj  pacuic  aU&d'ficas  (ciuni 

earn  prorfus  infallibikm  efle  coaltabat )  eo  erac  etiam  ntilior  bono  Ecclefiarum  omnium  publico.     Id  jane  ao- 
cecHegeiippus,     tanti  per  Hsreticos  procire  in  publicum  nt -a Aufos,  Dun?  iinius  Etdefia:  jentencia  Dininat;, 

fpes  nulla  demde  effet  ut  ab  aliqua  alia  ecciefia    reciperencur. Ec  quidem  ad  fid'em  propagandam  utilior 

grat  uaius  ecclefis  aucoricas-^ds  alia  rum  6jnniamiorigelattg.tie  Doiniuarecur. 


$6  Defence  of  the  Chap  II; 

notwithftanding  that  it  was  better  calculate  forgathering  and  plant* 
ing  Churches,  for  fuppi "effing  Herefies,  for  propagating  the  Faith,  for 
the  publick  Good  of  all  the  Churches,  than  that  which  took  place  after- 
ward, r* 

Laftly.  *  If,  faith  He  p." 72,  thzYresbyterian  were  defigned  to  be 
c  the  Standing  Form  of  Church  Government,  it  wou'd  ieem  to 
6  refleff  dijparagingly  -on  theWifdom  of  Christ  and  bis  Jpoflles,  that  they 
e  could  not  make  it  ferveall  the  Purpofes  for  which  fuch  aGovern- 
c  ment  ought  to  be  appointed  ;  but  that  to  fupply  its  Defe£te,they  muft 

*  uflier  it  in  with  a  Form,  not  only  inconfiftent  with  it,  but  which 
1  alfo  in  After  Ages  wou'd  be  declared  an  unfupportable  Yoke.  Is 

*  it  to  be  fuppofed,  if  they  hadforefeen  that  Parity  would  be  ever 
'  after  the  fitted  Form  of  Government  in  the  Church,  or  that  it 

*  cou'dbe  ufefullinit,  that  any  other  wou'd  have   at   allobtain'd? 

*  No.  Or  was  there  any  NecefTity  that  any  other  fhould  obtain  ?  . 
* .  Doubt le'fs  none  at  all.  Is  not  this  a  very  mannerly  Harangue  ? 
Mr.  Rhind  muft  Difcipline  both  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  into  their 
Duty,  and  teach  them  what  was  Confident  with  their  Wifdom, 
whatwouH  repel  dif par  agin  ly  upon  it.  But  admitting  it  were  man- 
nerly, Is  there  any  Truth  in.  it?  No,  not  one  Syllable  even  accor- 
ding to  the  Principles  of  his  own  Mafter  the  Great  Dodwell,  ac- 
cording to  whom  the  Apoftles  did  not  appoint  Several  Orders  of 
Men,  as  Mr.  Rhind  allcdges,  for  the  Work  of  the  Miniftry,  but 
one  Order  only  viz.  of  Simple  Presbyters.  Plainly  Mr.  Dodwell's  Ac- 
count of  the  Matter  is  this,    4  That   the  Bifhop  of  Jerufalem  (as  we 

•*  have  Already  c'&ferved)  was  Primate  of  the  Chriftian  Church  all  the 

*  World  over.  That  the  Church  of  jerufalem  by  her  Itinerant  Mik 
c  fionaries  exereed  the  whole  Difcipline  in  ail  the  Chriftian  World  (d). 

*  That  thefe  Itinerant  Miflionaries  (/)  whether  Apoftles  or  others, 
■*  were  extraordinary  Officers.    That  wherever  they  came,  they  ne- 

6  ver  ordained  any  Bifhops  but  Simple  Presbyters  only  with  aC/kw>- 
•{  Maa  among  them  for  Orders  fake ;  all  which  had  indeed  a  Power 

of 


[d]  Ifsccergo,  c^m  ica  fe  habuetint,  facile    inde  cqlligimus,  umcum  fuifle,  in  hoc  .univerfo  inrervallo, 

Chfiltia  ttis  Principium,  Epifcopiim  HierofoLymitanum. Primis  autem  rem  poribus  vix  fere 

n  in  obnoxias  Ecclefix  KierpftlymjtanA  Ecclefias  eacercuerunt  quain  Ecclefix  Hierofolymitana,    Mi- 
i  res  eorqm  in  pa'itibus  le'motioribus  procurandas.  Tarnnef.  Sect.  10.  p.  3®  32.     [e] 
iibique  conftituta  funt  Ecclefiarum  exterarum  Prcsbyceri,   JLxtr<HitAinw9y*m  iutem 
Reftornrn  fummos  facra  Litene  ipfac  aguofcunt  Apeftolos.  Ibid. 


Bed:.  V*  Presbyterian  Government         0:7 

i  ofpreaching  the  Word,  a nddifpenfing  the  Sacraments,  butneitber 
they  nor  their  Chairman  were  to  touch  the  Government  with  one  of 
their  Fingers.  Plainly  '  they  had  no  Power  toexau&orate  orde- 
'  pofe  any  of  their  Number  how  Criminal  foever,  nor  tofurrogate 
f  new  Presbyters  in  Place  offuch  as  dyed,     nor  ro  exclude  any  from 

*  the  Communion,     nor  to  reftore  fuch  as  had  been  excluded  though 

*  never  fo  penitent  (f).     ' 

This  Eltablifhment  continued  till  afrer  the  Dellruclion  of  Jtfufdt- 
em  and  the  Death  of  Simeon  rhe  Son  oiC/eopbas.  At  length  about  the 
Year  CVI.  the  Name  of  Bijbop  before  common  to  all  Presbyters  was 
appropriate  to  one  in  each  Presbytry.  An&ihis  was  tbejirjl  Tear,  faies 
he^\  ui Jet  Ling  EpifcopAcy. 

The  Bifhopchus  letup  was,  if  we  will  believe  Mr.  DodwelJ,  en- 
dued with  a  iwingeing  Po  A!er  indeed.  '  The  difpenfing  all  Rewards 
<  and  Pumfhments  in  the  Chriftian  Society  was  in  his     Hands  A- 

*  LONE;     in  his  Hands  was  the  WHOLE  Government,  and  that 

*  Legislative  Power  that  is  Competent  to  the  Church  and  thatwith- 
1  out  a  RIVAL  or  iVUte  (g).  Yea  fo  uncontroulable  was  his  Power, 
that  tho'  he  might  caft  himfelf  out  of  the  Church  by  his  Schifm,  Here- 
fie  or  Sacrificewg  to  Idols  ;  in  which  Cafe  the  Epifcopal  College  might 
fupply  his  Place  with  another,  yet  it  was  not  in  the  Power  of  that 
College,  muchkfs  of  his  Presbyters,  nay  not  of  any  Creatureto  de- 
pofehim,  how  Immoral  foever  he  were  in  his  Lifet  how  ill  foever 
hegoverned  the  Church,  but  he  was  to  be  left  to  the  Judgment  of 
God  alone  (/■>)•  This  was  the  Ignati&n,  this  the  Qjpi&mck  Bifhop5 
this  the Epiicopacy  that  Jbou'd  always  obtain    (i). 

N  I 


(f)  Parasnef.  Se6t.  10.-  p.32,.  33.  Munijs  faneEcclefiarum  publicis  obeundis  ita  vacabac,  ut  tamen  Difci- 
plma:,  partem  nullam  auc  Regurums  ad  mil  ultra  vine.  Nee  legimus  unquam  ab  his  Ecclefiarum  Pr-esbyteris  feu 
«xauctoratos,  cum  ita  mererentur,  Presbyteros ;  feu  novos  in  De-morcuorum  leca  fuffectos.  Nee  pulium 
aliquem  Communione,  nee  horum  Presbyceriorum  decrets  reftitutum. 

f  Ibid.  Sect.  23.  p.  102.  Non  longe,  ut  opinor,  aberrabimus    fi  Annum  Conftituti  Epifcopatus  primordialem 
ftatuamus  Chiifti  CVI.  utfcilicet  fueric  Anno  illo  paulo  vel  Antiquior  vei  Recentior. 

(g)  Ibid.  Sect.  37.  p,  176'.  Sic  penes  SOLTJM  Epifcopum  erunt  focietatis  Chnltiana;  Pra?mia  omnia  atque 
.Pseia;.  Indefequetur  penes  eundem  efle  vifibili;  Ecclefia;  Regimen  OMNE,  Poteltatemque,  qualis  in  hac  Socie- 
tate  locum  habet,  Legishtuiam.     Et  quidem  fine  2E.MXJLO. 

[  h]  Ibid.  Sect.  42.  p.  192.  Nee  opus  erat  Judice  qui  eum  exuat,  fed  quo  fedes  illius  antea  vacuafupplea- 
tur.  Tale  Crimen  erat  Idohs  facrificafse."-.  Tale  Crimen  erat  Hsvefis,—  Similis  erat  caufa  Scifmaus.—  Itaque 
fenten:ia  nulla  opus  eft  quas  illosejiciat  ex  Ecclefia,  vel  exuat  Officio.  Hucufque  ergo  null  1  eft  Poteftas  in  E- 
•pifcopo.i.  Sed  vero  nullas  kgimus  his  temponbus  Epifcoporum  depofitionerj  propter  Cnmma  qia:  non  lJotef- 
tatem  lpfam  Epifcopakm  fuftulerint.  Nullas  propter  Morum  vitia  fola.  Nullas  proper  Ecclefiam  male  ad- 
miniftratam.  [i  j  Ibid.  Sect.  37.  p.  176.  Reite  ergo  fine  Epifcopo  Ecclefiam  nequiacm  elTc  poffe  cenfuit  Tg~ 
•natius  Scff. 40.  p.  i86.iupremos  enim,  infuaquemque  Ditione,  Chnftoque  SOLI  obnoxios  Epifcopos  agnoicit 
ibi  S  Cyfrianus.  Sect •  J4.  p.  240.  Bono  rieiet  Retormatioms  publico,  fi  Epifcopi  pnm.cvisillorum  Junbus  re- 
ftaurentur, 


'Defence  of  the  Chap.  II 


lam  fully  perfwaded  that  this  Dodwellian  Scheme,  fofar  asit  Nar- 
rates the  lowers  of  Bifhops,  is  the  moft  extravagant,  chimerical  and 
falfe;  yea  indeed  the  moft  fc^ndalous  toChriftianity  that  ever  was  or 
perhaps  will  be  heard  of;  but  let  his  Followers  lookto  that  the  bed: 
Way  they  can:  Only  'tis  plain  that,  fofar  as  M.  DodwelPs  Judgment 
or  Amhoriry  reaches,  Mr.  Rkincfs  Argument  is  utterly  loft :  And 
the  Firtt  Form  of  Government  certainly  might  be  altered  ;  becaufe, 
by  the preceeding  Scheme,  itatlually  was  altered.  I  am  then  long- 
1  ig  after,  this  Reprefentation  to  hear  what  Judgment  Mr.  Rhind  will 
pafs  upon  his  above  Reafonings. 

I  fhould  now  proceed  to  the  next  Particular,  butl  crave  leave 
e're  I  go  further  to  make  an  Obferve  or  two0  . 

In  the  Firft  Place  I  obferve  that  there  is  nothing  the  Epifcopal 
Authors,  and  Mr.  K/?/>/dasmuchas  any,  more  fiequently  and  wil- 
lingly Aide  into  than  Harangues  againft  a  Government  by  Parity^  ? 
Here  they  lay  out  all  their  Colours,  exert  their  utmoft  Eloquence, 
and  even  bear  down  their  Reader  with  a  Torrent  of  Rhetorick.  But 
I  hope  by  this  Time  the  Reader  is  abundantly  convinced  that 
ihefefame  Harangues  againft  Parity  are  very  fenfelefs  Things.  For, 
Firft,  by  the  former  Account  from  M.  DodmU  we  have  heard  that 
Presbyters  had  not  the  leaft  Share  in  the  Government,  and  that  the 
WHOLE  Government  was  in  the  Bidiop's  Hands,  and  in  his  A* 
LONE.  Secondly,  the  fame  M.  Dodwell  allures  us5  and  he  is  certainly 
right  in  it,  that  all  Bifhops  were  originally  equal  .  By  Divine  Right 
are  fo,  and  continued  to  be  fo  till  towards  the  Reign  otCwftan* 
tins  the  Great  that  Archbifbops  and  Metropolitans  were  brought  in,  not 
upon  any  Divine  Warrant,  but  by  Padtions  among  themlelves  (£)„ 
Ibsrdfy,  he  allures  us  in  like  Manner,,  that  the  Church  in  each 
Nation  and  Province  was  governed  by  the  Epifcopal  College  (tj9  and 
that,  too  acling  in  a  Parity.  Foi4>tbly...('  That  the  faid  Yaruy  of  all 
I  Bifhops  (m)  was  moft  confident  even,  with  a  flour  idling  Difci* 
I  plkie ijQthcif MdUh /and Manners^,   and.  that,  the  very  f'aritj  it  felf 

would 


jjfeS, V.         Presbyterian  Government]  &§ 

■  *  would  takeaway   all  thefe  Contentions   which  often  a  rife  from 

*  Worldly  Pride,  Emulation  or  Envy.     Is  it  not  then  plain  that  the 

i  Government  of  the  Church  Univerfal,  and  the  Government  of every 

National  Church  was  and  ought  to  be  by  Parity  ?     And  what  then 

fignifie  all  their  Declamations  againft  Parity?     Will  they  not  equally 

ferve  the  Presbyterians  againft  an  Epifcopal  Parity,  as  they  do  the  Epif. 

« copalians  againft  a  Presbyterian  Parity  ?  Or  is  Parity  fo  N  imble  a  thing 

as  to  alter  its  Nature  according  as  the  Side  is  that  ■  efpoufes  it?  I 

would  then  advife  our  Epifcopal  Brethren  to  refervc  their  Harangues 

on  that  Subject  till  they  hear  of  a  new  Edition  of  the  Formula  Ora- 

toria;    for  though   they  import  nothing   in  the  Controverfie  of 

Church  Government,     yet  they  may  be  worth  their   Room  there;  _ 

andpoflihJy  be  ufefull  to  fome School  Boy  of  a  Barren  Fancy  to  fur- 

;  nifli  out  his  Oration  with. 

In  the  Second  Place,  Wliat  a  very  Jeft  do  the  greater!  Authors  on 
the  Epifcopal  Side  make  themfelves.  Dr.  Hammond  in  innumer- 
able Places  ( n )  will  have  us  believe  that  the  Apoftles  at  firft  or- 
dained no  Meet  Presbyters  but  Bishops  only.  No,  faith  Mr.  Dod- 
well,  the  Apoftles  at  firft  ordain'd  no  Bijhops  but  jimpie  Presbyters 
only.  Here  are  the  two  gre?teft  Champions  of  the  Caufe  by  the 
Ears  together  on  the  moft  Material  Point  of  the  Controverfie.  What 
can  the  Presbyterians  do  in  the  mean  while  but  gather  the  Spoil, 
which,  I  think,  very  plainly  falls  to  their  Share  which  foever  of 
'em  two  gains  the  Viclory.  For  if  Dr.  Hammond  be  right,  the  Pref* 
byterians  cannot  be  Wrong',  a  Bijbop  without  presbyters  under  Him 
being  the  Lkeft  Thing  in  the  World  to  a  Presbyterian  Minifter. 
But  if  Mr.  Dodwell  is  right,  the  Presbyterians  clearly  gain  the  Caufe; 
there  being  no  Mention  of  Epifcopal  Government  in  the  New  Tefta- 
merit ;  and  the  Year  of  Chnft  CVI  being  the  firs?  year  of  its  Setle- 
ment.  For  my  own  Part  I  am  perfectly  convinced  that  the  apoftles 
ordain'd  no  presbyters  but  fuch  as  were  Bijhops  too  in  the  full  Scrip- 
ture extent  of  that  Word,  that  is,  who  had  Power  of  Ordaining y 
exercifing  DijcipUne  and  Governing  the  Church  as  well  as  of  Preach- 
ing and  difpenfing  the  Sacraments,  But  that  thefe  Bijhops  had  (as 
Dr.  Hammond  fancies )  a  Power  of  Ordaining  under  themfelves  Sim* 

N  2  fie 

**  i  iii j» 

£nj    Difs.^..  Cap.  15,  20,  21,22.  Vind.  of  the  Difs.  Chap.  2.  Annoc.  on  A6t.  1 1 .  b  and  14.  *. 


ioo  Defence  of  the  Chap,  lb 

pie  Presbyters  as  they  call  them,  that  is,  Men  impowered  to  Preach 
and  Difpenfe  the  Sacraments,  which  is  the  worthier  Part  of  the 
Office,  and  on  the  Account  of  which  efpecially  the  double  Honour 
is  due;  without  Power  of  Or  tuning  and  Govr/ni»z,  which  .is  the 
kfler  Part  of  the  Office,  I  frnll  believe  it  when  I  fee  it  proved.  In 
the  mean  Time  I  am  not  more  perfwadcd  that  there  is  fuch  a  Book 
as  the  Bible,  than  I  am  that  there  is  no  mention  in  it  of  any  fueh 
Creature  as  a  Simple  Presbyter  or  of  a  Power  lodged  in  the  Hands  of 
a  Ri/hpp  ro  makeany  fuch  ;  or  that  there  is  in  all  the  Kingdom  a 
Vresbyerian  Vlinifter  who  is. not  as  much  a  Bifjjnp,  in  all  tint  Scnfe 
the  New  1  element  means  the  Word,  as  the  Primate  of  all  Eng* 
land  is.     I  now  proceed  to  Ex  -mine. 

IV.  His  Demonftrauon  for  the  Divine  Right  of  Prelacy  fiom  its 
being  confirmed  by  Miracles.  The  Reader  heard  before  of  Mr; 
Rhtnefs  Miracle  Working  Bifhops.  This  He  tells  Us  p.  6g.  has 
given  him  the  Hint  of  alhing  winch  in  His  Opinion  is  a.  Plain  Demonv 
Urmonfor  Epifcopacy,  which  is  this  in  His  own  Woids. 

'Seeing  afrer  that  Time,  in  which  a   Pioper  Epifcopacy  is   ac- 

*  knowleclged  to  have  univerfally   obtairrM,  feverals  (  whom  the 

*  Advei  faries  of  that   venerable  Order  cannot  deny  to  have  been 

*  Bifhops  in  the  Ordinary  acceptation  of  that  Term  )  were  allowed 
'  the  Gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft;  'tis  certain  thit  Their  Office  was  of 
c  Divine  Inftitution  For  it  is  not  to  be  tuppofcd  that  our  Lord 
'  wou'd  have  vouchafed  them  thefe  ipecial  Donatives  of  Heaven, 

*  which  they  employed  in  the  Oifcharge  ofthe  Epifccpal  Office,  had' 

*  it  been  (  what  the  Presbyterians  commonlv  call  it  )  an  Anrichri- 

*  ftian  Ufarpation.  Thus,  if  theOffi<:e  of  an  A  pottle  be  of  Divine 
'  Inffitution,  that  of  a  Bifhop  mutt:  be  fo  too,  the  Credentials  for 
'  the  Million  of  Both  being  of  the  fame  Authority.-  Thts  is  His 
Demon  Q  rat  ion 

I  do  not  wonder  to  find  M.  Dodmtl  (o)  hint  at  this  Argument; 
his  Scheme  had  need  of  it  :  For  he  in^enuoufly  owns  that  Epifcopacy  is* 
not  to  be  found  in  the  New  Tettameut  j  nor  indeed  can  be,  as  be* 

[o]   Paranef.  Se£h  17.  v>.  74..  Ei'anc  prwcerea,illoqi!oqiie  Seculo  D.>na  Spi'itus   S.  *C  Miracula  illuft'ia,  qu<B 
JBeiim  iub  lila  qjuque  DiUaplma  praefentiflimum  probarmc.     Qux  fanefperan  non  jjoferant,  ij  au  AuticiuiUo  6^  : 
S«^uiW«Myft«uoiauiaima«Eaprocelsiflet,  quod  voluiu.NupciiMa^iitu.  1 


Seft. V.  Presbyterian  Government]        lot 

ing  hter.  than  all 'the Writings  thereof.  But  for  Mr.  Rhind  who  wasfo 
well  furnifhed  with  Arguments  from  the  Scripture,  to  opprefb  us 
with  thefe  and  with  Miracles  too  was  very  unmercifull.  However 
feeing  he  will  needs  go  upon  the  Topick  of  Miracles  and  extraordi* 
nary  Gifts,  I  think  it  but  reafonablethat  Presbytry  fhonld  put  in  for 
its  Share.  Bifhop  S/w/iw^himfelf  relates  (p)  oijohn  Rjiox,  that 
fre'prophefied  of  Thomas  Mrifldndz  younger  Brother  of  Lethington^s, 
who  had  infulted  upon  the  Murder  ofthe  good  Regent  Murray,  That 
hejhould  die  where  none  jhouldbe  to  lament  him.  And  the  Prophefie  was 
literally  accomplilbed.  He  relatesalio  Qj)  that  he  foretold  ofthe 
Earl  of  'Moton  That  his  End  jhoutd  be  with  Shame  and  Ignominy  if 'he  did  ' 
not  mend  his  Manners;  which  the  Earl  remembred  atthe  Time  of 
his  Execution,  andfaid  '  that  he  found  thefe  Words  to  be  true  and 
fi -"John  Kjwx  therein  to  be  a  Prophet.  He  relates  alfo  (?)  how  he 
p'"<  'phefied  that  the  Laird  of Grange  jhoutd  be  putted  out  of  his  Nefi^  and 
bis  Car  cape  hang  before  the  S»*,which  accordingly  cametopafs.  He  re* 
latesalfo  (s)  a  Couple  of  Miraculous  Providences  interpofed  in  be? 
halfoi  M.  John  Craig  another  Presbyterian  Minifler.  Twenty  other 
Things,  as  miraculous  and  at  leaft  as  well  attefted  as  thefe  ofMe- 
lito,  Ien<eus,  or.  Gregory  might  be  related  of  other  Presbyterian  Mi- 
nilters;  but  for  the  greater  Credit,  I  have  fatisfied  my  felf  with 
thefe  recorded   by  the  Epifcopd  Hiftorian.' 

In  the  mean  Time  I  am  fully  convinced  that  there  cannot  be 
a  greater  Weaknefs  than  to  bring  fueh  Things  in  Argument  on 
the  one  Side  or  the  other.  Had  ever  a  Bijh-op  or  any  Body  elfe 
come  and  preached  t J  the  World  that  Efi/copacy  is  of  Divine 
Right,  and  that  all  the  PaiTages  ofthe  NesV  Tdhmerit  relating 
to  Church-Government  are  to  be  underfbod  in  a  Senfe  confident 
With  that  Doctrine,  and  had  offered  to  work  a  Miracle  lor  Con- 
firmation of  all  this.  Had  the  Event  Anfwe/ed,  and  an  uncontest-* 
ed  Whrach  been  wrought ;  I  acknowledge  it  might  have  fupei  fed  ed 
ail  o. her  Arguments,  and  put  an  End  to  all  further  Difputes.-  But 
i  Iluippofeit  will  puzle  Mr*  Rhind  to  find  whete  this  \\  as  everdone; 
nay  winch  is  a  great  unhappinefs  to  him,  by.  his- -Account  fuch  a 

Miracle 


If  }  Churcfc  Hift.  p.  23^, ;  I  q.  I  ibid.  p.  zfy.  ;  r  r]  Ibid.  p.  atfS.;    £/ J  Ibid.  p.  4^ 


ioa  Defence  of  the  Cfisp.  J7. 

Miracle  in  thofe  early  Days  had  been  unnecefftrv;  becaufenoBody 
then  was  in  any   Doubt  about  the  Divine  Right  of  Pn/aty :     No 
.  Calvm  was  not  born  for  manv  hundreds  of  Years  after  ;  nay,  Aenus 
himfelf  that  Father  of  Presbyterian  Schifmaticks  was  yet   fleeping 
in  his  Original  Caufec.    There  are  feveral  good  Protectants  that 
do  not  think  that  all  the  Miracles  reported  to  be  wrought  by  the 
Jefuits  in  their  Miflions  among  the  Pagans  are  meer  Forgeries. 
If  there  was  any  Thing  teal  in  Them,  it  was  a  Seal  to  the  Troth 
of  Chriftianity  in  General  which  W2s  the  gieat  avowed  End  of 
their  Miflion.     But  will  any  Body  inferr  thence  that  the  Order  of 
the  Je/uits  is  of  Divine  Inftitution?     Balaam  was  endued  with  Ex- 
traordinary Gifts,  does  it  therefore  follow  that  God  approved  of 
his  Character  as  a  Diviner  or   Soothfayer?     Cyprian,   difcou  fi;ig  of 
fome  who  had  broken  off  the  Church   by  Schifm,  vet  fuppofes  it 
poffible  for  Them  to  fignalize  themfelves  by  Miracles  ft  J.    In  like 
Manner  Mgufitn,    *  Let  no  Man,  faith  he  (?/),   vend  Fables  a- 
'  mong  you.     Both  Pontius  wrought  a  Miracle,  and  Donat us  pray* 

*  ed  and  God  anfwered  him  from  Heaven.  Firft  either  They  are 
c  deceived  thwmfelves,  orelfeThey  deceive  others.  However  fuppofe 
'  he  could  remove  Mountains,  yet,  faith  the  Apoftfe,  If  I  have  not 
'  Chanty  lam  nothing.     Let   us  fee  whether  he  hath  not  Charity, 

*  I  fhould  have  believed  it,  it  he  had  not  divided  the  Unity  :  For 
'  my  God  hath  warned  me  againft  all  fuch  Wonder-mongers  fay- 

*  ing  In  the  latter  Days  there  jlj all  arife  falfe  Prophets  doing  Signs  and 
1  Wonders,  Thus  Augufiin,  Here  then  is  one  Demonstration  for 
Epifcopicy  fairly  fpoiled.  But  as  it  is  not  the  Firft,  fo  it  is  not  like- 
ly to  be  the  Laft. 

ART 


[tj  Cyprian  de  Unitat  Ecclefix.  Nam  &  prophetare,  &  Dsemona  excludere,  &  Virtutes  magnas  in  rer» 
is  facere,  iubumis  unque&  admuabilis  res  elt ;  nun  tamen  Re^num  ccelefte  conieq  uitur  quifqms  in  his  om- 
nibus mvemuir,  nifi  rt£h  &  jufti  Icineris  obfeivatione  [  h.  e.  Vnitatis  EccUfia  ]gradiatur.  [  v]  .jiu&uftinus 
Tom.  IX.  Traft.  13.  in  Evan.  Joan.  p.  122.  Nemo  ergo  vobis  Ubulas  vendac.  Et  Pontius  fecit  miractdum,  8c 
Donatus  oravit  &  rffponijt  ei  Deus  de  Ccelo.  Pumo  an:  tallumur  auctallunt.  Poftremo  )ac  ilium  monces 
limsrene.  Chaiiutem  autem,  inquit,  non  habeam,  nihil  fum.  Videamus  utrum  habueru  Charicatem.  Cre- 
<h  rem,  (i  non  diviuflec  Umtaiem.  Nam  &  contra  iftos,  ut  lie  loquar,  intrabilianoscautum  mefceJcDeusmeus,, 
Dicens ;  in Bovifliims  temponbus exfurgent  Pieudoprophets,  facicntes iigna  6c  ponenia. 


Presbyterian  Government}       io5 


A  R  T  I  G  L  E    III. 

erein  Mr.  R hind' s  Proof  for  the  Jnftitmim 
of  'Prelacy  from  the  Epifcopacy  ofl  imochy 
ami  Titus  r  is  Examined.  From  P,  74  to  P 


PON  -this  Argument  I  fhall  I.    Examine  His  Reafonings 
by  which  He  introduces   Himfelf  to  it.     II.  The  Argument 
it  Celf,  and  what  He  has  advanced  for  makeing  it  a  Good  one. 

I.  1  am  to  Examine  His  Reafonings  by  which  He  introduces  Him- 
felf to  the  Argument.  I  have  fo  good  an  Opinion  of  His  Judgment 
as  to  believe  He  Himfelf  was  convinced  of  the  Weaknefs  ot  what 
He^has  hitherto  advanced.c  B«j,  faith  He  p.  74;  there  is  yet  fill 
Something  behind,*  which  ALONE  "Ms  SUFFICIENTLY  frove, 
that  that  Superiority  of  Power  which  the  Jpoftles  exercifed  over  the  Sub- 
ordinate  Orders  of  illergy  Men,  that  is,  over'  Friers  and  Deacon f 
(  and  why  not  over  Preiats  too,  feeing  there  were  then  iuch?  Wou'd 
He I'l  have  us  to  btlieveli  They  were  hail  -Fellow  with  the  Apo- 
IHes  ?  )  was.'  not  peculiar  to  Themt^  and  confquentlj  'not  E  X- 
TRAOftDlNARIi  Now  pray  what  may  this  be  ?  5Tis 
thisy ■-■,*  That the  fame  was  communicated  to  others,  even  to 
&  fo  many,  that  perhaps  there  was  not  a  Church  constituted  by  the 
&  Apoftles,  where  there  was  not  fuch  a  Superior  Officer  appoint- 
6  ed;at  lead  this  holds True  of  the  greater!  Number  of  thefe  where- 
*  of  there  is  Mention  made  in  the'' -New-  Teitament.  Ir  will  be 
very.ftratige  if  Mr.'  Rhind  can  make'  good  tins  v  For  Fi/Jl,  There 
is  the  Church  of  Corinth,  the  Churches  of Gdatia,  the  Churches 
O^'Fhl/pptsnd  all  Macedonia,  the  Church  of  Tht$domcay  "with  a  great 
many. more  mentioned  in  the  New-  Teftament;  but  of  any  fbch 
Superior Officer  in  any  of  >  'em  there  is  a  deep  Silence  m  the  Scri- 
^iqre*^  £ec0ffd/j}^J  is;  theory-  ?everie  of  ^MtPOodmiP^-Do^'mt  ^ 
',"'  "  accord"" 


fc<~  -\ 


164  Defence  of  the  Chap  //. 

according  to  whom,  as  we  have  already  heard,  there  was  no  fuch 
Superior  ORDINARY  Officer  appointed  in  any  Church  con- 
sumed by  the  Apoftles,  the  WHOLE  Government  being  ma- 
naged by  EXTRAORDINARY  Officers  fent  from  Jeru/alem. 
But  Mr.  Rh/nd  challenges  the  Presbyterians  to  condejeend  from  the 
AOs  and  Epiftles,  upon  one  Act  0/ Ordination  and  Jurifditlion,  a- 
bout  which  fuch  an  Officer  was  not  principally  employed.  And  I  chal- 
lenge Him  again,  indeed  all  His  Party,  to  condefcend  upon  one 
Aft  about  which  fuch  an  Officer,  not  EXTRAORDINARY, 
was  employed.  Mr.  Rhind  forefaw  that  His  Challenge  would  be 
thus  returned      And  this  brings  Me 

II.  To  Examine  His  Argument  or  Infiance  in  Anfwer  to  the  fa  id 
returned  Challenge.  77;/;,  faith  He  p.  74,  was  the  Cafe  of  Ephefus 
and  Crete,  where  Timothy  and  Titus  acted  with  fuch  a  Superiority  of 
Power.  I  Anfwer,  not  Good:  For  Timothy  and  Titus  were  Extra* 
crdinary  Officers,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  thence  inferred  That 
that  Superiority  of  Power  wasdefign'd  to  be  perpetual.  Mr.  Rhind 
was  aware  that  this  Anfwer  would  be  made  to  Him ;  and  there- 
fore having,  with  unufual  Ceremony  and  Good-breeding,  declared 
p.  76,  that  it  is  not  fo  contemptible  as  (ome  would  reprtjent  it ,  He  applys 
Himfelf  with  all  His  might  to  defend  againft  ic  ;  and  to  prove 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  Extraordinary  Officers,  but  the 
Ordinary  and  fixed  Prelats  of  Ephtfus  and  Crete. 

This  He  argues  Fir  It,  from  the  Silence  of  the  Scripture,  that 
there  is  no  Intimation  made  in  all  the  Acls  and  Epiftlestlw  They 
were  fuch  Extraordinary  Officers.  Secondly,  From  the  Poitfcripts 
to  their  Epiftles  which  txprefly  call  them  the  firfi  B;Jhops,  that 
is,  Ordinary  and  fixed  Prelates  of  Ephefus  and  Crete.  Thirdly,  From 
the  concurring  Teftimony  of  the  Ancients,  who  with  one  Voice 
declare  as  the  Poftfcripts  do.  Fourthly,  From  Scripture  Authorities 
proving  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  of  an  Order  Superior  to  Pres« 
bytersand  Deacons,  and  fuch  as  was  always  to  be  continued  in 
the  Church.  A  Set  of  very  ftrong  Arguments  I  acknowledge* 
Let  us  Examine  whether  he  has  made  them  good. 

Fir  ft,  He  alferts  that  there  is  no  Intimation  made  in  all  the  A£ts 
And  Epiftles  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  fuch  Extraordinary  Officers, 
p.  77.    I  affirm  the  contrary.    No,  Mr.  Dodwell^  I  fhould  have 


:f$p&Jfc        Presbyterian  Government 4         105 

faid,  affirms  the  contrary;  and  Proves,  from  the  very  fame  Ar« 
humerus  drawn  out  of  the  Epiftles  which  the  Presbyterians  have 
always  infilled  on,  that  their  Office  was  not  fixed  with  refpeft  to 
Ephefus  and  Crete,  but  that  They  were  Itinerant  Millenaries. 
This  he  proves  with  Refpetl  toTimoiby  from  S.  Paulh BESEECH- 
ING him  to  abide  at  Ephefus,  from  his  being  called  an  EvangeUft^ 
from  his  frequent  Journeys  with  S.  Paul,  and  the  like.  And  with 
Refpe£t  to  7 Kus,  he  affirms  that  he  was  not  more  confined  to  any  one 
place  'ban  the  Jpoftie  Paul  himfelf  was.  I  have  fet  down  his  Words  OH 
the  Margin  (>)  that  the  Reader  may  fee  all  this. 

Secondly,  he  argues  from the  VoJtjfiripis  to  the  Epiftles  to  Timothy 
and  Pitas,  which,  faith  he  p.  78.  do  exprefly  call  them  the  firft  Bifhops3 
that  is,  Ordinary  ana  fixed  Prelates  ^  0/ Ephefus  and  Crete.  Well,  is  it 
true  that  they  were  fo  ?  We  have  already  heard  M.  Dodwell;  let  us 
hearanothir,  who  was  as  much  concerned  to  keep  the  Epifeopal 
Caufe  Right  as  ever  Mr.  Rhmd  is  likely  to  be.  The  Perfon  I  mean 
is  Dr.  Whitby.  *  First,  faith  be  (j),  IaiTenytbat  if  by  faying  Timo- 
i  thy  and  Tit  as  were  Bifhops,the  one  of  Ephefus  the  other  of  Crete,  we 

*  underftand  that  they  took  upon  them  rhefe  Churches  or  DioceiTes 

*  as  their  FIXED    and   PECULIAR    Charge,     in    which  they 
c  were  toprefide  for  Term  of  Life,  I  believe  that  Timothy  zndTitus 

*  were  not  thus  Bifhops.     Thus  he.  But  what  now  (hall  become  of 
I  the  Credit  of  the  poor  Poftfcnpts  by  this  ?     Why  the  fame  Dr.  Whitby 

proves  them  to  be  falfe  from  the  very  letter  of  the  Text  it  felf  in  the 
Epiftles.     But  Mr.  Rhind  is  more  tender  hearted.     *  Though, faith  he, 

*  They  are  no  Part  of  the  Canon  of  the  Scriptures  ;  yet  are  they  of 
4  fo  much  Authority,  that  the  Presbyterians  themfelves  have  not  yet 

*  dar*d  to  cancel  them  in  the  Common  Bibles.  Very  pleafrntly  / 
But  then  let  me  ask,  in  the  Firft  Place,  feeing  They  arena  Part  of  the 
Canon,    what  Authority  can  they  have  beyond  what  the  Reputation 

O  of 


[x]  Parcener.  Se£L  10.  p,  4.0.  41.  Sedvero  munus  illius  (  Timothei )  non  FIXUM  fuiffe  fed  Itinerariurrv* 
atiulca  arguunt.  Rogatum  ilium  inanfiffe  Efbcf  \eftacur  Apo'fr.oius,i  Tim.  1.  3.  Erat  ergo,  cum  kogaretur,  I:i- 
nerarius. Arguit  opus  Evtt7igel!fla  zTim.^.j-,  Arguunt  tot  illius  cum  S.  Pamo  itinera,  &  commune  illius  cum 
Apoftolo  Nomeu  in  Infcripuombus  Efi&olitum.qd.ThefsdtoiijcenfeA  Similiter  Tito,  &  qmdem  foli  de  conlli-- 
tuendis  in  Cretj.  «^?«  t«Xi»  Presbyr.cris,ideHi  p:ascipk  Apoftolus,  Tit  1.  J.  Rehcium  ilium  tin  He  ait,  ut  ea  qua: 
deeranr,corrigerec.  .Comitem  utkjue  Apoftolicum  relinqueretur.  E:  fane  Comitem  S.  Pauli  alia  quoqueloca 
doccnt,  non  magis  utique  cerco  aliciuloco  adftriStum  quam  ipfe  faerie  Apoftolus.  fj]  Preface  to  the  Epiftie 
j&  Tittts>  " 


io6  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

of  the  Authors  of  them  can  give  them  ?  Now  who  were  the  Authors 
of  them?  I  doubt  if  that  can  be  difcovered  unlefs  one  would  go 
to  En  dor.  Were  they  at  lead  early  ?  No,  I  will  yield  the  Argu- 
ment to  Mr.  Rhindiihe  can  find  them  for  at  lead:  500  Years  after 
the  Epiftles  were  written  ;  nay,faies  Dr.  Hammond  (^)  We  know  that 
the  Subfcriptions  of  the  Epiftles  are  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  An* 
cient  Copes.  2dly,  'Tis  true  the  Presbyterians  have  not  dar'd  to  can-, 
cell  them  in  the  Common  Bibles.  But  then  I  would  ask  him 
Who  firft  put  them  into  the  Common  Bibles?  I  doubt  very  much 
if  they  came  there  by  fair  Play.  The  Old  eft  Englifb  Tranflations 
have  them  not.    I  have  by  me  Epcljatut  CaumietS*  Tranflation 

prpnteB  in  tlje  pere  $f  oute  Xujflc  ®on  M.  d.  xxxix.  wherein 

there  is  not  one  Syllable  of  the  BilhopricksofT/'wo//^  andTirus.  For 
Inftance,  the  PoBftript  to  the  Second  Epiftle  to  Tmothj,  bears  this 

only,  mtitmx  from  Ecme  Mm  pauie  ions  p^fentt*  tot  \z= 

CCntl  CPUte  UP  DefOUe  CmiseiomBCCO.  But  not  one  Word  of 
Timothy's  being  ordained  either  Fir  ft  ox  Second  Biftiop.  J  ask  Mr. 
Rhind,  Secondly,  who  caufed  print  thefe  PoHJcnpts  in  the  fame 
Letter  with  the  Text,  whereas  ufually  they  were  put  in  a  diffe- 
rent Letter  that  they  might  be  known  to  be  no  Part  of  the  Can- 
on? Good  Mr.  Rhind,  pray  purge  your  Party.  In  the  mean  Time 
it  is  not  very  generous  to  take  Advantage  of  the  Presbyterians  for 
their  not  cancelling  them,  when  they  dar'd  not  doit ;  the  Power 
of  printing  Bibles  being  the  Prince's  Gift  not  the  Church's.  How- 
ever from  the  whele  'tis  plain,  that  it  is  Ridiculous  to  make  an* 
Argument  of  thefe  Poflfcripts. 

.  Thirdly,  He  argues  from  the  concurring  Teftimoniesofthe  Ancients 
who  with  one  Voice  declare  as  the  Poitfcriprs  do.  .  And  to  this,  faith  he» 
p.  78,  the  Presbyterians  will  find  themfelves  Jlraitned  to  rejoin.  Na 
Doubt..  Well,  where  are  thefe  Teftimoniesofthe  Ancients?  Oh,, 
'  how  eafie  were  it  for  Him  to  add  to  the  Number  of  Pages  by 
'  Quotations  to  this  Purpofe?  *  But  ftill  I  ask  where  are  they  ?.  Nay, 
not  one  of  thefe  Ancients  has  he  quoted  to  this  Purpofe,  Nay,  nor 
fa  much  as  Named.  Who  now  can  doubt  but  the  Presbyterians 
muft  find  themf  elves  Jlraitned  to  rejoin}     But  if  an  Epifcopaltan  rejoin, 

will 


I  z,  j  Pieiacc  to.ihe  2  Ep.  to  Thnotbj, 


$c&.  K       Presbyterian  Government^  iof 

will  it  not  do  as  well?    Hear  then  Dr.  Whitby,    *  The  great Con* 
1  troverfie,  faith  He  fa),  concerning  this  and  the  Epiftle  to  -27- 

*  mothyy  is,    whether  Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  made  Bifhops, 

*  the  one  of  Ephefus  and  the  Proconfular  Afia,  the  other  of  Cme,  ha  v« 
'  ing  Authority  to  make,  and  Jurifdiclion  over  fo  many  Bijljops  as 
\  were  inihoje  Precinffs.  Now  of  this  Matter,  I  confefs  I  can  find 
■*  Nothing  in  an)  Writer  of  thefrfl   three  Centuries,  nor  any  Inti- 

*  mation  that  they  bore  that  Name.  Thus  he.  .  And  the  Presby- 
terians being  fecured  from  the  Ancients  of  the  firft  three  Centuries, 
any  Hazard  from  the  4*eft  is  not  much  to  be  regarded;  For,  as 
M.  Le  Clerc  moft  Judicioufly  obferves  (  b*)  c  The  Teftimonies  of  the 

W  Antients  about  this  Matter,  who  Judged  rafhly  of  the  Times  of  the 
I  Apoftles  by  their  own,andfpake  of  them  in  the  Language  of  their 

*  own  Age,  are  of  little  Momem ;  and  fo  do  no  more  prove  that  27- 

*  tus  was  B  (hop  of  the  Ifland  of  Crete,  than  what  Dr.  Hammond 
'■*■  faies,  proves  Him  to  have  been  dignified  with  the  Title  of  ant 

*  Arcbbljhop. 

Fourthly,  He  argues  from   Scripture  Authorities  which  prove,  as- 
fie  faies  p.  79,  that  Timothy  and,  Titus  were  of  an  Ord*r  Superior 
to   Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  fuch  as  was  always  to  be  continued  in  tki 
"Church. 

Firft.  With  refpe£t  to  Timothy  he  obferves  from  JCls  20.  31. 
compared  with  Atis  19. 10.  and  Acts  19.26.  and  Ac~ls2o.ij.  that 
Ephefus  wasfurnifhed  with  Pafiors  e're  the  Apoftle  Paul  left  them. 
And  yet  he  btjoughi  Timothy  to  abide  there  to  charge  fome  that  They 
(bould  teach  no  other  Doctrine,  and  to  perform  feveral  other  Functions 
which  import  a  Superiority  of  Power,  with  refpeft  to  Ordination 
and  J ur if 'diet ion  :  *  For,  Jaith  He  p.  81,  Is  it  to  be  fuppofed,  if  the 
6  Presbyters  and  Deacons  of  Ephujus  could  alone  have  difcharged 
!  thefe  Offices,  that  St.  Paul  wou'd  have  continued  Timothy  there, 

*  encroaching  on  their  Divine  Right.  The  Anfwer  is  abundantly 
obvious  -9  for  F/Vy?,  when  rhe  Apoftle  was  a  departing  out  of  thefe 
Bounds,  he  warned  the  Elders  of  Ephejus  that  after  His  Departure 
Qntvous    Wolves  Jhould  enter  in  not  /paring  the  Flock.     To  give  a 

O  2  Check 


O]  Ibid,  ubi  Supra  p. 4.8/,  Vol.11,     [bl    Supplement  to  Dr.  Hammond's  Amiot.   on  the  Ep.  to  filMjfc 
>.  (  iruhi  )  J30. 


to8  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II 

Check  to  fuch  it  was  Expedient  in  the  Infancy  of  that  Churchy 
(none of  Her  Minifters  being  then  above  three  Years  Standing  in 
the  Office  Atfs  2.0.31.)  that  a  Perfon  both  of  Extraordinary  Cha* 
racier  and  Gifts  (hould -be  among  them.  Which,  when  once  the 
Government  was  fettled  and  Things  brought  into  a  fixed  Order, 
thtre  would  be  no  fuch  Occafion  for.  Secondly,  Paul's  befeechin^ 
Timothy  to  abide  at.  Ephefus  is  a  certain  Argument,  as  we  have  heard 
from  Mr.  Dodwtll,  That  he  was  not  there  eftabhfhed  BiQiop:  Fop 
to  what  End  fliould  He  btftech  a  BiQiop  to  refide  in  his  own  D10- 
cefs,  when  he  could  not  do  other  wife,  without  offending  God  and 
lueglecliag  his  Duty.  Thirdly,  The  Elders  of  Ephefus  already  or- 
dain'd  were  Biihops. .  So,  faies  Dr.  Hxmmond,  nay  fo  faies  the 
S3Cred  Text  Aiis  20.  28.-  ov?r  which  the  Holy  Ghoft  hath  made  yo# 
Bifhops:  And  therefore  as  Btjhopi  They  had  Power  to  perform  all 
Minifterial  Functions, and  only  wanted  fuch  an  Extraordinary  Per 
fon  as  Timothy  to  duett  and  affift  them  in  their  prefent  Circum 
fiances.  The  Romans,  (ometimes  when  the  Common  Wealth  was 
in  Imminent  Danger,  cieated  a  Dictator  with  an  Abfolute  Power 
for  Six  Months,  without  bounding  him  with  any  other  Inftru&ions 
but  that  he  Qiuld  take  care  A/V  qqid  Detriment  i  R-fp-tblici  caperet.  But 
will  it  therefore  follow  that  the  Dtftatorfjjrp  was  a  fhnding  Office  ?. 
Or  will  the  Romans  making  Choife  of  luch  an  Officer  in  their 
Extremity  jultifie  or  excufe  fyll*  or  Julius  C<e/ar  who  would  needs 
have  themfelves  declared  Perpetual  Dictators,  and  thereby  enflaved 
their  Native  Country,  Though  one  takes  Phvfick  when  heisfick, 
vet  it  would  be  a  very  unpleafant  Diet  for  Ordinary,  Though  a 
Gentleman  wears  leading  Strings  while  he  is  a  Child  ;  and  is  under 
Tutors  or  Curators  till  he  is  one  and'Twenty,  does.it  follow  that  he 
muft  always  be  io ?  . 

Secondly,  With  refpeft  to  Titus  Mr.  Rhmd  fuggeftsthathe  was 
left  at  Crete  with  a  Power  to  infpecl  the  Qualifications  of  fuch  a9 
fhould  be  ordained  Chip,  1.7.  to  rebuke  Eiders  as  well  as  others 
Chip.  2.  1  5.  to  rejeff,  th*t  is  to  Excommunicate,  H.-reticks,  and  all 
this  notwithstanding  there  were  other  Church  Officers  ordained  there 
befofe;  For  He  was  left  to  Jet  in  Order  the  Things  (  relating  to 
Ordination  and  Jurifdiciwn}  which  were  wanting  which  muft  needs 
ipferr  that  he  aded  m  a  Capacity  Superior  to  them.    'Tis  anfwep 


Se3v-VV        Presbyterian  Government}       169 

ed.  Crete  was  as  yet  in  a  great  Meafure  implanted  when  Paul  Mt 
him  there.  He  was  left  there  on  Purpofe  to  Ordain  Elders  in  every 
City,  Thefe  Elders  whom  he  ordain'd  were  Bifhops;  the  Text  ex- 
peflyfaiesit  Chap.  1.5— -7.  Dr.H^ww^Himielfownsit.  When 
therefore  they  were  once  ordain'd,  they  had  Power  to  perform  all 
Afts  any  Bilhop  is  capable  of.  But  Mr.  Rfeiaflferts  p.  8$,  4  That 
'Titus,  after  he  had  ordained  Elders  in  every  one  of  the  -Cires-  of 
4  Crete,  continued  there    exercifeing  what  we  properly  call  an  Epif- 

*  copal  Jurifdiclion  over  them  when  ordained.  But,  F/>#,  not  one 
Word  has  he  offered  for  the  Proof  of  this.  Secondly,  The  Scripture 
contradicts  it  as  we  (hall  hear  juii  now.  Thirdly ,  If  he  exercifed 
any  JunfdiQion  over  them,  they  being  Bifhops  themfelves,  it  could 
not  be  (imply  an  Epifcopdl  but  flri&ly  and  properly  an  Archiepifco- 
pal  Jurisdiction.  But  'tis  plain  he  did  not  continue  in  Crete  to  ex* 
ercife  either:  For,  Fourthly,  Dr.  Whitby,  not  on!y  confefles, 
bbt  proves  from  Scripture  ihat  he  did  not  continue  there.  '  As  for 
e  Titus  he  was  only  \e\xztCretexo  Ordain  Elders  in  every  City  and  to 
i"fet  in  Order -the  Things  that  were  wanting.     Having  therefore  done 

*  that  Work,  he  had  done  all  that  was  afligned  him  in  that  Sta- 
tion.    And  therefore  S.  Paul  fends  for  him  the  very  next  Year  to 

c  Nicopolis  Tit.  %.  12.    Thus  He.     If  therefore  Mr.  Rbintis  Inftance^ 
prove  any  Thing,    it  muft  be  the  Divine  Right   of  Non-rejidence3 
which  indeed  wou'd  be  no  ungratefull  Performance  to  feveral  Peo» 
pie  in  the  World 

Thus  I  have  gone  through  whatever  Mr.  Rhind  has  advanced 
on   this  Proof.     And  now  to  Conclude  it ;  there  is  Nothing  Surer 
than  that  there  was  a  perfect  Equality  among  Bifhops  for  the  fird 
three  Centuries,   and  fo  M.  DcinW/  affirms.     1  here  is  Nothing 
plainer  from  the  Scripture  than  that  there  were- Bifhops  at  Ephefus 
before  Timothy  was  left  there ;  and  that  thofe  whom  Titus  ordain-' 
ed  in  Crete  were  Bifhops  \n  all  that  Sence  of  the  Word  the  New 
Tdtament  owns.     How  then   Timothy   and   Thus  cou'd  be   the1 
fixed  and  ordinary  Prelats  oi \  Ephefus  and  Crete  is  beyond  the  Power  of 
Natural  Undemanding  to  conceive.     If  Mr.  Rhind  can  folve  me 
in  this  one  Scruple,   or  if  any  other  of  his   Brethren  can,  I  fhall* 
own  it  as  a  fingular  Obligation.     And  therefore  I  dettre  them  to 
ta'ke.  pans  on  their  Aniwer,  and  to  Labour  it  with  all  due  Care.* 

■     A&TiCkJ? 


i  io  Defence  of  tfa  Chap.  Ih 


ARTICLE    IV. 

Wherein  Mr.  R  hind  s  Proof  for  Prelacy  from 

the  Apocalyptick  Angels,   is    Examined. 

From  P,  84  to?.S6. 

MR.  Rhind  is  much  fhorter  on  this  than  on  any  of  the  Preceed- 
ing  Proofs.  The  Reafon,  no  doubt,  is,  becaufe  'tis  much 
clearer.  And  therefore  He  puts  on  all  his  Airs, and  treats  the  Presby- 
terians with  a  Noble  Difdain  in  the  Confidence  of  it ;  wondring 
Tbey  can  be  fo  Sen  fiefs  or  Obfrinate  as  to  refift  its  Evidence.  That 
I  may  not  wrong  Him,  I  fhall  fet  down  every  Word  of  what  he 
has  on  it  without  the  leaft  Omtflion. 

*  And  that  fuch  a  Superior  Order  did  obtain  a  confiderable  Time 

*  after  this,  is  evident  from  the  Inftances  or  the  Seven  Apocalyp- 
6  tick    Angels,    to    whom    our    Lord    directs    fo  many   Epiftles 

*  by    his    Servant  St.  John:     A    plain    Indication  of  his    nppro- 

*  bation    of  that  Authority  which  they  exercifed ;     efpecially  con- 

*  fidering  that  there  is  no  Infinuation  made  to  its  Difadvantage  in 
*■  the  Epiftles  dire&ed  to  them.  And  that  thefe  Angels  were  fingte 
1  Perfons,  and  the  Governors  of  thefe  Churches,  will  be  evtdtnt 
1  to  any  who  fhall  impartially  confider  the  2d  and  3d  Chap,  of  the 
4  Revelation^  where  they  are  plainly  characterized  as  fuch,  Jd  very 
4  plainly,  that  perhaps  all  the  Authors  who  ever   commented  upon  them9 

*  whether  Ancient  or  Modern,  have  Juppofed  them  to  be  Juch.     Nor  was 

*  it  ever  quefiioxed  by  any,  till  the  Iniertft  of  a  Party  obliged  fome 
•to  fearch  for  Criticifms,  by  which  they  might  feem  with  their 
€  Followers  to  anfwer  the  Argument  drawn  from  thefe  Inftances 
€  for  Epifcopacy :  But  the  Evaiions  they  have  been  forced  to  ufe, 
e  are  fo  (enjelefs,  and  have  been  fo  orten  expofed  as  fuch,  that  I  am 

*  faved  the  Labour  of  expofing  them  further,  or  of  repeating  what 

has 


Se£fc  VI     Presbyterian  Governments  jii 

*  has  been  already  faid  to  difprove  thenr,  only  I  muft  add,  that 
«  fo  groundlefs  are  they,  and  fuch  is  the  Evidence  of  Truth  on  the 

*  Efifeopal  Side,  that  it  extorted  from  fome  Presbyterian  Authors  and 
f  particularly  from  Beza,  one  of  the  mod  Zealous  and  Learned  Pa- 
^'trons  of  Parity,  a  Confeflion  that  thefe  Angels  were  fwgle  Per-. 
f  fons,  and  the  Governors  of  thefe  feven  Afian  Churches. 

Now  let  us  examine  all  this. 

In  the  Firii  Place.  Were  thefe  Apocalyptick  Angels  the  fixed  Bifbops 
©f  thefe  Churches  ?    'Tis  true    Mr.  Dodwell,1  in  his  Book  of  the  One 
Pr  left  hood  and  one  Altar  which   hepublifhed  in  the  Year  1685,  is  of 
the  Opinion  (V)  that  the  Bifhops  are  here  reprefented  in  a  My(ticalWay91 
and  perfonated   by    the  Name  of  Angels;  but  in  his  'Paranefis,  a  Book 
which     he    publifhei  above    20   Years   after  the  ■■  former,     and 
which  confequently  mufl  be  fuppofed  to  be  the  Wifer  Book  of  the 
two,  hefrequently  inculcates,  as  we  have  heard  before,  that  there 
were  no  fixed  Bi/hops  in  the  World  at  that  Time  ;  and  particularly 
as  to  thefe  Apocalyptick  Angels,  though  he  is  in  a  very  great  Doubt 
what  to  make  of  them  ( d)y  yet  by  no  means  will  he  allow  them 
either  to  have  been  Bifhops  or  indeed  the  fixed  Pre^bytries  of  the 
Place;  but  gueiTes  them  to  have  been  Itinerary  Legates  fent  fronV 
^jerufalemaniwei'mg  to  the  feven  Spirits  Zach.  4.  10.  <-hat  art  the  Eyes  : 
of 'the 'Lord which  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole  Earth.'-   (f  )   Was  Mf8  - 
Rhind  then  to  feek  for  Confidence  when  he  would  be  fo  pofitive  ' 
in  a  Matter  of  which  the  greateft  Man  of  his  Party  coia'd  not  have  ; 
a  clear  View,  and  in  which,  fo  far  as  he  could  guefs,  he  has  de-  ■ 
termined  againft  Him. 

Secondly,  How  came  Mr.  Rhind  to  number  thefe  Apocalyptlck  : 
Angels, ,  calling  ;  them   the  SEVEN    Apocalyptick    Angels  f 
The    Apocalypfe    it    felf   does   not   call    them     SEVEN.      It  is  > 
faid  'indeed  ;  Chap.   1.  20.  that  the'  feven  Candle '(licks  are  the  [even 
Churches j  there  both  the  Symbols  and  Things  reprefented  by  them  > 

are- 


[c  }  Chap.XlT.  Se^.2.  p.  33a.  &<%  '    [d]  VideSe&.  to;  p.32,  ■• 

[ej  Parxnes.  Seft.  io.  p.'32.-  Ica  tuifie  neceffe  erar3  fi    q'Jidem  vei'e    Epifcopifuiffirnt  Angeh  Apocalytic?, 
Sed  deillis  fententiam  noftram  intra  explicabimus.'  p.  39.  40;  Si  uon  fuffecerint,  fie    alios  fuifTe  venfimillirnurrj  ;l 
dfTer  Angelos  E  --1  ><i  ""in  U  >c?lypticos  ab  mfticurislocorum  Presbyteris.--Erancergo  et'iara  ipfi  fbrtafle  Hiero**    ' 

foiymitanorum  Legati.;  Tpd'-Apoftolis^ipfis  obnoxii uc  proinde  Oculis  Domini  fegte.nis-  Sfirjtibus  reipan»  '; 

deque uin&eli  <AgQCu.iygtiLt  ^ii  jjiv  n-rebanc  per  univerfam  Terramv-^-Sjc  fueriac etiam1 Hi-Ecclefiafwra  Prwts^  -: 
jwne  io?c »©riuadi,.  led  miffi  Hierofoljmif  Itinerant  ■■• 


ill  •  Defence  of  the  Chap,  If; 

are  numbered  :    But  it  is  not  fo  in  the  other  Branch.    '  Tis  not 

faid  The  Seven  Stars  are  the Szven  Angels,  but  indefinitly  are.  the  Seven 
Jngels  of  the /even  Churches.     Is  not  this  a  plain  Indication  that  the 
Holy  Ghofl:  would  not  oblige  us  to  take  the  Word  Angels  Angularly  R 
Thirdly,  are  thefe  Angels  characterized  as  fingle  Pe>lbns.?  Though 
Mr.  Rhind  indeed  is  more  thanordinarly  Sharp  fighted,yet  I  am  fofar 
from  feeing  this  Evident,  that  I  cannot   difcern  one  Shadow  of  it  * 
but  on  the  contrary,  I  think  I  fee  them,  and  that  too  as  plainly  al 
ever  I  faw  any  Thing,  characterized  foas  to  denote  a  Collective  Body- 
PofTibly  my  Sight  is  vitiated  ;     but    then  much  greater  Men    I'm 
fine  than  I,  and  at  leaft  as  good  Friends  to  the  Epijcopal  Caufe,  have 
feen  themjuft  thefameWay.     Dr.  Henry  More,     a  Mm  of  an  Apo- 
calypnck  Genius  himfelf,  frankly  owns  (/)  *  That  by  Angels,  zv- 
c  cording  to  the  Apocalyptick  Stile,  all  the  Agents  under  their  Pre* 
fidency  are  represented  or  infinuate.     And  this,  Jaubhe,  isfo  fre* 
quent  and  obvious  in  the  Apocalypfe,  that  none  that  isverfed  there- 
in can  any  wife  doubt  of  it.     Wherefore  Chrift  his  Writing  to  the 
■  Angel  of  the  Church  of  E^/W  inthis  Myftical  Senie  is  his  Writ- 
ting  to  all  Bifhops,  Parlors  and  Chriftians  in  the  firft  Apoftolical  In- 
4  terval  of  the  Church.     Thus  Dr.  More.     Yea  Mr.  DoW/himfelf 
owns  (g)  That  the  whole  Churches  of  the  Lydtan  or  ProcvnfuUr  A- 
fia  are  to  be  underftood  by  the  Myftical  Reprefentation  in  the  Apocam 
Ijpfe,  and  that  the  Reafon  why  S.John  confined  his  Number  to^w# 
is,    c  not  that  by  any    Geographical   DiftinQ ion  thofe  Seven  Cities 
e  were  incorporated  into  a  Body    more  than  others  of  that  Province 
*, but  that  he  had  a  particular  Regard  to  the  Number  of  the  Angels 
*  ofthePiefence.     How  is  all  this  confiftent  with  their  being  cbara- 
tferizedas /ingle  ?evfons?    But  let  us  wave  Human  Judgment  and 
appeal  to  the  Text. 

Fourthly.  I  ask,  Are  thefe  Angels  characterized  in  the  2d  and  3d 
Chap,  of  the  Revelation  as  fingle  Perfons  and  the  Governors  ot  thefe 
Chusches  ?  'Tis  true  each  Bpiftle  is  dire&ed  to  the  Angel  iu  the 
Angular  Number.  But  'tis  as  true,  that  tha;  Title  agrees  to  every 
Winifter  of  the  Gofpel,  and   to^veryone  that  bears  the  Mtfl^ge 

of 


(f  j     E.xposof  the  fevenEp.  to  ths  Seven  Churches  p.  =9     [g]    One 'Prieithood    Chap.  XII.  Seft.  * 


Sed.  V*        Presbyterkn  Government.        113 

of  the  Lord.  And  it  is  as  true,  that  the  Word  Angel  even  in  the 
fingular  Number  bears  kC'tiUeffi'Ve Sehfe;     as  when  it  isfaid  Pfalrxi 
24.7.  The  Angel  of the  Lor  dene  amp  r  sun  d  about  them  that  fear  him.     So 
that  nothing  can  be  inferred  on  the  Eptfcopal  Side  either  from  the  Title 
it  felf,    or  from  the  Ufage  of  it  in  the  fingular  Number.    But  then  if 
we  look  into  the  Body  of  the  Epiftles  themfelves,  confider  the  Way 
how  they  are  ufhered  in,     and  the  lolemn  Claufe  with  which  each  of 
them  concludes,    'tis  plain  that  Angel  muft.  be  taken  in  a  Colleclive 
Senfe,    as  including  not  only  all  the  Minifters  of  the  Church  but  in- 
deed the  whole  Church  it  felf.  Thus,  in  the/r/?  Place  John  directs  his 
Revelations  to  the  Seven  Churches  which  are  in  Afia.  Rev.  i.  4.     Thus 
the  Voice  behind  him  ordered  \i\m,What  thou  fee  ft  write  in  a  Book,  and  fend 
it  unto  the  [even  Churches  which  are  in  Afia  Rev.  1 .  v.  10.  1 1 .  Thus  at  the 
End  of  the  whole  Vifion,  /  Jefus  have  fent  mine  Angel  to  t  eft  ify  unto  you 
thefeThingsinthe  Churches  Rev.  22.  16.     Thus  at  the  End  of  every 
of  the  Epiftles  there  is  that  Solemn  Claufe,  he  that  hath  an  Ear  to  hear, 
let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  faith  unto  7^  Churches.  Secondly,  if  we 
look  into  the  Bodies  of  the  Epiftles  themfelves,     we  fhall  find  the 
Thing  ftill  more  clear.  Firftiw  the  Epiftletothe  Angel  of  the  Church 
of  Ephefus  fhall  we  think  that  the  Commendation  for 'Labour  and  Pa- 
tience,   the  Reproof  of  the  Decay  of  the// ft  Love,    the  Exhortation 
to  Repentance,  the  Threatning  to  remove  the  CandleBkk  out  of  his  Place, 
weredire&ed  to  or  concern'd  only  onefwgle  Perfon  ?     Would  our 
Saviour  punifh  a  whole  Church  fo  grievoufly  as  to  deprive  them  of  the 
Gofpel  for  the  Fault  of  their  Bifhop  ?NoMrhen  hefaies  the  Angel of "Ephe- 
ius,He  means  the  Church  in  it  faith  Aretas  Bifhop  otCafarea  in  Cappadocia 
(&).    2ly,   When  he  bids  the  Angel   of  the  Church  of  Smyrna.    Fear 
none  of  the fe  things  which  thou  fhalt  fuffer:      Is  it  not  prefentlv  added, 
Behold  the  Devil  fhdlcafi  SOME  of  YOU  into  Prifon  that  YE  may  be 
tryed ;  and  YE  fhall  have  Tribulation  ten  Dajs.  Is  this  the  Characterizing 
of  a  Jingle  Perfon?  When  he  exhorts  to  Faithfulnefs,  and  makes  Pro- 
vsntetohim  that  overcomes,     doeshedireQtothe  Bilhop  only  ?     No^ 
faith  Augujlin  (i)  He  faies  it  to  the  whole  Church,  ^diy,  When  he  faith 
to  the  Angel  of  the  Church  of Per gamus^l know  thy  Works 3  and  where  thou 

f  ,  drveSeJl9 


[  h  ]  Comment,  in  Apoc.  7M'W  |s  xJ.T7j  \Ky,>w[u^  x'yii* 
£ij     <j4i<guJhnTom.  IX.  HomU.z.in^poe.    Omei  Ecclefisiicit. 


ii4  Defence  of  the  Chap.//. 

dmllett,  even  where  Satan's  Seat  is,  was  it  the  Bifbop  only  had  fuch  bad 
Quarters,  when  'tis  inftantly  added  in  the  end  of  the  Verfe,  Antipas 
my  fait hfull  Martyr  was  Jlain  among  YOU  where  Sal  an  dwelitth?  No, 
faith  Augusim  (£),  '  thefe  things  under  a  fwguUr  Word  are  faid 
i  to  the  whole  Church,  becaufe  Satan  dwells  every  where  by  His 
*  Body  :  Now  the  Body  of  Satan  are  Proud  and  wicked  Men, 
'  juft  as  the  Body  of  Chrift  are  fuch  as  are  humble  and  Good, 
Iodeed  the  whole  Church  in  thefe  Parts  was  in  the  greateft  Dang, 
er  of  Idolatry,  or  of  Perfecurion  in  Cafe  of  not  complying  with  it: 
For  in  Pergamus  Mood  the  famous  Tern,  leof  JLfculapius,  whither 
the  greateft  Perfonages  went,  or  fent  their  Gifts  becaufe  of  the 
Fame  of  his  Oracle.  Thither  Earinus  Domitianh  freed  Man  fent 
his  confecrated  Hair  with  a  Mirrour  and  a  Box  fet  with  Jewels 
(I).  Thither  the  Emperour  Antonius  Caracalla  went  to  be  cured 
of  his  Sicknefs  by  the  God,  and  to  ly  in  for  Dreams  (  m  ).  Thi- 
ther alfo  Apollonius  Tyan<eus,  who  was  fet  up  to  mate  our  Saviour, 
went  to  be  Director  of  the  Oracle,  and  toinftruft  the  Votaries  that 
came  there  how  They  might  obtain  Divine  Dreams  from  the  God 
(  n  ).  To  this  God  Dragons  and  Serpents  were  Sacred,  and  main«-< 
tained  on  the  Publick  Charge  in  His  Temple.  '  Fittly  therefore 
was  Satan  that  Dragon  and  old  Serpent  Rev.  12.  9.  faid  to  have  His 
Seat  there.  Add  to  all  this,  that  admitting  there  had  been  fuch 
Officers  as  Prelates  in  thofe  Days,  yet  it  would  be  probable  that  the 
Ses  was  Vacant  at  this  Time:  For,  as  the  Tradition  goes,  Ant  in 
fas  was  the  Rifhop  of  that  Place;  but  He  was  Martyred  in  the 
Tenth  Year  of '  Domhian^  as  the  Roman  Marryrology  bears;  which 
was  the  very  Year  in  which,  as  the  mod  common  Tradition  car- 
ries it,  John  the  Divine  was  banifbed  to  Patmos.  And  Dx.Ham* 
nuond9  forfeeing,  it  feems,  this  Difficulty,  placed  -John's  Bamffiment 
in  the  Reign  of  Claudius,  And  makes  the  Relation  of  the  Mar-  ■ 
tyrdornof  Anttfas  Rev.  2.13.  to  be  not  thjlory  but  Prophefie;  and 

whereas 


fk]  Z>brfuf>ra  --  onani  Ecclefix  dick  in  unius    vocabulo,  quia  ubique   habitat  Satanas  per  Corpus  fuUEBj.i. 
Soxpus  autem  Sacana:  homines  funt  fuperbi  &  mail ;    Sic:it  Sc  corpus  thrdti  tunnies  &  boui,    . 
[1J  — 5* — Dulcefqtie  Capilios 

Pergameo  pofuic  dona  facrata  Deo.     M-irt, 
£  m  ]  He sodian  Lib.  4.  Cap.  5.  n„ 
(  a  )  Pbilojir :  iu  yrt.  ^ifoll..  Lib.  4.  Cap.  III*.  [,  -  ^_ 


Se&  V«        Presbyterian  Government.         xif 

whereas  the  Text  reads,  Antipas  my  Faithfull  Martyr  was  fain.  He 
paraphrafes  it,  Antipas,  far  His  Fidelity  and  Courage  in  -preaching  the 
Gofpel,  will  be  (Iforefee)  cruelly  MartyPd.  And  if  the  See  was 
Vacant  at  that  Time,  how  could  the  Epiftle  be  directed  to  the  Bi- 
fhop? 4thly,  When  He  writes  to  the  Angel  of  the  Church  in 
Fhyatira,  was  it  the  Works,  Charity,  Service,  Faith  and  Patience 
of  the  Bifhop  alone  that  He  commends  verfe  19?  Was  it  the  Bi- 
fhop alone  whom  He  reproved  for  fuffering  that  Woman  Jezabel  f 
No,  faith,  Augufim  (0).     '  It  'was  fuch  (in  the  Plural  Number) 

*  as  were  fet  over  the  Church,  who  neglecled  to  impofe  that  Se- 

*  vere  Difcipline  upon  Fornicators  and  other  riotous  Livers  which 
f  They  ought.  Is  the  Angel  of  that  Church  characterized  as  a 
Jingle  rerfon,  when  'tis  exprefly  ("aid  verfe  24.  But  unto  YOU  I 
fay,  and  unto  the  refl  in  Thyatira.  Are  not  here  two  Parts  of  the 
Church  plainly  diftinguifhed,  viz.  the  Ministers  thereof  in  the 
■plural  Word  YOU,  and  the  people  defcribed  by  the  refl  in  Thy. 
atira?  The  only  Anfwer  which  the  Epfcopal  Party  have  for  avoid- 
ing the  Force  of  this  Obferve  is,  That  the  ^ord  and  is  not  to  be 
found  in  fome  Copies  ;  and  fo  they  read  the  Text  thus,  Vnto  you 
I  fay  the  reH  in  Thyatira.  But  all  Anfwersare  to  be  fufpefred  that 
invade  the  Text.  'Tis  true,  the  Word  and  is  wanting  in  fome  Co* 
pies;  but  it  is  as  true  it  is  to  be  found  in  many  moe,  and  thefe  too 
of  as  good  Credit  and  as  great  Antiquity-  In  the  Year  1 546  Ton- 
Ball  Bifhop  of  Durham  found  an  Exposition  on  the  Apocalypfe  bear- 
ing the  Name  of  St.  Ambrofe  the  Bifhop  ( p\  which  He  publifli- 
$d  in  the  Year  1554,  and  in  His  preface  to  the  Reader  He  is  earn- 
ed to  have  him  believe  that  it  is  the  Work  of  Ambrofe  Bifhop  of 
Milan,  and  He  exprefly  reads  it  with  the  And.  I  believe  indeed 
TonftaH  was  deceived  about  the  Author.  But  this  is  certain  that 
whoever  He  was,  He  was  a  very  Ancient  Writer,  and  according- 

P  2  Jy 


[  o  3  Quod  aurem  dicic  Angelo Thyacii  a:  EcclefirC  [ Hibeo adverfum  te  fauca  ]  dicit  Prscpofius  Ecclefiarum ! 
qui  Luxunofis  &  tornicanubus,  &  aliud  quod,  libet  malum  agenubus  ieyentatem  Difciplinas  Ecclelisftics  nos 
imponunc.     Horn.   z.  in  Apoc. 

(  p  )  Expoiicio  Bead  Ambrofii  Epifcopi  fuper  Apocalypfa, 


Ti6  Defence  of  the  Chap.  11, 

ly  the  Work  is  inferted  among  thofe  of  St.  Ambrofe  (q).     And 
though  that  Writer  fometimes  mentions  the  Bifljop  in  His  Exposi- 
tion of  thefe  feven  Epiftles,.  yet  he  not  only  interprets  the  Stars  by 
Holy  Preachers    in   the   general,  but  alfo  lays  down  (r)  this  as 
a  general  Rule,  That  all  the  Governours  of  the  Catholick  Church 
are  fignified    by   thefe   Angels,  and  that  becaufe  of  their   being 
MefTengersof  the  Word  of  God,  to  the  People,  feeing  the  Word 
Angel  fignifies  a  Meffenger.    And  though  Beza  upon  the  Authori- 
ty of  the  old  interpreter  and  of  the  Comj/lutenfian  Edition  and  two 
other  Copies  did  read  the  faeid  24  verfe  without  the  AND,  yet 
in  other  Editions  (s)  He  has  inferted  it,  and  always  expounds  the, 
Phrafe  To  the  Angel,  by  thefe  words  To  the   P a/tors;    5thly,  When 
he   gives   this  Character  of  the  Angel  of  the   Church  of  Sardis, 
Thou  haft  a  Name  that  thou  livejf,  and  art  Dead,  Is  it  a  Defcriptiorr 
of  one  Jingle  Perfon  in  that  Church  whether  Biihop  or  Presbyter? 
Is  it  not  rather  of  that  whole  Church  excepting  thefe  few  Names 
mentioned  verfe  4.  Chap.  3.  which  had  not  defiled  their  Garments?  Yes 
certainly,  and  fo  th£  forecited  AuguHin  faies,  and  gives  it  for  a  ge- 
neral Rule,  much  after  the  fame  Way  with  Ambrofe  before  cited, 
4  That  becaufe  Angel  fignifies  a  Mepnger,  therefore  whoever  either 
*-  Bifhop  or  Presbyter  or  even  Lay-Man  fpeaks  frequently  of  God 
c  and  tells  Men  how  They  may  come  to  eternal  Life,  is  deferved-i 
4  ly  called  the  Angel  of  God  (t ).    othly,  When  he  faies  to  the 
Angel    of  the    Church  in  Philadelphia,  I  have  fet  before  Thee  an  open, 
Door,—-  Thou  haft  a  little  Strength,  and  haft  kept  my  Word  &o.  Did 
He  mean  thereby  to  characterize  a  Jingle  Perfon ■?'■    No,  'tis  plain 
it:  is  the  Character  of  the  Church,  and  fo  the  forecited  AuguHin 
exprefiy  faies  {u ).    Indeed  there  is  not  one  Claufe  in  the  whole 
Bpifile  that  fo  much  as  feems  to  defcribe  a  Jingle  Perfon,  yea  evea 

that 


[  q  ]  Edit.  Coloniae  Agrippinjc.  1661.  [  r  ]  Sancti  Prajdicatores. —  Gap.  i.  ad  finem.  Septem  igitur  Angelos, 
Restores  feptem  Ecclefiarum  debernus  intelligere,  eoqnod  Angelus  NUNTIUS  interpretatur.  Et  quiVeibur^ 
Dei  popuhs  ami uiiciant, -non  inconvementer  ANGELI,  ideft,NUNTII  vocantur.  Etficut  per  feptem  Ecclefias", 
wnaEcclefia.Catholica, •  •  ica  per  feptem  Re&ores  feptem,  Ecclefiarum  omnes  Re&ores  Ecclefia;.  Catholics 
defegnaiuur. :    [s]  Edit,  talio  LoadinL,  Anno  ijcji. 

[t]  Nam  quia etiam  Angelus  Nuncius  interpretatur,  quicunque  aut  Epifcopus  aut  Presbyter  autetiam 
Laicus  frequenter  de  Deo  loquitur,6c  quomod«.?.d  yitam  sccemam  perveruatur  arumuciat,  merico  Angelus  Dei 
Diqitur.  Horn.  a.  in  Apoc. 

[uJ-Hoodeodi&umeft,  ut  niillus  dicac,  <pia  oftium  quodDeus  aperitfcdf^,  ..  in  tQto  mundg  alic^ui$ 
f»jjit  yel, in  parte  claudeic.    Jigm.  3.  Ibid, 


Sc6h  V\  Presbyterian' Government:        :\\j 

that  Promife  verfe  g.  Behold  1  mil  make  them  of  the  Synagogue  of  Sa- 
tan to  come  and  Wofjhip  before  thy  Feet,  imports  Nothing  of  peculiar 
Priviledge  to  the-  BiCbop,  but  meerly  fignifies  the  EffecT:  that   the 
Preaching  of  the  Gofpel  fhould  have  upon  thefe  Enemies,  as  the 
forecited  Ambroje  explains  it  (^c).     Laftly,  the  like  is  to  be  (aid 
of  the  Church  of  Laodkea  in  the  whole  Epiftle  to  the  Angel  thereof 
there  is  not  one  Claufe  that  Characterizes  afingle  Perfon.    I  add  fur- 
ther, that  in  none  of  thefe  feven  Epiftles  is  there  one  A6l  of  Eptf- 
copal  Jurifdi&ioft  fo  much  as  hinted  at;  not  any  Ap  which  is  not' 
competent  to  all  the  Minifters  of  the  Gofpel,  yea  indeed  to  the" 
People  themfelves;  for  In  Ma  nee,  when  it  is  faid  of  the  Church  of' 
E'phefus  Chap.  2  ver.  2.    'Thou  hail:  tryed  "them  which  fay  they  ' 
c  are  Apoftles,  and  are  not,'  and  'haft  found  them  Liars;  it  is  no" 
more  than  what  is  the  Duty,  and  will  be  the  Praclice  of  every  " 
good  Chriftian,  all  being  enjoined  1  John  4.  1.  c  Beloved,  believe" 
*  not  every  Spirit,  but  try  the  Spirits,   whether  they  are  of  God  J 
'  becaufemany  falfe  Prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  World.   Again, 
when  the  Church:  of ThyJiira  \i  blamed  for  /offering  that  Woman- 
Jezabel,    every  Chriftian  may  be  guilty  of  the  like,    being    dis- 
charged to  own  or  countenance  Infamous  and  Obftinate  Res  eticks. 
2  John  10   6  If  there  come  any  unto  you  and  bring  not  this  Do-  - 
'  61  rine,  receive  Him  not  into  your  Hotife,  neither  bid  him  God 
Speed.     Befides,  feveral  Authors  relate,  and  Dr.  Fulk  againft  the 
Rhemifts  upon  the  Place  takes  notice  of  it,  that  the  faid  Jezabel' 
was  the  Bifhop's  Wife ;  though  I  do  not  believe  this,   becaufe  I 
am  very  fu re  that  there  was  no  fuch  thing  as  a  Bijhop  in  the  Mo- 
dern Senfe  at  that  Time,  yet,  upon   rhat  Supposition,    His  Fault 
would  have  been  rather  a  Neglect  of  his  Partial  Authority  than 
of  his  Epifcopal  Power ;  confequently  it  cannot  be  inferred  thence 
that  he.  is  defcribed  there  as  a  Governour  of  the  Church.     Upon 
the  whole  then,   Mr.  Rhind  has  been  too  unwary,  and  His  For* 
mrdnefs  has  mightily  outrun  his  Judgment  when  he  afTerted,  Thar 
thefe. Angels  are  characterized  in  the  2d  and  3d  Chapters  of  the 
Revelation as  fugle  Ferfons  Dr.  Hammond  Himielf,  though  fo  earn- 
er]: 


[x]  Id  eft,  cum  crediderint  per  verba    tua  in  me,  ad<?rakuut  aw  Pedes  cuos,  deprecantesj  ut  per,  t§ 
ykara  steinam  conie^ua^utur. :.  ySmbros.  -ubi  fupra.  - 


1 1 S  Defence  of  the  Chap. .  II. 

to  have  thefe  Angels  believed  to  be  jingle  Perfons,  yet  he  had  not 
Courage  enough  to  affirm,  that  They  are  characterized  there  as 
fuch,  nay  indeed  he  confeffes  the  contrary  (j;.  '  Though  the 
'  Angels,  faith  Hey  were  Tingle  Perfons,  yet  what  is  faid  to  them  is 
*  not  faid  only  to  their  Perfons,  but  to  the  Vniverfality  of  the  People 
1  under  them,  whofe  Non-Proficiency,  or  Remiflion  of  Degrees  of 
e  Chriftian  Virtue,  efpecially  their  falling  off  from  the  Conftancy 
c  and  Courage  of  their  Profeffion,  do  delerve  fand  are  according- 
c  ly  threatned  with)  the  Removal  of  that  Chrillian  Knowledge, 
■c  thatGrace^thofe  Priviledges  of  a  Church  which  had  been  allow- 
1  ed  them,  C.  2.5.  which  is  not  fo  properly  appliable  as  a  Pumjhment 
1  of  the  Btjhop,  as  of  the   People  under  him.      And  therefore  in  the 

*  Paraphrafe  I  have  generally  changed  the  lingular  into  the  plural 

*  number,  by  that  means  to  leave  it  indifferently  to  the  BijJjop  of  each 

*  Church  and  the  People  under   Him,   and  yet  further  to  the  other 

*  Churches  fubordinate  to  each  of  the  Metropolcs  here  named. 
Thus  Dr.  Hammond.  And  elfw here  (  z)  Heib  forced  to  acknow- 
ledge, That  c  thofe  Expreflions,  which  are  ufed  in  the  fingular  Num- 
6  ber,  do  not  all  belong  to  the  Bifhop,  but  to  the  Church  where- 
f  in  he  prefides.  The  very  Truth  is  Dr.  Hammond  has  abfolutly 
deftroyed  this  Argument  of  the  Apocalyptick  Angels.  For  Firft, 
He  has  made  them  not  (imply  Bifhops,  but  Metropolitans,  a  Notion 
wherein  his  whole  Party,  I  believe,  have  now  deferted  him1,  yet 
lie  very  Judicioufly  faw  that  the  Argument  could  not  be  fo  much 
as  coloured  witaout  fome  fuch  Notion.  2dly,  He  elfwhere  (a  J 
makes  a  twofold  Bifhop  in  the  fame  Place-,  of  which  the  one  was 
fet  over  the  Jetvifi  and  the  other  over  the  Gentile  Chriftians.  How 
then  could  thefe  Angels  be  Jingle  Perfons  ?  Were  the  Epiftles 
written  only  to  the  circumcifed,  or  only  to  the  uncircumcifed  ? 
But  to  go  on  with    Mr.  Rhind. 

Fifthly,  Is  it  true  that  all  the  Authors  Ancient  and  Modern  who  have 
commented  upon  the  2d  and  3d  Chap,  of  the  Revelation  have  fuppojed 
thefe  Angels  to  be  (ingle  Perfons  and  the  Governors  of  thtje  Churchts  ?  I 
fuppofe  this  Quetf ion  may  be  abundantly  fatisfied  from  what  I  have 

already 


l  jy,  ]   Annot.  in  Rf  v.  Chap.  r.  v.  20.        [z]  Vind.  of  the  DnTert.  Chap.  I.  Seft.  1 1. 
£  a  j  f  lemouuiou  to  the  fecond  Epiftle  of  S.  John, 


Sed.  V\      Presbyterian  Government.  119 

already  difcourfed  :  For  we  have  heard  Areth as,  Ambrofe ^  Augufin 
applying  the  Seven  Epiftles  to  the  whole  Collective  Body  of  the 
Church.     Am has  is  an  uncontefted  Author;     of  Ambrofe  I  have 
fpoke  before.    The  only  Queftion  is  about  Augufin  whether  thefe 
Homilies  on  the  Revelation,  which  I  have  cited,  are  indeed  his.  But 
thisQueftiondoesnotarTecl:  the  Controver fie.     For,  though  Erafmus 
(Jf )  fufpecls  them  not  to  be  Auoufiin\  yet  it  is  agreed  on  all  Hands 
that  they  are  the  Work  of  an  Ancient  Writer,  which  fufficiently 
confutes  Mr.  Rhind.  And  befides  thefe,  if  Mr.  Rbind's  Memory  had 
ferved  him,  which  one  might  have  expected  after  his  telling  that 
he  had  ftudied  the  Controverfie  with  a '-Scrupulous  Exautnefs,     He 
might  have  remembred  that  there  are  many  other  Authors  both 
Ancient  and  Modern  infifted  on  by  the  Presbyterians  (c)  viz.  Ambro* 
fius  Ambertus  (  whom  forne  mi  flake  for  the  Ambrofe whom  I  have  ci- 
ted )  Primafius,  Gregory  the  Great,  «  Haymo,  Beda,  Richard,  Thomas^ 
Fa  Ik,  Fox  and  Perkins.Bm  Mr.  Rhwdmdde  choice  of  theeafieff,  Way 
of  doing  his  Bofinefs:  For  who  would  undergo  the  Drudgery  of  exami- 
ning Things  that  imagines  His  Reader  is  to  be  put  off  with  bold 
and  blind  AfFertion  ?     W7e  have  indeed  very  few  Ancient  Writers  on 
the  Apocalypfe.     It  was  fome  Time  before  it  was  Univerfally  re- 
ceived as  Canonical,  and  the  Commentaries  of  fuch  as  wrote  upon 
it,  (  fuch  as  ^ujlw  Martyr  and  Irettausj  in  the  fir d:  three  Centuries 
are  now  loff. ;  and  though  fuch  as  wrote  upon  it  afterward,  when 
Prelacy  turned  Rampant,  had  interpreted  according  to  the  Epifco- 
pal  Scheme,  it  cou'd  make  no  Argument  againfl  the  Presbyterians  2 
But  when  the  Evidence  of  Truth,  notwithstanding  that  Tempta- 
tion, forced  them  to  interpret,  as  we  have  heard  them  doing;  is 
isan  irreparable  Lofs  to  the  Epijcopd  Caufe.  -  And  for  Mr,  Rhind 
to  alledge  at  random,"  that  all   Authors  both  Ancient  and  Modern 
are  on  the  Epifcopal  Side,  without  citeing,  nay  without  fo  much 
as  naraeing  any    one  of   them/   except  -:8ezA   alone,   of  whom 
juft  now,  was  to  be  too  Prodigal  of  the  Credit  of  his  Judgment, 
and  is  no  great  Argument  of  the  Difcretion  of  His  Brethren  who 
Midwii'd  His  Book  into  the  World*, . 

Ladly, 


[b"j  Prajfat.  ad  Lecfc#  TtfonYidetur  ^ugufthii,  qiiinquzm- o?usl$Stu  dig  num.     (  c  )  Gerion.  IfcJtef.p.  ap*» 
HUi Damai;  Cap.  $.  p.  58.  ^., ,  £Ui.  querei.  Par.  ad»-Se<a.  5.  Smefty nww;,"  Seft.  J 3.  8«c.    . 


I2p  Defence  of  the  Chap.  27. 

Latlly,  Has  Bezn  faid  any  Thing  upon  this  Argument  that 
favours  the  Epifcopal  Caufe?  Mr.  Rhind  brings  him  in  with  a  great 
Deal  of  Parade  as  if  he  were  clear  on  the  Epifcopal  Side.  But 
why  did  he  not  cite  his  Words  ?  Why  does  he  give  us  his  own 
Commentary  without  Beta's  Text?  Why  truly  there  was  Reafort 
for  it.  Beza\  Words  are  thefe  (d).  '  To  the  Angel,  that  is,  to  the  Pre- 
1  fident  (or  Moderator,)     whom,  to  wit,  it   behoved  in    the  fir  ft 

*  Place  to  be  admonifhed  concerning  thefe  Matters,  and  by  him 
'  the  reft  of  the  Colleagues,  and  fo  the  whole  Church,  But  from 
1  thence  to  inferr  the  E/?//^/W  Degrees,  which  was  after  wards  brought 

*  into  the  Church  of  God  by  Human  Inventions,is  what  neither  can  nor 
ought  to  be  done.  Nay,  not  that  that  Office  of  Prefident  or  Moderator 
1  fhould  neceflarly  be  perpetual,  as  the  Oligarchical  Tyranny  f  whole 

*  Head  is  the  AntichriftianBeaft  )  which  arofe  thence  now  makes  it 
c  manifeft,  with  the  moft  certain  Ruin,not  only  of  the  whole  Church 

*  but  World  alfo.  Judge  now,  good  Reader,  of  Mr.  Rhinos  Mo- 
defty,  and  fay  whether  Beza  ison  the EpifcopalS'ide.  If  hecou'd 
find  Teftimonies  of  Presbyterian  Authors  on  his  Side,  I'm  fureheis 
fufficiently  qualified  to  improve  them,  when  he  could  be  fo  confident 
on  a  Teftimony  that  was  clearly  againft  him. 

So  much  for  the  Argument  from  the  Apocalyptick  Angels,  And  I  hope 
I  may  appeal  to  the  Reader  if  ever  he  knew  any  more  fenfelefs  or  more 
groundlefs  ufedby  any  Party  on  any  Caufe :  For,  fuppofingitwere 
plain  even  to  a  Demonftration,  that  thefe  Angels  were  (ingle  Perfons, 
yet  where  is  there  the  leaft  Intimation  that  thefe  fingle  Perfons  had  the 
Sole  Power  either  of  Ordination  or  Jurisdiction  ;  or  even  a  Negative 
over  the  Presbyters  in  thefe  things  ?  Without  this  it  can  be  no  Ar- 
gument for  the  Modern  Epifcopacy.  Yet  fo  true  is  it  that  there  is  no 
Intimation  thereof,  that  Dr.  Hammond  will  not  allow  that  there  were 
any  meer  PresbytersatthatTime,  wherein  he  is  certainly  right.  And 
as  that  Notion  quite  deftroys  the  Argument  from  the  Apocalyptick 
Jngels,  fo  £)r.  Whitby  has  obferved  (e)  That  the  fame  Notion  de- 
ftroys 


■  (d)  ge  za  in  <Apocalyp.  a.,  i.  Angelo,  id  eft,  Tiptirwth  quern  opportuic  nimimm  imprimis  de  his  rebus 
admoneri,ac  per  eum  decerns  Collegas,totamque  adeo  Ecclefiam.  Sed  hinc  ftatui  Epifcooalis  ille  Gradus,  poftea 
humamtus  in  Ecclefiam  Dei  inve&us,cerife  nee  poteft  nee  debet.  Imo  ne  perpetuumqiiidemiftud  -r^is-rax^ 
mvniisefferjecelrarioopportuifre/ficutexorra'irideTyrrannisOIigiu-chica  [  cujus  Apex  eft  Antichnftiana  beftia] 
cetumma  cum  tonus,  nor.  Eclefiaj  moio,  fed  etum  Orbis  Pernicie  nunc  tandem  declarac. 
£ej  Annot. oa. I Fetev/. j. 


Se&.  V.       Presbyterian  Government}  121 

Uroys  two  other  Arguments  already  adduced  by  Mr.  Rhtnd9  and 
ordinarily  infifted  on  by  the  Epif copal  Writers  viz.  That  from  the  Form 
of  Government  which  obt tin* 'd Among  the  Jews  ;  and  the  other  from  the 
Subordination  of  the  Seventy  to  the  Twelve.    '  If  faith  he ,  the  Middle 

*  Order  had  been  wanting  fo  long  as  is  fuppofed,  viz,  by  Dr.  Ham- 
4  mond,  the  Government  of  the  Church  would  not  have  been  for- 
'med  after  that  (the  Jewijh)  Plat  Form  ;  which,  as  Epphanius  and 
'  the  Jews  inform  us,had  thefefeveral  Offices  in  it.  The  fame  may  be 
!f  faidofthofe  who  make  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  to  be  anfwerableto 

*  the  Seventy,  appointed  byChrift  as  inferiour  Officers  under  the 
f  Apoftles,  and  make  this  an  Argument  of  an  Inequality  betwixc 
c  Bifhops  and  Presbyters,  eftablifhed  in  the  Church  by  Chrift.  Thus 
Dr.  Whitby.  The  Presbyterians  then  are  obliged  to  Dr.  Hammond 
fbreafing  them  of  three  the  moft  noifie  Arguments  of  tkeir  Adverfaries. 


ARTICLE    V. 

Wherein  Mr.  R  hinder  Proof  of  Prelacy  from 

Tefiimonies  of  Antiquity*  is    Examined. 

From  P,  85 e  ^P,  Hi; 

HAVING  cleared  our  Hands  of  the  Arguments  from  the 
Scripture,  we  proceed  next  to  confider  the  Teftimonies 
from  Antiquity.  Mr.  Rhind  is  at  a  great  deal  of  Pains  for  fix 
Pages  together  to  perfwade  the  Presbyterians  to  appeal  to  the  An- 
cients; and  runs  through  all  the  common  Places  of  Rhetorick  to 
fhew  how  competent  and  unexceptionable  WitnefTes  they  are. 
But  all  this  is  wretched  Affectation;  For  FirsJy  the  Epifcopal  Au- 
thors themfelves  own  that  the  Presbyterians  have  the  Fathers  on 
their  fide.  We  heard  before  Dr.  Bedell  juftifying  Medina  in  own- 
ing that  Ambrofe,  Augufiin3  Sedulius,  Primafius,  Ghryfoftom,  Theo- 


isa  defence  of  the  Ghapi  //. 

doret,  Oetumenius  and  Tbeopbyhtt  ar*on  the.  Presbyterian  Side.  This, 
then  was  only  a  Stroke  of  Mr.  Rbind\  Politicks  to  guft  his  Read- 
er into  a  Belief  that  the  Fathers  are  againft  the  Presbyterians-.  2dly,. 
In  all  Gafes  the  Presbyterians  are  content  to  be  concluded  by  the 
Teftimony  of  the,  Fathers,  or  to  give  a  good  Reafon  why  they 
cannot.  And  I  know  no  Clafs  of  Chriftiansthat  goes  further,  or 
gives  an  implicite  AiTent  to  their  Dictates.  The  Fathers  Them- 
felves required  no  fuch  Thing  of  iuch  as  were  to  come  after  them,, 
and  in  a  Thoufand  Places  have  defired  their  Readers  to  try  before 
they  trufted.  And  I'm  fure  there  is  abundance  of  Reafon  fordo, 
ing  fo.  For  there  is  no  Man  that  has  dipped  ever  fo  little  into  the 
Study  of  3em,  but  is  convinced,  that  any  that  would  fwallow  their 
Doctrines  by  the  Lump  mult  at  once  believe  the>  greater!  abfur- 
dities  and  mod  palpable  Contradictions ;  and  none  have  noticed 
this  with  greater  Freedom  than  the  Church  of  England  Di- 
vines. '  The  Scripture,  faith  Dr.  Sherlock  (/*)  is  all  of  a  Piece,  every 
4  Part  of  it  agrees  with  the  reft;  the  Fathers  many  Times  contra* 
4  diet  themfelves  and  each  other;  And  He  tells,  how  it  has  often 
-  made  him  fmile,  with  a  Mixture  of  Pity  and  Indignation  to  fee . 
c  what  a  great  Noife  the  Roman  Difputants  made  among  Women 
c  and  Children  and  the  meaneft  fort  of  people  with  Quotations 

*  out  of  Fathers  and  Councils,  whom  they  pretend  to  beal]  on 
'  their  Side.  I  fhall  be  glad  if  this  be  not  the  Character  of  fbme 
other  Folks  as  well  as  the  Roman  Difputants.  To  the  fame  Pur- 
pofe  the  Incomparable  Chillingworih  (g).  'I  for  my  part,  faith 
4  He;  after  a  long,  and  fas  I  verily  believe  and  hope  )  impartial 
6  Search  of  the  true  way  to  Eternal  Happinefs,  do  profefs  plainly, 
4  that  I  cannot  find  any  reft  for  the  Sole  of  my  Feet,  but  upon  this 
'  Rock  only,  viz.  the  Scripture.  I  fee  plainly  and  with  my  own  Eyes, 

*  Councils  againft  Councils,  fome  Fathers  againft  orhers,the  fame  Fa- 
4  thers againft  themfelves, a  Confent  of  Fathersof  one  Age  againft  a 
6  Confent  of  Fathers  of  another  Age,  and  the  Church  of  one  Age 
6  againft  the.  Church  of  another  Age-  Thus  He.  And  thus  from 
cwoof  the  greater!  Men  the  Church  of  England  cou'd  ever  boafi 

of 


[f]  Prefervrmve  againft  Popery  Tart  I  Chap.  ad  Seft.  3d. 
li]  Proc,  Rel.  a  Safeway  Chap.  VI  Sett. /£» 


Se&.  V.         Presbyterian  Government:       12  j 

of  we  may' kara  what  habile  Witnefles  the  Fathers  are,  and  how 
great  Weight  will  hang- upon 'their  Teftimony:  For,  if  fuch  a 
Character  of  the  Fathers  be  both  Senfe  and  Truth  in  the  'Mouths 
of  thefe  great  Men  when  difputing  againft  the  Romanics,  is  it 
poflible  but  it  muft  be  the  fame  in  the  Mouths  of  Presbyterians 
when  difputing  againft  the  Prelatifts?  But  indeed  the  Pte$ytetians 
need  no  fuch  Common-Place  Confederations  for  defending  them- 
felves.  So  far  as  Mr.  Rbindhzs  gone  I  am  content  the  Debate  be 
compromifed,  and  referred  to  the  Fathers  and  the  Teftimony  of 
Antiquity. 

He  infifts  on  Five  viz.  Ignatius,  Clemens  Romanus,  the"Emperour 
^Adrian,  hen&w  and  Tertuiian.    All  which  I  fhall  coniider  in  Order. 

The  Firft  is  Ignatius,  *  who,  faith  He  p.  91, 
f    was  conftituted   Bifhop  of  Antioch,  upon    IGNATIUS 
\6  the  Death  of  Evodius,  the  immediate  Succefl- 
€  or  of  Saint  Peter,  and  who  in  His  Ep ifiles  teftifles  moft  favourably 
H  for   Epifcopacy.    To  which  it  is  anfwered.    In  the  firft  Place. 
fTis  ridiculous  to  affirm  that  S.  Peter  was  Bifhop  of  Antioch-,  the 
Apoftolick  Character  and  Office  being  inconfiftant  with  the  fixed 
Charge  of  any  particular  See.     2dly,  Suppofeh%  it  had  not  beenfo, 
yet  both  C hryfoftom  and  Tbeodoret  (/;)  affirm  Ignatius  to  have  fuc- 
ceeded  immediatly  not  to  Evodim  but  to  Peter  himfelf.    But  Wife* 
ing  thefe  Things,  I  anfwer  Thirdly,  That  the  Epiftles  of  Igmttim 
are  fo  far  from  teftifying  favourably  for  the  Modern  Epifcopacy, 
that  they  quite  deftroy  it,  and  the  Principles  upon  which  iris  pre- 
tended to  be  built.    This  I  hope  to  make  good  to  every  Man's 
Convidion  by  the  FOUR  following  Particulars. 

In  the  Firft  Place.  Suppofeing  that  Epifcepacy  -had  obtain'd  at 
the  Time  when  Ignatius  wrote  His  Epiftles,  yet  this  is  fo  far  from 
being  an  Argument  that  it  had  obtain'd  in  the  Apoftolick  Age, 
that  the  whole  ftrain  of  thefe  Epiftles  are  an  Evidence  of  the  con- 
trary. This,  I  am  aware,  will  at  firft  be  thought  a  very  furpriz- 
ing  Affertion.*    But  I  fhall  make  it  good  from  an  unexception- 

Q.  2  able 


£  h  2  Cbryfofi.  de  Tranflat.  S.  Jgnatij.  Tbevdor.  de  Icuaac.  Dial.  I, 


124  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IT: 

el>leHand,  I  mean  Mr.  Dodwell  ( i  ).  The  matter  in  Short  is  this: 
The  Presbyterians  had  oftimes  excepted  againft  the  Ignatian  Epiftles 
either  as  not  Genuine,  or  at  leaft  as  vitiat  and  corrupted,  On  this 
Head,  becaufe  they  infift  fo  much  on  the  Abfolute  Power  of  the 
Bifhop;  they  could  not  believe  that  fuch  Rhodomontado  Expreflions 
as  are  ufed  on  that  Subject  were  confiftent  with  the  Spirit,  Cha^ 
racier  or  Circumftances  of  Ignatius  when  he  wrote  his  Epiftles. 
Mr.  Dodwell  faw  the  Force  of  this  Objection  ;  and  therefore  care- 
fully applies  Himfelf  to  take  it  off.  But  how  does  he  it.?  Plain- 
ly by  telling  us,  that  the  Reafon,  why  Ignatius  infilled  fo  much 
'*  on  the  Power  of  the  Bifhop,  was  becaufe  Epifcopacy  was  an  Or- 
*  der  bat  newly  introduced  into  the  Church,  that  therefore  it  was 
1  necefary  that  with  all  His  wight  He  fbould  a flert  their  new  Rights, 
'  and  urge  and  eftablifh  a  Power  formerly  unknown.  In  a  Word, 
Epifcopacy  was  not  inftiiuted,  fays  Mr.  Dodwell,  till  the  Year  GVL 
Ignatius  wrote  His  Epiftles  in  the  Year  116  faies  Bifhop  Lloyd,  iri 
the  Year  no  faies  Eufebitts,  in  the  Year  107  faies  Bifhop  Vfher. 
By  the  longeft  of  thefe  Accounts  Epifcopacy  was  but  of  ten  years 
Handing  when  Jgtmius  wrote,  and  by  the  fhorteft  of  them  but  of 
eve.  And  now  let  the  Reader  fay  if  thefe  Epiftles  will  prove  that 
Epifcopacy  obtain'd  in  the  Apoftolick  Age; 

Secondly,  I  ask  Mr.  Rbind  if  any  where  in  thefe  Epiftles  He 
finds  a  Bifhop  that  had  moe  than  one  Congregation  under  His 
Charge.  The  Epifcopal  Writers  have  oftimes  been  called  on  xo\ 
jhew  this ;  they  have  never  done  it  to  this  Day,  and  I  believe  no 
wife  man  will  ever  attempt  it:  For  Nothing  is  more  plain  from 
thefe  Epiftles,  than  that  the  Bifhops  whole  Charge  met  in  one 
Place  and  communicate  at  one  Altar.  Whether  th^n  does  this  look 
like  the  Scots  Presbyterian  or  the  £>/g///Z>  Diocefan  Bifhop  ? 

Thirdly,  Through  all  the  Ignatian  Epiftles,  as  1  have  fhewnbe- 
fore,  the  Presbyters  are  always  faid  to  reprefent  the  Apoiiles,  th( 
BifJjops  never.    Now  upon  this  I. ask  ift  How  Mr.  Rhwtfs  Argu- 

menl 


[  i  ]  Pai«enef Seft.  2j.  p.  ioj.   \o5.     Hinc  etiam  conftar,    nulhm  fuiflVfquam   Cvediderunr    Tghatiln 
arum  Eptftolarum  Adverianj,  noftrjrum  raticnmri  nefcijj  AflFeilationeni,  lmmo.  necefiarium  iuifle,  ut  mov* 

niijtK,sC*tlfui  .  jura  enixis  vmbus  affereientur. Nam  prima .Potefraris  illius  in   Epifcopos  de^olufione 

ma^is  i.eceflarium  era:   ut  igttotd  ante.:  Pottjl.ts  urgererur  acque    ftabileretur. Noftrx  autem  Ration 

•ftfijiduncjap  «/^f/.!?»iuuTeillarn.  Epiicoporum  Poceftaierr);,  Cum  adeo  lllam  Commendtret  Ignatius. 


SeSt.K-         Presbyterian  Government]  12^ 

nient  holds  that  the  Bifoops  fucceed  the  Jpofttes,  and  the  Presbyters 
the  Seventy,.  2dly,  If  the  Presbyters  iucceed  the  Apostles,, how  is  it 
poflible  but  that  they  muft  have  the  Power  of  Ordination  and  Ju- 
risdiction as  well  as  of  Preaching  and  difpenfwg  the  Sacraments  ? 
Surely  the  Apoftles  had  it>  how  then  can  the  Presbyters  their  Suc^ 
ceffors  want  it?  jdly,  Seeing  by  the  Ignatian  DoQrine  the  Pres- 
byters were  in  Place  of  the  Apoftles,  How  is  it  True  that  the 
Presbyters  cannot  do  any  Paftoral  act  in  their  own  Right,  but  as- 
the  Bifhops  Delegates.  The  Apoftles  had  our  tLord  Jefus  ChriftV 
for  their  Immediate  Superior,  why  fhould  it  be  otherwife  with 
the  P  resbyters  their  SucceiTors  I 

Fourthly.  The  Ignatian  Presfty try  had  a  Share  in  the  Government, 
as  appears  from  many  Places  of  thefe  Epiftles.  *  And  that  being  Sub- 
'  je&  to  your  Bifhop  and  his  Presbytry},.  ye  may  be  wholly  and  tho* 
'  roughly. fandified  (k).  Obeying your  Bifhop  and  the  Presbytry  with 
'  intire  Affe£Hon  (J),  But  be  ye  united  to  your  Bifhop  and  thoffr 
1  whoprefide  over  you,  that  ts^the  presbyters  (/»).  So  neither  do  ye~ 
'any  thing  without  your  Bifhop  an* Presbyters  (»).  But  hethatis 

*  withoutjthat  is,  does  any  Thing  without  the  Bifhop  Presbyters  and 

*  Deacons,  is  not  pur& in  his  Confcience  (d).  Being  Subject  toyour 

c  Bifhop   as  to  the  Command  of  God  and  fo  like  wife  to  the  Vresbytry. : 
Q)  Thus  it  was  in  the  Ignatian  Times.     But  whei  enow  is  there 
any  fuch  Thing  as  this  in  the  Church  of  England  which  Mr.  Rbind 
has  joined  ?     Are  not  the  Presbyters  entirely  deprived  of  the  Exercife 
of  Difcipline  ?     Nay  are  not  the  Lay,  Chamellours  riten  up  againft  the  - 
Bifhops themfelves their    Greaters?    Have   they  notengrofled  the- 
Difcipline  wholly  into  their  Hands?     Hear  Dr.  Burnet    (q).   even 
before  he  became  Revokitioner.    *  Our  Eccleilaftical  Courts,  faith  heyi 
1  are  notin  theHands  of  our  Bifhops  and  their  Ciergy>  but  put  over 

*  ro  the  Civilians t  where  too  often  Feesare  more  ftridly  looked  afters 
**  than  the  Correction  of  Manners.— Excommunication  has  become  a 

*  Kind  of  Secular  Sentence,  and  is  hardly  now  confidered  as  a  Spirit - 
I  tual  Cenfure,    being  judged  and  given  out  by  Lay  Men,  and  often 

upon 


[k]  Ep.cotheEphes.Sea.il.  [1]  Ibid.  SsSkXX.     [m]    Ep.  to  the  Magnes.  Sea.  VI.    [n]  Ibid.  Sea.  VIJ.L- 
£<?J  fcp,tacheTral.Sca.  VII.  [p]  Ibid. Sea. XIII,    '[<Q  freiaccw  -II. V<iU  Hift.  Reform, - 


115  Defence  of  tht  Chap.  II. 

e  upon  Grounds,  whicli,tofpeakmoderatly,donotmeritfofevereand 

*  dread  full  a  Sentence.  Before  I  go  further  I  cannot  but  take  Notice 
that  Mr.  Rbind,  in  fumming  up  the  Evidence  from  Jgnatiush  Epiftles* 
lias  not  dealt  fairly  when  hefaies  p.  94.  That  this  Exercife  of  the  Epif- 
copal  Authority  over fubordinate  Presbyters  and  Deacons  was  not  peculiar 
to  the  Churches  to  which  S.  Ignatius  directed  his  Epiftles,  but  didEX- 
TEND  {to  ufe  that  Saints  Words)  to  the  utmoft  Bounds  of  the  Earthy 
tvbicb,  faith  he,  in  my  Opinion,  averts  the  UNIVERSAL  Exercife 
of //*?  Epifcopal  Offict.  Did  Ignatius  ufe  that  Word  EXTEND,  I 
mean  the  Greek  that  fignifies  it?  If  not  how  can  the  UNIVERSAL 
EXERCISE  ofthe  Epifcopal  Office  be  inferred  upon  it?  And  yet 
?ris  certain  fir  ft  that  He  did  not  ufe  it  but  a  Greek  Word  *  which 
fignifies  Defined  or  Appointed,  and  that  too  without  any  Men- 
tion of  the  Ewth  in  the  Claufe.  Secondly,  That  Bifhops  did  not 
at  that  Time  extend  to -the  utmoft  Bounds  of  the  Earth:  For, 
Mr.  Dodwell  gives  it  as  the  very  Reafon  why  Ignatius  infifted  fo 
much  on  the  Epifcopal  Authoijty,  becaufe  it  had  not  yet  univers- 
ally obtained.    *  The  Power   of  the  Bifhops,  faith  He  (  r  ),  was 

*  fo  long  to  be  urge^  till  it  fhould  be  univerfally  received,  and 
i*  Men  were  brought  in  Ufe  to  obey  it.  Why  then  did  Mr. Rhind 
in  his  Reafonint>  ufe  the  Word  EXTEND  inltead  of  APPOINT- 
ED, efpecially  when  before  p.  95  He  had  ufed  the  Word  AP- 
POINTED in  citeing?  Did  he  not  defign  to  .take  Advantage  of 
his  Reader's  Inadvertency  ?  But  how  fhall  his  Conclufion  of  the 
Vniver/al  Exercife  of  the  Epifcopal  Office  in  Ignatius  Time  ftand, 
when  it  is  founded  upon  a  falfe  Bottom?  This  now  is  our  firit 
Defence  againft  the  Ignatian  Epiftles,  that  they  quite  deftroy  the 
Modern  Epifcopacy  and  the  Principles  on  which  it  is  built,  which 
I  muft  needs  frill  believe  they  do,  till  I  have  got  a  fatisfying 
Anfwer  to  the  former  Particulars.    I  add 

Secondly,  That  thefe  Ignatian  Epiftles,  as  to  the  main  oftheContro- 
verfie^  contain  Nothing  contrary  to  the  Presbyterian  Scheme.  And  it 

is 


♦      •  >     «        •  I  t  \  \  I  t  A' 

tir  %#t  Qi  t7TieK«7Coe  e«  xxtcc   t«  fripxict  tpirvtrns 

[1]  Partner.  Sc£b;  2y.  t>.  10^.  Tantifper  com  urgenda  erat  aora  ilia  Poceftas  dura  a  Subditis  pa/Hm  rcci« 
ffcretur,    &  dum  iJIiubObfeiuio  Homines  aJfueviflcat. 


Soft.  V#        Presbyterian  Government.         127 

is  a  great  Encouragement  to  me  to  venture  on  that  AflTertion  that 
fo great  a  Manas  Atillingfleet  has  done  it  before  me.  *  In  all  thofe 
« thirty  five  Tefttmonies,yW^  he  (^produced  out  of  Ignatius[s  Epiftles 
6  for  Epifcopacy,  .lean  meet  but  with  one  which  is  brought  to  prove 
'the  leart  Semblance  of  an  InftitutionofChriftfor  Epifcopacy,  and 

*  if  I  be  not  much  deceived,  the  Sen  fe  of  that  Place  is  clearly  mifta* 

*  ken  too-—.  I  laid,  as  to  the  mam  of  the  Controverfie^  to  prevent  trif- 
fteing  in  any  Body  that  fball  attempt  toanfwer  this.  Mr,  RhindaU 
ledges  on  the  Presbyterians  that  they  affirm //^  Ignatian  Bifhop  tocor* 
refpond  to  their  Par ijb  Minifter  ;  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  to  their  Rul- 
ing Elders  and  Deacons,  p.  101.  I  do  not  know  any  Presbyterian  Au- 
thor that  ever  wrote  fo  widely,    I  do  not  believe  ever  any  of  them 
did,  and  want  to  have  them  named.   But  if  any  of  them  ever  did  fo, 
I  here  enter  my  DifFent   from   them.    *Tis  certain  the  Presbyterian 
Deacons  do  not  correfpond  to  the  Ignatian  Deacons,  becaufe  the  Ig* 
nation  Deacons  do  not  correfpond  to  the  Scripture  Deacon*.  *Tis  evi- 
dent from  Acts  6  that  the  Deacons  were  inftituted  xoferve  Tables9 
and  take  Care  of  the  Poor  and  @f  the  Churches  Stock.  The  very  Rea- 
fon  of  their  Inftitution  was  thegiveing  Relief  to  the  Apoftles,  who 
could  not  at  once  attend  the  Word  of  God  and  fer<ve  Tables.     And  to 
this  Mr.  Dodivell  accords'  ( t  )  declareing  that  the  fit  ft  Institution  of 
the  Office  of  Deacon  (hip  was  for  the  distributing  of  the    Treafures   of 
the  Church* ,  But  fuch  is  not  the  Ignatian   Deacon  :     For,  faith  He 
(?/),  the  Deacons  'are  not  the  MiniHers  of  Meat  and  Drink  but  of  the 
Church.  >  'Tis  certain  likewife  that  the  Presbyterian  Parifh  Mini- 
ster does  not  correfpond  to  the  Ignatian  Bifhop  as  to  His  Intenfive 
Power.     The  Presbyterians  believe  that  the  Power  afcribed  to  the 
Ignatian  Bifhop  is  greater  than  ought  to  be  allowed  to  any  Crea- 
ture that  is  not  under  an  Infallible  Condufh  •  For  Inftance,  when  ■ 
k  is  fa  id  *{■  Whatfotver  the  Bifhop  approves  is  acceptable  to  God*    But 
then  I  aiBrm  that  the  Ignatian  Bifinop  as  to  His  Extenfive  Power 
correfponds  better  to  the  Presbyterian   Parifh  Minifter  than  to  the 
Enghfh  Diocefan  Bifhop,  feeing,  as  I  obferved  before,  the  Ignatian* 
BtihopYw hols  Charge  did  meet  in  one  Place  and  communicate  as 

one 


[s]   Irenic.  p.  305.  Edir.  T.     [t]  One  Priefthood,  Chap.XII.Ss&.  3.  p*<33&,   £v  J  Ep.  to   the  Tr^ 
Sect,  a,    ,  |  Ep.  to  the  Smyin,  Se&,  YIH,-:. 


128  Defence  of  the  Chap.  ll% 

one  Altar.  I  affirm  likewife,  that  there  is  not  the  leaft  Hint  in 
all  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  of  an  Imparity  among  the  Pallors  ofthe 
Church,  I  take  Paftors  here  in  the  current  EcclefiafticalSenfeof  that 
Word  iov.Jlftfh  as  labour  in  the  Word,  and  DocJrine,  for  otherwife  I 
know  that  the  Word  P*#0rmay  fignifie  any  Officer  or  Governour 
whatfomever. 

And  this  now  brings  me  to  the  main  Point  in  Debate:  For  I  know 
the  Reader  will  prefently  ask,  what  I  make  ofthe  Ignatian  Presbyters, 
were  not  they  Paftors  in  the  current  Ecclefiaftical  Senfe  of  that  Word  ? 
I  affirm  pofitively  that  there  is  no  Hint  in  all  the  Ignatian  Epiftles 
that  they  were,  and  that  nothing  Mr.  Rhind  has  produced  proves  that 
there  is  any  fuch  Hint  in  them.  Hehasbut  two  Arguments  for  that 
Purpofe,  and  that  I  may  not  wrong  him,  I  {hail  fet  them  down  fully 
in  his  own  Words. 

The  firft  runs  thus  p.  10$.  '  I  fay,  that  the  Presbyters  mentioned 

*  by  Ignatius,  did  preach  and  adminiftrate  the  Sacraments:  Thus 
'  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Smyrn.  Let  that  Eucharift  be  looked  upon  as 
A  firm  and  juft,  which  is  either  offered  by  the  Bifhop,  or  by  him  to 
'  whom  the  Bifhop  has  given  his  Confent.     Again ,  'Tis  not  lawfull 

*  without  the  Bilhop,  neither  to  Baptize  nor  to  celebrate  the  Sacra- 
'  ment,  but  whatfoever  he  fhall  approve  of,  that  is  alfo  well  pleafing 
c  to  God ;  which  plainly  proves,  that  though  the  Bifhop  was  inveft- 
e  ed  with  the  Chief  Power  of  Difpenfingthefe  Holy  Ordinances,  yet 

*  might  the  Presbyters  perform  them  by  his  Allowance,  and  there- 

*  fore  they  were  not  Elders  according  to  the  Presbyterian  Fafhion  ;  fee- 
'   ing  they  pretend  to  no  fuch  Power,     nor  can  their  Parifh  Minifter 

*  (  who,  they  fay,  is  the  true  Ignatian  Bifhop)  communicate  the  fame 
f  to  them.     Thus  he. 

Before  I anfwer  direQly,    I.muftgive  a  literal Tranflation  of  the 

two  PafTages  produced  by  him  from  the  Original  *.     The  firft  runs 

thus,  Let  that  Eucbartjl  be  held  firm,  which  is  under  the  Bifhop  or  to  whom 

he  fhall  permit.     The  other  runs  thus,  It  is  not  lawfull  without  the  Bi~ 

Jhop  either  to  Baptize 9  or  to  make. a  Love  Fealt*     But  whatever  be  Jball  ap» 

prove 


ifc  4E«£(»>)  fit/itd*  Ivxttprrlx  iyilctii  «  lift  T«f  ixlcxsvtr  trtt,  'n  i  tit  ttlrti  iTM-ge^r 


Se&  \r.        Presbyterian  Government^        i2§ 

frove,  the  fame  is  alfo  welUpleafmg  to  God.  Now  T  ask  i  ft,  Is  there  in 
either  oi  thefe  Teftimoniesthe  leaft  Intimation  that  the  Presbyters  did 
Preach?  No.  Neither  the  Word  Preaching,  nor  any  Thing  Equiva- 
lent  to-ir,  is  mentioned  in  either  of  them  :  Nor  indeed  any  where  elfe 
in  thefe  Bpiitles  is  Preaching  afcribed  to  the  Presbyter.  2dly,  Is  there 
the  leaft  Intimation  in  either  of  thefe  1  eftimonies  that  the  Presbyters 
admimftrate  the  Sacraments  ■?  No.  Presbyters  are  not  fo  much  as  named 
in  either  of  them,  nor  is  there  the  leaft  Hint  given  that  either  Bapti- 
sing or  giveing  the  Eucharift  was  more  peculiar  to  the  Presbyters 
than  to  any  of  the  Laity.  Upon  the  whole  then  it  does  not  appear  by 
thete  Leftirnomes,  that  the  Ignatian  Presbyters  could  either  Preach  or 
tamtm/trate  the  Sacraments. 

Iknow  nothing  can  be  reponed  to  this,  unlefs  it  be  faid,  thatie 
ought  to  be  fuppofed  that  the   Bifhop  would  not  give  his  Confent  to 
any  to  Baptize  or  to  make  a  Love  Feaft  but  to  the  Presbyters.  But  this 
isa  plain  begging  rheQueftion,  and  is  contrary  to  what  the  Fathers 
have  taught  us:     For,  faith  Ambrofe  or  Hilary  the  Roman  Deacon  who 
wrote  the  Commentaries  annexed  to  AmbroJe\  Works  (*)  « that  the 
Chrtfttan  People  might  encreafe  and  be  multiplied,  in  the  Beginning 
it  was  allowed  to  all  Perfons  both  to  preach  the  Gofpel,  and  to  Bap- 
tize  and  to  explain  the  Scriptures  in  the  Church.  And  particularly 
as  to  Baptifm  ns  known  that  it  was  ufually  difpenfed  by  Lay  Perfons 
and  rfr/*2//^expreflyaifcnsthe  Lawfulnefs  of  it,  as  weftall  Hear 
when  we  come  to  his  Teii imony  ;  and  the  forecited  Ambrofe  or  JFfiJ 
prelates  the    Police   of  it  even  in  the  Prefence  of  the  Apoftles. 
tofoi\Jaitkbe(j)9  allTaught,  and  all  Baptized  on  whatever  Days 
or  limes   Occafion   offered.     For  Philip  did  not  wait  for  a  Time 
or  a  Day  in  which  he  might  Baptize  the  Eunuch,  neither  did  he  in- 
jerpofea  Paft   Nor  did  Paalmd  Silas  delay  but  that  they  inftant- 
ly  Baptized  the Jaylour    with    all  his  Houfe.     Neither  had  Peter 
h  Deacons,  or  fought  a  Day  wherein  to  Baptize  Cornelius  withall  his 

&  Houfe: 


■"tdiemourfTitciuindoConSmm?  C"«"s ^P""'?"' ,™™  «»'»buS  f..is.  Ne,ue  Parts  Diacopos .iibtiL 


1 2o  Defence  of  the  Chap.  7/. 

*  Houfe :  Nor  did  he  himfelf  Baptize  them,  but  commanded  the 
c  Brethren  who  came  with  Him  from  Joppa  to  do  it.  Thus  he. 
One  then  might  as  well  fay  that  the  Englifb  Mid  wives  are  Presbyters, 
becaufe  they  have  atleaft  the  Connivance  of  the  Bifhop  to  Baptize  ; 
as  fay,  that  thefein  Ignatius  who  Baptized  with  the  Bifhop's  Con- 
fent  were  Presbyters,  when  not  only  Deacons  might  do  it ;  which 
Mr.  Rhind  himfelf  will  not  deny,  but  every  L*jFerfon  too.  And 
as  to  the  other  Sacrament  viz.  the  Eucharift  there  is  no  Men- 
tion in  either  of  the  two  Teftimonies  of  Confecrating  it,  and  as 
for  the  Diftnbution  of  it,  'tis  certain  that  not  only  Deacons  but 
even  Lay  Perfons  ufed  to  be  employed  zbout  it.  Thus  Chryfof- 
torn  tells  us  (~)  '  That  it  was  given  in  Charge  to  the  Deacons 
«  to  keep  notorioufly  unworthy  Perfons  from  the  Table,  and  that 
'  theHolyGiftsfhould  notbediftributed  to  them.  And  by  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Carthage  {a)  it  is  allowed  that  in  Cafe  of  Ntcejjiiy  the 
Deacon,  the  Presbyter  being  prefetft,  may  being  ordered  give  the  Euchii 
fist  of  the  Body  of  Chrifi  to  the  People.  And  Julii/i  Martyr  (b  )  tils 
us  that  it  was  ufual  in  his  Days  for  the  Deacons  to  carry  the  Eu- 
charift to  the  Abfents..  But  not  the  Deacons  only,  but  even  Lay 
Perfons  were  fometimes  thus  employed.  Thus  Eujdius  tells  us 
(c)  of  Serapion  that  defireing  the  Eucharift  on  his  Death  Bed,  He 
fent,  his  Grand  Child  to  bring  a  Presbyter  to  adminifter 
it  to  him.  The  Presbyter  happened  to  be  fick  and  was  not 
able  to  come;  but  he  fent  the  Eucharift  with  the  Boy  otderinghim 
to  adminifter  it  to  his  Grand  Father  which  accordingly  was  dene. 
And  who  knows  not  that  the  Eucharift  ufed  to  be  given  to  Infants 
after  their  Baptifm?  But  I  very  much  doubt  if  there  was  always 
a  Church  Officer  at  the  doing  of  it. .  Plainly  the  Elements  ufed 
tobe  confecrated  by  the  .Bifhop,  and  the  People  oft  time- kept  them, 
and  by  his  allowance  gave  them  toothers..  How  then  does  it  ap- 
pear from  the  Teftimonies  produced  by  Mr.  Rhind,  that  the  Ign*. 
urn  Pnsbyters  did  either. Preach  or  Admimftrate  the  Sacramems,when 

tiiere 


11]  Uc  Ducouus^S^e^cc-o    Euchariftian  Corporis  .Chrifti  JPojulo,  fi  necdfios  Cogor,  j* 
fus    Eroget.  Can.  38.  Caiai^a.,-.  Sura.  GoBcil.    . 
fb]  Apol.  2.  p.  97-  Edit.  Colonics.   168c,  f. 
jfcj  Hjil,  Eccler,.  Lib.  6.  Cap.   4.3,  y 


Se<Sh  V,        Presbyterian  Government.         131 

there  is  neither  Mention  in  either  of  them  of  Presbyters',  nor,  fup- 
pofe  there  were,  is  there  any  Thing  afcribed  to  them  but  what 
might  be  and  was  frequently  done  by  Deacons,  yea  by  every  Lay 
Chriftan  ?  So  much  for  his  firft  Argument. 

His  Second  is  in  thefe  Words  p.  103,  104.    *  But  I  add,  that 

*  the  Presbyter  in  St.  Ignatius  Days,  were  Subject  to  the  Bifhop; 
6  This  dots  folly  appear  from  the  Teftimomes  formerly  cited :     If 

*  then  thefe  Presbyters  were  fuch  as  the  Modern  Ruling  Elders, 
'  either  this  their  Subjection  muft  relate  to  the  Bifhop's  Superior 
f  Power  in  the  Administration  of  Sacraments  and  Ordination,  or 
f  to  the  Power  of  J  irifdi&ion:  Not  the  former;  for  how  can  they 
1  be  accountable. in  thefe  tefpecls,  when  they  are  not  fuppofed  to 
€  be  at  all  concerned  in  thefe  Matters.;  and  to  fay  that  this  Sub- 
4  jeclion  relates  to  Acls  of  Jurifdiclion,  is  to  deftroy  that  Parity 
c  of  Power,  of  which,  all  Presbyters,  whether  Preaching  or  Rul- 
J  jng  are  equally  poifeiTed  according  to  the  Presbyterians.     Thus  he. 

The  Anfwer  to  which  is  very  ealie,  and  therefore  may  be  very 
Short.  Through  all  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  there  is  no  Subjection  re- 
quired from  the  Presbyters  to  the  Bifhop  but  what  every  Presby- 
terian Ruling  Elder  will  own,  and  that  too,  agreeably  to 
Presbyterian  Principles,  to  be  his  Duty  to  pay  to  the  Mi- 
nifter. Every  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elder  owns  the  Minifter  to  be 
an  Officer  Superior  to  himfelf  as  having  the  Key  of  DoBrine  as 
well  as  of  Difcipline,  whereas  himfelf  has  that  of  Dijciphne  only. 
Every  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elder  gives,  though  not  a  Negative, 
yet  the  Precedency  to  the  Minifter  in  all  Ads  of  Jurifdi£tion.  In 
a  Word  every  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elder  is  ready  to  yeild  all  Re- 
fverexce  to  the  Minifter,  which  is  all  that  is  required  of  the  -Ignatian 
Presbyter  to  the  Bifhop.  So  much  for  his  Second  Argument.  And 
this  is  our  Second  Defence  againft  the  Ignatian  Epiftles,  That,  m 
fo  the  Main  of  the  Centroverfie,  they  contain  Nothing  contrary  to 
she  Presbyterian  Scheme.  And  I  hope  every  Reader  is  fatisfied 
that  there  is  no  more  needfull  on  this  Subjefr.  Yet  becaufe  Mr. 
%hind  mentions  another  Defence  which  the  Presbyterians  make  a- 
gainfl  them  viz.  That  thefe  Epistles  are  either  Spurious  or  Corrupted'. 
Tho'  I  do  not  think  fuch  a  Defence  needful!,  yet  1  homologate  the 
fame,  and  ju-fttfy  my  Brethren  in  it.    And  therefore 

&  2  la 


ij2  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

In  tfie  Third  Place.  I  aflert  that  thefe  Epiftles  which  go  under 
the  Name  of  Ignatius  either  are  not  Genuine,  or  at  leaft  that  they 
are  vitiate  and  interpolated.  For  proveing  this,  I  am  not  to  infift  on 
what,  the  Learned  Stillwgfleet  has  fuggefted  (d)  that  the  Story  of 
tranfporting  Ignatius  from  Antioch  where  he  was  condemned,  to  Rome 
where  he  fufTered,  and  of  his  many  Excurfions  by  the  Way,  and 
of  the  Freedom  he  got  to  write  thefe  Epiftles,  fmells  rank  of  the 
Legend;  feeing  J^»^f///j  nimfelf  informs  us  that  He  was  bound  to 
ten  Leopards,  that  is  to  fay ,  to  fuch  a  Band  of '  Souldiers ;  who,  though  treat- 
ed with  all  manner  of  Kj^dne/s,  were  the  worje  for  it.  Waveing  this, 
I  affirm  that  nothing  Mr.  Rhtnd  has  advanced,  though  he  has  taken 
very  great  pains  on  this  Particular,  is  in  the  leaft  fufficient  to  vin- 
dicate them. 

He  infifts  on  thefe  Six  Topicks.  I.  That  feveral  Fathers  do  mention 
thefe  Epiftles,  and  cite  fundry  Paffagesfrom  them  which  are  to  be 
found  in  thofe  now  extant.  II.  That  Calvm  who  was  a  Party  was 
the  flrft  who  ever  alledged  fuch  an  Interpolation.  III.  That  at 
leaft  Vcfftus^s  and  Vfber's  Editions  of  thefe  Epiftles  are  the  Genuine 
IiTue  of  that  Holy  Father.  IV.  That  fuch  an  Interpolation  was 
hardly  if  at  all  Practicable.  V.  That  the  alledging  that  thele  Paf- 
fages  which  aflert  the  Epifcopal  Authority  are  Interpolations  is  a 
mean  begging  of  the  Queftion.  VI.  That  no  one  can  give  a  reafon- 
able  account  why  any  fuch  Interpolation  fhould  have  been  attem- 
pted.   Of  each'  of  thefe  in  order. 

I.  He  alledges  p.  95.  96'.  S.  Poljcarp,  Irenxus^  Origcn,  Eufeb?u?9 
Athdnafius  and  Theodore?,  All  which^  faith  he,  with  many  other  Au- 
thors do  mention  thefe  Epiftles  and  cite  fundry  Paff ages  from  them  which 
are  to  be  found  in  thofe  now  extant.  To  which  it  is  anfwered,  that 
this  proves  only .  that  Ignatim  did  write  Epiftles,  and  that  fome  Sen- 
tences of  them  are  ftill  preferved.  But  how  will  it  follow  thence, 
either  that  thefe  Epiftles  are  Genuine,  or  that  they  are  not  vitiat- 
ed? Efpecially  when  we  confider.  ift,  That  all  the  PafTagea 
cited  from  Ignatiusby  the  Ancients  are  not  to  be  found  even  in  the 
beft  Editions  of  him  which  we  have*.    For  Inftance,  there  is  a 

Fa  flag© ; 

£  d  ]  ?P« ,  w .  the  Romans  Seft.  £. ; . 


Se&.  W        Presbyterian  Government.        132; 

FafTage  cited  by  lerom  thus  (f).     Ignatius  an  ApoHolick  Man  and 
Martyr  writes  boldly,  The  Lord  chufed  Apoftles  who  were  Sinners  above 
all  Men.     Now,  in  which  of  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  is  there  anyfuch 
Paflage  to  be  found  ?     Dr.  Hammond  anfwers  f:gjj9    That   it  may 
well  be  his    faying,   though  it  is  not    found    in  the/'e  Epiftles   :     fuft 
as  Our  Saviour  [pake  many  Things  which  are  not  written  in  the  GofpeMs.j 
But  this  is  a  meer  Whim;    for  lerom  is  not  teftifieing  about  what;- 
Ignatius  [poke  but  about  what  he  wrote.     This  is  a  pretty  good  Pre- « 
fumption  that  the  Epiftles  are  at  leafi;  mutilate.     2dly,  If  the  An- 
cients citeing  of  him  bean  Argument,  Is  it  not  ver^  ftrangethat  no- 
one  of  them  has  cited  thefe  PaiTages  that  are  infilled  on  in  Favours* 
of  Epifcopacy •■?     Is  it  not  ffrange  that  his  Authority  was  never  in- 
filled on  in  the  Difpute  with  Aerius  where  there  was  fo  fair  Oc- 
cafion  for  it?     Wou'd  not  one  be  tempted  from  this  to  think  that 
fuch  PaiTages  are  foifted  in  ?     ^dly,  Some  of  thefe  Expreflions  that 
the  Ancients  cite  which  are  now  found  in  thefe  Epiftles  sre  neither 
cited  as  from  Ignatius,  nor  as  from  Epiftles  either  of  his  or  any  Bo- 
dy elfe*     For  Instance*  that  Paffage  which  Mr.  Rhind  p.  95, citesL 
from  Irenaus,  lam  the  Wheat  of  God  and  {hall  be  ground  by  the  Teeth  of' 
Wild  Beafts,-  that  I  may  betorne  the  Bread  of  ff  ejus  Chrifty  though  it  is- 
found  in  Ignati&sh /Epiftles,, yet  Ir.enaus  does  not  fay  that  it  was 
mitten-,  much  lefs  that  it  was  written  in  an  Epiftle,  leafl:  of  all  that- 
it  was  written  in   any  Epiftle  from  Ignatius,  but  only   indcfinitly,. 
One  of  our  Brethren  hath  J 'aid.  {h)i,  which  Eufebius  under  Hands  of" 
Ignatius ; . 

II.  He  alledges  p.  97.  that  /^Presbyterians  cannot  name  an  Author? 
whoever  al ledge  djuch  an  interpolation  btfore  Calvin,  whom  all  Men  know 
to  have  been  a  Party.  And  this  (he  thinks^  might  be  allowed  %/ufficient 
Anfwer.  This  Sufficient  Anf^er  of  his  is  fo  grofs  an  impofeing  upon- 
People's  Underftanding»that  I  am  even  amazed  he  fhou'd  have  been' 
fo  very  Prodigal  of  his  Credit.  The  Matter  is  plainly  this.  CaU; 
via  wiote  that  excellent  Book  of  his  Injtitutwns  in  the  Year  1536. 

There*- 


[{]  Ignatius  vir  Apoftolicus  et  Mauyr.  fcribic  Auda&er.   Eligit  Dominus  Apoftolos  ,qui  fuper  omiies  Ho-  " 
mines  Peccatores  erant.     Hieiom  Dial,  a  con,  Pelag.  .•  [g)  Ani.'to  the '  Animadvei.  on  the  Pi/Teic.  Chap.  3,  :■ 


£e£ 


[hj  Quemadmodum  c^uidam denoftris- dixit, prppcer  Martymm  in  Deucnadjudicacus  ad  Befti«.'  Qucmiaint 


fett;~SiHUBi  i:£C 


134  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II; 

Therein  he  has  Occafion  to  defend  tbe  Do&rine  of  the  ever  BlerT- 
ed  Trinity,  againft  which  DoQrine  the  Ant  it  rimt  avians  objefted 
the  Authority  and  Teftimony  of  Ignatius.  Calvin  in  Anfwer  there- 
to rejects  f/)  the  faid  pretended  Authority,  and  gives  a  very 
bad  Character,  of   the  Work.    *  As  for  Ignatius  i  faith  he )    let 

*  thefe  who  attribute  any  Thing  to  his  Authority  prove  that  the 
€  Apoftles  made  a  Law  about  Lent  and  fuch  like  Corruptions: 

*  There  is  Nothing  more  ft  inking  than  that  Trafh  which  is  pub* 

*  liilied  under  the  Name  of  Ignatius.     Whence  the  Impudence  of 
•f  fuch  is   thelefs  to'erable,  who  furnifh  themfelves  with  fuch  For- 

c  geries  wherewith  to  impofe  on  the  World.  Now,  will  the  Read- 
er ask,  Did  Calvin  find  any  fuch  thing  in  Ignatius  as  Kxpreflions 
againft  the  Do£rrine  of  the  Trinity,  a  pretended  Apoftohck  Law 
for  obferving  Lent  and  fuch  like  Corruptions?  Yes  indeed,  in  the 
Old  Editions,  which  alone  were  known  in  CalvirPs  Time,  there 
was  a  great  deal  of  fuch  Stuff;  as  even  Coke  a  Church  of  England 
Divine  has  noticed  (£).  Thus,  in  the  Epiftle  to  thole  of  Tarfus, 
it  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  Herefies  diUemmate  by  Satan,  that 
Cbrijl  was  God  over  all.  And  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Pbtlipptans,  it 
is  denyed  that  the  Word  which  was  made  FLjh  dwelt  m  Man.  And  it 
is  aflerted,  that  i  if  any  faft  on  the  Sabbath  Day  he  is  a  Murderer 

*  of  Chrift ;  and  that  if  any  keep  Eafter  with  the  Jews  he  is  par- 

*  taker  with  thofewhoilew  the  Lord  and  his  Apoltles.  And  in  the 
Epiftle  to  the  Antiochians,  Wives  are  difcharged  to  call  their  Huf- 
bands  by  their  own  proper  Name.  In  a  word,  the  Divines  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  cited  thefe  Epiftles  to  prove  that  the  BlefTed  Vir- 
gin Mary  was  void  of  all  Sin.  I  hope  it  is  plain  that  a*  fome  of 
thefe  Things  were  great  fooleries,  fo  others  or  them  were  Grofs 
Herefies.  And  muft  then  Calvin  be  traduced  as  a  Party-Man  be« 
caufe  he  would  not  Sacrifice  the  fundamental  Doctrines  of  Chri- 
ftianity  to  the  Reputation  of  hnatiufs  Epiftles?  But  let  us  hear 
Dr.  Wake  Bilhop  of  Lincoln  (/).  \  Before  I  enter  upon  that  Ac- 
count 

[  '  .1  Ign*t'tim  quod  obtendunr,  fi  velinc  quicquam  habere  momenti,  probenc  Apoftolos  legem  tuli/Ie 
de  Quadragclima  &  fimilibus  Corruptelis  :  Nihil  Nxnijs  iibs  qute  Alb  Ignatij  nomme  edict  funr,  putidius. 
Opo  minus  coierabilis  ell  tor  urn  impudentia  qui  talibus  Larvis  ad  iailend;im  fe  inltruunt.  Calvin.  JnjUt. 
Lib.   i.  Cap.  13.  Seel.  29 

[/;.]  Ceoftra.  cjitorundaia  Script,  vet.    (I)  The  Genuine  Epiftles  of  the  Apoftolical  Fa;-hers   II.  E«i&. 


Sc<9\  V.         Presbyterian  Government  1 5  6 ; 

'  count  which  it  will  be  fitting  for  me  to  give  of  the  Epiftles  of 
6  S.  Ignatius,  it  will  be  neceffary  for  me  to  obferve,  that  there  have 
c  been  confiderabie  Differences  in  the  Editions  of  the  Epiftles  of  this 
''Holy  Man,  no  lefs  than  in  the  Judgment  of  our  latter  Criticks 

*  concerning  them:    To  pafs  by  the  firft,  and  mod  im  per  feci  of 

*  them,  the  -belt  that  for  a  -long  Time  was  extant^  contained  not 
s  only  a  great  Number  of  Epiftles  faljly  afcrihed  to  this  Author, 
*'but  even  thofe  that  were  Genuine  fa  altered  and  corrupted,  that 
<s  it  was  hard  to  find  out  the  true  Ignatius  in  them,  .   The  fir  ft  that  began 

*  to  remedy  this  Gonfafion,  and   to  reftore  this  great  Writer  to 

*  His  primitive  Simplicity ,  was  our  molt  Reverend  and  Learned 
•"Arch-Biflibpl^y,  in  his  Edition  of  them  at  Oxford  Anno  1644.- 
Thus  Di.  Wake.-    Now  if,  by  the  Judgment  of  the  moft  Learned 
of  the  Epifcopalians,  there  was  not  fo  much  as  any  tolerable  Copy 
of  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  extant  till  the  Year  1644,  that  is,  108  Years 
after  Calvin  had  excepted  ag'ainfc  them ;    who  that  has  not  thrown. 
ofF  all  Modefty  would  talk  at  Mr  Rhindh  Rate,  or  would  feck  to 
Waft  the  Fame  of  that  Great  Man  Calvin  in  a  Matter  wherein  the  " 
Epifcopalians  themfelves  have  juftifted    him;    or  would  reprefene 
him as  a  Party  Man,  when  he  was  defending  the  Common  Caufe  ' 
of  Chridianity.     But  it  fcems  Ignatiufs  EpUVes  muft  ftand,  though 
the  Dotlrine  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  our  Bleffed  Sa vig- 
our fhbuld  Sink. «  Dear  Epifcopacy,what  art  thou  not  worth !  i  Who  > 
would  not  Sell  even  his  Religion  to  purchafe  Thee)  without  which1 
alfc  Religion  is  Nothing?" 

XII.  He  adds  p.  97.  '  That  however  the  Name  of  the   Holy 
'*'Man  Ignatius  may  have  been  abufed    by  ignorant   or  designing  . 

*  'Men,  who  fathered  upon  him  their  own  tpurious  or  interpolated  ; 
<"sWork|'  yet  the  Epiftles  of  Ij/Zw's  and  VoffiusS  Edition  nre  his  Ge- 
nuine IflTue.  But  does  not  Du  Wake  himfelt  own  (/»  )  c  That  no  ■ 

*  'one  that  Reads  (even  thefe  Editions  of)  them  with  any  care  or  Judg-  - 

*  'merit  can  make  any  doubt  of  it,  but  that  Letters  or  Words  have 

*  been rmiftaken,  and  'perhaps  even  Pieces  of  Tome  Sentences  too  • 
4  c  corrupted.'.  And  does  not  every  one-  know  what-  a  great  Altera-  - 
fion.  the  Miftake  of  one  Letter,  fometimes  will 'make  ?  (I  fkdl'give  - 


£in~[  Vbi  Supra,  jv 


$$6  Defence  of  the  Chap,  h 

onefignallnftance  of  this,  which  is  related  by  Dr.  Wake  (»).  In  the 
Acts  of  the  Martyrdom  of  S.  Polycarp^kt  out  from  the  Barroccian  Ma- 
nufcript  by  Archbifhop  Vjber9  there  is  this  PafTage.  '  That  the 
*  Souldier  or  Officer  having  (truck  his  Launce  into  the  Side  of  the 
'  Saint,  there  camefortha  Pigeon,  together  with  a  great  Quantity  of 
'  Blood.  Here  is  a  fair  Plump  Miracle.  A  Pigeon  comeing  out 
of  a  Man's  Side  being  a  very  curious  Sight;  but  row  by  the  Alte- 
ration of  one  fingle  Letter  in  the  Original  f,  it  dwindles  into  no  Mi- 
racle at  all  ;  and  the  PalTage  imports  only  that  there  came  out  of 
his  left  Side  a  great  Quantity  of  Blood,  the  Greek  Word  which  fignt- 
fies  the  Left,  and  that  which  fignihVsa  Pigeon  being  near  in  Sound 
to  one  another.  If  the  Miftakeofone  Letter  can  make  fuch  a  Change, 
what  may  the  Mifhke  of  a  Word  do?  And  what  may  the  Corrupti- 
on ota  Piece  of  a  Sentence  do  ?  But  Mr.  Rhmd'is  a  Writer  ot  Cou- 
rage who  flicks  at  nothing. 

IV.  He  alkdges  p.  99  That  fuch  an  Interpolation  was  hardly,  if  at 
all^  Practicable  But  pray  why  not  Practicable  ?  For  ifl.  Did  Mr. 
Rhind  never  hear  of  the  Ignorance  or  Knavery  of  Tranfcribers  ? 
Does  he  not  know  that  the  Works  of  the  Fathers  were  a  long  Time 
in  the  Hands  of  Monks  or  others  olthe  like  Stamp,  who,  with  all 
their  Religion,  were  yet  fo  familiar  and  u fed  fuch  Preedoom  with 
the  Fathers,  as  not  only  to  pare  their  Nails  that  they  might  not  be 
fcratched  by  them  ;  But  even  to  alter  their  Habit  and  Drefs,to  fit  them 
to  the  V*odes  of  their  own  Times,  and  make'emfafhionableC^?  Even 
the  Voffian  Greek  Manufcript  is  not  judged  to  be  above  eleven  Hund- 
red Years  Old,  that  is,  about  500  Years  latter  than  the  Times  of  Ig- 
natius; and  how  corrupt  the  Church  was  about  the  Six  Hundred 
Year  of  God  needs  not  be  told.  2dlj,  Is  it  not  a  very  good  Argu- 
ment that  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  might  be  interpolated,  when  it  is  plain 
be\  ond  Contradiction  that  they  actually  were  interpolated  ?  What  Se- 
curity had  Bifhop  Vjberh  or  ifa&c  Vosftufs  Copies  again!!  the  PoiTibi- 
lity  of  Interpolation,  any  more  than  other  Copies  ?     Why,  faith 

Mr. 


f_  nj  Ubi  Supra  p.  5b.  jp. 

(  o  jShertock's  Pr«iervauve  againft  Popery.   Pan.  I.  Chap.  II    Se&.  3.  p.  7|» 


S&Sk.K         Presbyterian  Government]  137 

Mr.  Rbindp.  98,  f  Confidering  the  great  Simplicity  of  thefe  pious 
*  Times,  it  is  fcarce  credible  that  the  greateft  Ornaments  of  the  Chri- 
'  ftian  Church  after  the  Apoftleswere  wicked  enough  to  be  guilty 
'  of  fo  bafe  a  Fraud,  or  Weak  enough  to  be  impofed  on  by  thefe 
1  who  might  be  thus  Wicked.    Is  not  this  a  Powerful!  Orator, who 
will  needs   harangue  People  out  of  Matter  ofFaQ?    LettheG^^ 
Ornaments  of  the  Church  be  as  far  from  being  either  Wicked  ox  Weak 
as  Mr.  R/fiWpleafes,  yet  that  fome  Perfons  were  fo  Wicked  as  to  be 
guilty  of  fuch  a  Fraud,  and  others  fo  Weak  as  to  be  impofed  on 
by  it,  is  fo  far  from  being  incredible,  that  it  is  confeffed  on  all 
Hands,  that  not  only  that,  but  even  Twenty  other  Things  of  the 
like  Nature  have  been   done.     And  all  Mr.  Rhinos  Reafonings 
againlt  the  Poffibility  or  Prafticablenefs  of  interpolating  Ignatius^ 
Epiftles  labour  under  this  one  (mall  Abfurdity,  that  if  they  prove 
any  Thing,  they  will  prove   that   no  falfe  Writeing  could  have 
been  palmed  on  the  Church,  nor  any  Genuine  one  Corrupted.  And 
whence  then  camefo  many  fpurious  Pieces,  fuch  as  Abgarush  Let- 
ter   to    our  BlefTed  Saviour,  and  our  Saviour's  Anfwer  to  Him ; 
which  Eufebius  tells  us,  with  as  much  Confidence  as  he  does  the 
Story  of  the  IgnatJan  Epiftles,  he  had  faithfully  Tranflated  out  of 
the  Syriack  Language  as  he  found  them  in  the  Archives  of  Edeffa  ? 
Whence  came  St.  Paulas  Epiftle  to  the  Laodiceans?  Whence  came 
the  Letters  that  paffed  'twixt  Seneca  and  Him  ?  Whence  came  St* 
Pete?\  St.  Mark\,  St.  Matthew's  and  St.  'James's  Liturgies,  which 
Mr.  Rhind*  makes  an  Argument  of,  as  being  of  confiderable  An* 
tiquity,  though  Dr.  Wake(pj  twenty  Years  ago  declared, that  the 
learned  World  feemed  to  be  univerfally  agreed  about  the  Falfuy  of 
them.    Not  to  fpeak  of  many  others  mentioned  by  Hottinger,  Ccke7 
Du  pn  and  Dr.  Wake,  whence  came  the  Jpoffolical  Conflitatwns, 
which  Mr.  Whifion  an  Advocate  for  Epifcopacy  aflertsf^)  to  be 
the  moH  Sacred  of  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Teftament?  Is  there 
any  Age  can  be  named  upon  which  moe  falfe  Pieces  were  fathered 
than  the  FirH  and  Second  ?  And  what  Charm  then  was  there  in  Ig- 
wtiush  Name, that  none  fhould  be  fatheted  on  him?  Or  why  fhould 

S  we 


*  Sermon  on  Liturgy  p.  14..     £  p  J  Ubi    fupra  Firft  Edit.    p.    14.J.     [  <]  ]  Eflay    upon  the  Apoftolical 
Cenftitucions. 


238  Defence  of  the  Chap.  11. 

we  believe  there  were  not,  when  the  Contrary  is  Manifeft  and 
confehed  by  all  the  World  ?  For  let  us  take  a  fhort  View  of 
*em. 

The  IgnatUn  Epiftles,  faiesCV?&?  fr),  a  Church  of  England   Di- 
vine, were  firft  publifhed  at  Strasburg  Anno  1502.     And    though 
they  are  now   only  Seven,  yet  then  they  were  eleven  in  Number. 
In  procefs  of  Time  it  feems  they  begot  another  among  'em  :     Por 
when  in  the  Ye.tr  1562  they  were  publifhed  in  Greek  and  Latine  at 
Tar  is,  thev   were  found  to  be  Twelve.     Atlength  as  if  rhe    BlefTing. 
Be  Fruitfull  and  Mul'fpij  had  been  pronounced  on  them/luy  encreaf. 
ed  to  the  Number  of  Fifteen  with  a  Letter  a!fo  annexed  from  the 
Virgin  Mary  to  Ignatius.     Nor  did  they  alrer  in  Number  only,but  in 
Bulk  too  ;•    For    in    fome  Editions  fome    of    the    Epiitles  were 
twice  as  ldigeas  in  orhers.     Notwithstanding  all  this  Varietv,  yet 
fpme  of  the  Church  of  Rome,Canifius  by  Nime,  iniuhed  the  World, 
as  our  Epifcopal  Friends  do  us  now,  with  3  great  deal  of Scorn,  be- 
caufe   they  doubted  of  any   of  thefe  Epiftles.     But  the  World  is 
never  all  at  once  to  be  bullied  om  of  their  Senfes.     Mafhaus  a  Pa~ 
rifian  Do£ror  publifhed  anew  Edition  of  them, and  without  Scruple 
difcarded  Four  of  them  as  Apocryphal  viz.  two  to  St.  John  the  £« 
vangeltH,  one  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  her  Letter  to  him.     Yet  even, 
fo the  remaining   Twelve  did  nor  plea fe  JearnedMen.     Archbifhop 
Vjber  has  afferted  and  proves  (i)  that  Six  of  them  were  fpunous, 
Six  of  thern    mixed,  and   fo  none  of  them  fincere  and  Genuine.. 
Kedelius  in  the  Year  1623   publifhed  an   Edition  of  the  Ignatiatt 
Epiftles  at  Geneva-,  but  he  went  fo  near  to  Work,  and  caftigate 
them  fo  feverely  ;  that  the  Church  of  England  Divines  were  not  ' 
plealed  with  him  (tj9ns  indeed  they  ft  Id  om  are  with  any  Thing 
that  comes  from  that  Quarter,  or  almoft  any  other  except  their  own„. 
Hitherto  then  the    lgnatian  Epiltles  made    but    a    ibrry  Figure 
with  all   who    were  not  willing   to -Sacrifice  their  Sen  fe  ro  their 
Zeal.     Atlength  Archbifhop  Vfljer  tell  upon  two  Copies  of  thenv 
One  io  Cambridge^ anodlur  in  Biihop  Montague's.  Library  •    yet  thtfe 

wer^i 


[rj  Cer.fiira  iporundam  ,  Script.  Vet.  p.   f4j& 
(s)  Difierc.  de  Ep.  Ign.  prol.g. 


Sefl.  K       Presbyterian  Government  i 

were  not  Originals  bur  Lathe  Tranflations  and  thefe  too  very  Bar- 
barous.    But  then  to  fupply  this  Defect  Ifaac  VoJJtus  found  in  the 
Medic**  Library  a  Greek    Manufcript  of  them  and  publifhed  it  at 
Amttrrdim   1646.     Yer,  even  after  all  this,  the  Latine  Editions  are 
thought  to  be  beft  by  learned  Men;  and  Archbifhop  Vjber  doubts 
whether  the  Seventh  Epiftle  viz.  that  to  Polycarp  be  Genuine  or  nor* 
Nay  he  was  fo  ill  fatisRed  with  it,  that  he  would   not  publifh  it 
With  the  reft.     Nor,  faies  Dr%  Wake  ( v),  does  Ifaac  Vodius  bint* 
fe if  deny  but  th&t  there  are  fome  Things  in  it  that  may  feem  to  render 
it  /ufpicious.     BefiJes,  the  Epiftle  to  the  Romans  was  not  found  in 
the  Medicean  or  Florentine  Manufcript ;  but  made  up,  in  fome  Mea- 
fu re,  from  the  La-ine  Verfions,  by  the  Conjectures  of  learned  Mens 
as  the  f  me  Dr.  Wake  takes  Notice  (  #).     And  even  as  to  the  whole 
•of  th   Kpiftles,  chough  the  Dottor  tranflated  from  the  Text  of Vo$us% 
yet  he  owns,  that  where  a  Place  was  manifefily  Imperfeti  he  has 
iboietimes  taken  the  Liberty  to  exprefs  his  own  Conjectures.     And 
now  after  all  let  any  Man,  who  can,  doubt  of  the  Poffibility  or 
F  atlicablenefs  of  thefe  Epiftles  having  been  interpolated.  But,  adds 
Mr.  Rhind  p.  93,  if  thit  fliould  be  granted,    I  I  fee  not  how  the 

*  Presbyterians  can  Anfwer  the  Enemies  of  our  Religion,  who  com* 

*  plain  that  the  like  Freedom  may  have  been  ufed  with  the  Bible 
c  in  iome  fundamental  Points  much  about  the  fame  Time.  Pray, 
Good  Mr.  Rht*d9  were  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  as  univerfaily  fpread  as 
the  Bible  was?  Of  was  it  of  as  great  Importance  to  keep  them  un- 
corrupted  as  the  Scriptures}  I  do  not  think  but  either  of  thefe  Thoughts 
much  more  both  jointly,  befides  what  elfe  might  be  added,  would  an- 
Cwer  the  Enemies  of  our  Religion.  Bur,  to  compleatthe  Anfwer, 
does  not  Mr.  Rhind  know  that  there  were  falfe  Gofpels  obtruded 
Upon  the  World,  obtruded  :oo  in  Ignatius°s  own  Days?  Does  he 
not  know  that  Ignatius  himlelf  miftock  the  Spurious  Gofpel  for  the 
True  one?  Does  he  nor  know  that  Mr.  Dodwell  Himfelf  has  own- 
€d  that  Ignatius  was  thus  miftaken.    i  The  Holy  Martyr,  fatth 

S  2  '  hs 


y~\  Ubi  Supra  II.  Edit.  p.  40.    [xj  Ibid.  p.  41. 


Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

"~  he  (ryJ),  did  not  cautioufly  enough  diftinguifh'twixt  the  Genuine 
c*  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  and  the  interpolated  one  which  the  Ebionit 
1  Hereticks  now  rageing  in  rffta  ufed.  Now  if  falfe  Gofpels  could 
be  minted  in  thofe  Days,  could  not  falfe  lgnatianE$\i\tes be  fo  too? 
If  fo  great  an  Ornament  of  the  Church  as  Ignatius  himfelf  could  be 
impofed  on  by  them,  why  might  not  others  as  great  Ornaments 
be  impofed  on  by  falfe  or  interpolated  Pieces  fathered  on  Him? 

V.  But  Mr.  Rhind  p.  98,  *  would  know  of  His  Adverfaries, 
*  what  thefe  Interpolations  are.  He  hopes  they  will  not  alkd^e 
'  that  there  are  any  favouring  the  then  or  after  Hereiies;  and  to 
'  fay  that. thefe  PalTages,  which  affeit  the  Di(tin8ion  of  Ecclefialti- 
*'cal. Orders  and  the  Epifcopd  Authority,  are  of  this  kind,  is' a 
1  mean  begging  of  theQueftion;  and  fo  much  the  meaner  (fill,  that 
'  this  can  be  proven  from  other  Monuments  of  that  Age  though 
'  Ignatius.,  had  never  written  an  Epiftle.  For  Anfwer,  In  the 
firft  Place,  has  he  read  the  Authors  on  this  Controverfie  with  a 
Scrupulous  Exaffnefs  and  knows  nothing  of  what  thefe  Interpolations 
are?  Why  then  I  recommend  him  i&Coke,  Daslle^  Salmafius,  Blon* 
del,  Oiwv,  .the  Jus  Divinum  Mini  Her  ij \Ezangt/ici,  L'  arroque,  Jame- 
Jon,  Scuket ,  Rivet :  \  For  whyfhould  I  repeat  what  has  been  fo 
often  infifted  on  ?<  After  all  that-  M&mmM*  Ptar/bn,  Btveridge, 
Wake  or  Dupin  have  advanced  in.  Vindication  of  thefe  Epiftles,  I 
am  as  well  latisfyed  as  I  can  be  of  any  Thing,  that  they  are  either 
Counter  fit  or  Corrupted.  2dly,.  'Tis  true-  iuchf'  Interpolations  as 
favoured  the  then  or  after  Herefies  are  pretty  well  weeded  out  of 
the  New  Editions:  But  I  have  already  (hewn  what  Grofs  Here- 
fies were  in  the  Old  ones.  Now  I  ask  Mr.  Rbmd,  how  they  eou'd 
creep  in  when  the  Genuine  Epiftles  were  fcattered  through  Rome 
Antioch  and  feveral  Cities  of  Greece}  The  Depofuanesrhemfelves 
of  this  facred  Treafure  cou'd  have  confronted  thefe  interpolated 
Pieces  with  the  Genuine  Epiftles.  They  themfelves  couvd  not  be 
ihe  Criminals :    And  I  Perions  removed  at  fuch  a  Diftance  could 

nos 


f  y  J  Parxnef.  Se'&.  23.  p.  98..  Nernpe  ia  tWertf?  H*rericos .  locum  protuler*e.  Tghxtiut  e»r  E-' 
ifangelio  S.  M.ittbai,  quonegaviife  dicebatur  Chiiihis  ie  Dcemomum  effe  incorporeum.  Non  fatis  caute 
diftinxic  S.  Martyr  inter  S.  Mdttbai  Evangelium  fincerum,  et  quale  ufurpabant  Ebionsi  jam  in  %Afi*  grafc 
fan:es  interpolatum.  Hie  erg*  negaut  Haretici,  et  quidem  refte,  verba  ill*  in  E?angeliO  iuiiTe  quale  pi%; 
dm.  a  H.  Mjt&tkmua. 


Sed.  V*        Presbyterian  Government.         141 

not  have  Uhiverfally  confpired  towards  fuch  a  Deceit:  Or  if  Peo* 
pie  had  been  inclined,  they  wou'd  rather  have  made  Bold  with 
the  Bible  than  any  inferiour  Authority.  This  is  certainly  good 
Reafoning  becaufe  it  is  Mr.  Rhino's  p.  99.  And  yet  how  irnpoi7- 
fible  foever  it  was  that  fuch  Interpolations  jhould  creep  in  ;  All  the 
World  knows  and  confeffes  that  they  did  creep  in.  ^dly,  Why 
does  Mr.  Rkipd  fay  that  it  is  a  begging  of  the  Question  to  alledga 
that  the  Expieffions  about  Epjcopacy  are  Interpolations?  'Tis' f6 
far  from  a  begging,  that  it  is  a  proving  of  the  Point  direclly.  For, 
when  the  pretended  Ignatius  extravagantly  aferibes  that  to  his  Bi- 
fhops  (whether  they  be  fuppofed  Parochial  or  Diocefan  it  alters  not 
the  Cafe  )  which  the  Apoftles  never  affumed  to  themfelves,  'tis 
a  plain  Evidence  that  the  Author  of  fuch  ExprefTions  was  a  Man 
of  no  Judgment  or  Confcience,  consequently  was  not  the  Holy  Mir? 
tyr  Ignatius,..  Is  not  this,  the  very  Reafon  why  the  Church  of 
England  Divines  themfelves  have  rejected  "the  old1  Editions  of  thefe 
Epiilles,  becaufe  they  are  fo  very  immoderate  in  their  Exaltation 
of  the  Bifhop?  For  In-ftance,  when  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Trallians 
m  the  old  Editions  the  Brfhory  is  fa  id  to  be  above  all  PYmcipality  > 
and  Power  ^  and  more,  excellent'  tlfan  all  as  far  as  it  is  fojfible  for  Matt 
to  excelli  And  when  in  the  Epiftle  to  the  Phdadelfhians,  all  of 
what  fort  foever,  not  only  Presbyters,  Deacons  and  the  wholq 
Clergy,  but  all  the  People,  Souldiers,  Princes^  C^far  HYmfelf  are' 
enjoined  to  perform  Obedience  to  the  Bifhop.-  And  when'  iri 
the  Epiftle"  to  the"  Smy  n* an s  iho,  Bifhop  is  placed  •  betwixt 
God  and  the  King,  and  that  by  way  of  Correction  of  the  Words 
of  Scripture  Mj  Son  fezrGod-\  the  Bifhop)  and  the  Kjngm  Does 
not  Dr.  Hammond  himfelf  (^)  call  thefe  immoderate  ExprefliOns  ? 
Does  he  not  pronounce  the  Dotlrine  contain'd  in  them  to  be  re- 
bellious, extravagant  and  fenfelejs?  Does  he  not  conclude  that  they 
were  inlert  by  forae  Iw^oflor^'  And  is  there  not  as  good  Rreafon 
why  we  fhould  except  againft'  the-  New  Editions,  when  there  is  in* 
them  a  great  deal  of  fuch  extravagant  Srurlyet  unpuiged  Out  ?  Can 
any  one  read  "even  she  Vfijhran  and  Vbjjtw  Editions,  and  norob- - 
ferve  fuch  a  Turgid,  affeded.,  Hyperbolical  Stile- --as  wou'd  never  • 

probably/ 


£ij  Anf.  to  ch«  AnimswlYeri  en  the  Differs.  Chap,  Illr  Ss&  5, 


142  Defence  of  the  Chap,  77. 

probably  have  been  ufed  by  one  lhat  had  heard  and  converfed 
with  the  Apo'tles,  the  Character  of  whofe  Writeings  was  Simple 
ciry  ?  Is  it  poflible  one  of  Ignatius^  Spirit  and  Character  could 
havemadethat  Borfft^)that  he  was  'able  to  know  things  heaven- 
e  ly, the  Orders  of  Angels,  their  Constitutions, Principalities,  things 

*  Vifible  and  Inviftbta?  'TistrueDr.  Hammond  {b)  has  criticifed, 
and  Dr.  Wake  tranflated  that  Paffage  to  a  contrary  Senfe;  as  if  He  had 
laid  /  am  not  able  to  know  things  Heavily— — . .-  But  both  thefe 
Doctors  have  done  Defpite  to  the  Context  as  well  as  forced  the 
Words;  for  the  very  Paragraph,  in  which  the  Paffage  is,begins  thus 
even  according  to  Dr.  Wake's  Trar  flation  in  his  (econd  Edition, 

*  Ami  not  able  to  write  to  you  of  Heavenly  things  ?  But  I  fear  left  I 
4  fhould  harm  you,  who  are  yet  but  Babes  in  thrift:  f  Excufemef/;/i 

*  Care;)  and  left  perchance«bemg  not  able  to  receive  them,  ye  (hould 

*  bechoaked  with  them.  Could  fo  wife  and  Holy  a  Man  have  diop- 
ped  fuch  unguarded  AfTertions  as  thefe,  What foever  the  Btfiop  approves 
is  acceptable  to  God.  My  Soul  for  fuch  at  obey  the  B/fbop,  Presbyters  and 
Deacons.  Is  not  the  very  Foundation  of  Popery,  viz. an  lwplhite  Faitb^ 
wrapt  up  in  thefe  ExprefTions  ?  4thly,  Why  did  Mr.  Rhind  fay 
that  the  Epiicopal  Authority  can  be  proven  from  other  Monuments 
-of  that  Age  ?  Where  are  thefe  Monuments?  Why  did  he  not 
produce  them,  or  at  leaft  name  them?  Had  Mr.  Rhwd  considered 
that  things  were  not  to  be  taken  upon  his  meer  AfTertion;  I'm 
lure  he  had  found  Caufe  to  make  his  Book  at  leaft  a  hundred  Times 
bigger  than  it  is,  or  to  leave  out  five  hundred  things  he  has  put 
into  it.  Polycavp  was  the  moft  contemporary  Writer  with  Ignatius 
chat  can  be  named.  But  though  he  pjefcnbes  Deacons  and  Prejl 
bjters  their  Duty,  yet  he  does  not  fo  much  as  once  name  Bi(bops9 
or  any  thing  equivalent  to  them  above  the  Degree  of  Presbyters  ; 
but  plainly  fuppofes  that  theie  were  then  no  othtr  Orders  in  the 
Church  but  thoie  oi  Priests  and  Deacons.  Wherefore  ye  mufi  needs  ab fain 
from  all  thefe  things  ;  being  Jubfct  to  the  Pnefts  and  Deacons,  as 
unto  God  and  Chriji   (  c  ). 

VI.  Mr.  Rhmd  asks  further  p.  ioo.  c  Why  any  fuch  Interpola- 
tion 


I  a]  Ep.  to  the  Ti  a]  .  SsCi.  V.  [  b  ]  Vind,  oi  the  DifTeit.  Chap.  111.  SeSt.  3.  (_  c  J  Ep.  to  the  Philip.  SeSt.V.  VL 


Se&.  W.      *  Presbyterian  Government         145 

<  tion  fhould  have  been  attempted.  For  if  the  Teftimonies  in 
'  thefe  Epifties  that  favour  the  Epifcopal  Authority  are  not  agree- 
*  able  to  the  Faith  and  Practice  of  the  Ignatian  Age;  then  many 
<l  living  about  the  Time  of  the  Interpolation  might  have  been 
*'  fenfible  of  this.  And  as  it  was  next  to  Impoftible  to  deceive  fuch 
*'  by  jpurious  Epifties  fo  it  is  highly  improbable  that  they  would 
c  fufFer  others  to  be  deceived.  To  this  Purpofe  He.  But  this  is 
the  very  fame  Thing  he  has  faid  io  often  over,  and  which  I  have 
fo  largely  expofed.  'Tis  beyond  Contradiction,  and  is  cenfefled 
on  all  Hands  that  there  were  Interpolations  made,  and  that  too  in 
the  Matter  of  Epifcopacy,  whereof!  juft  now  gave  Inflances, 
This  being  clear,  where  is  the  Necetlity  of  giving  either  the  How 
or  the  Why ,  of  fuch  Interpolations  ?  Let  Mr.  Rhtnd  or  any  of  his 
Brethren  give  us  the  How  or  ihe  Why  thefe  extravagant  Expreftions 
in  the  Matter  of  Epifcopacy  which  I  have  juft  now  inftanced,.- 
and  which  are  confeikd  to  be  Interpolations,  were  foifttd  into  the 
hnatian  Epifties;  and  I  here  promtfe  ro  give  Him  the  How  or 
Why  of  all  the  reft  which  he  thinks  doimke-  for  his  Purpofe.  So 
much  then  for  Mr.  Rhino's  Vindication  ol  the  Ign&ti&n  Epifties. 

To  conclude  if,  He  referrshis  Readersto  p.  107.  Many  of  them  are' 
mt  yet  fully  Satisfied  to  tl/e  Incomparable  Dr.  Pearfon'i and  the  learned 
Dupio'i   Performances  on  that  Had.     And  I  referr  my  Reader  to5 
the  Authors  whom  I  have  already  cited.    'Tis  true  the  greater! 
Men  of  the  Church  of  England  have  made  their  utmoft  Efforts  in' 
behalf  of  thefe  Tgmtfan  Epifties:     But 'tis  as  true  they  have  been • 
taken  up  by  as  great  Men  as  themfelves.     'Tis  true  likewife  the 
Church  of  England  Divines  got  the  laft  Word  >     But  it  is  as  true9< 
k  was,  not  becaufe  they  won  it,  but  becaufe  they  begged  ir,    and' 
owed  their  keeping  the  Field  not  to  the  Strength  of  their  Reafons 
but  to  the  earneftnefs  of  their  'Importunity,  as"  appears  from  Mon- 
lieur.L'  drroqafi  Life  prefixed  to  Hrs  Adverfana  Sacra,  from  Wal- 
fo'H  .  Trar.flanon  of  V  Arrows  Hi'ftory  of  the  Euchavifiy  and  from ' 
this  Author  of  the  Elogium  on  Monfieur  V  Arroque  in  the  Nouvelles 
de  Republtqtie  de  Letttesi-   They,  have  been  told  of  this -before  (*/),■. 

bus^- 


£dj  JitneWs  Naz-   Queiel, .  Boyfp,  Forrefter.-- 


*44  Defence  of  the  tChap.  IL 

but  it  was  need  full  to  tell  them  over  again,  beemfe  they  fometimes 
effect  to  be  dull  of  Hearing.     But  enough  of  Ignatius, 

The  next  Teftimony    He  produces  is  from  Clemens  Bifhop  of 

Rome,  in  his  fir  ft  Epiftle  to  the 
€1  EM  ENS     ROMANVS     Corinthians  Sett.  40.  in  which  the 

Argumentative  Words  are.  '  For 
'.the  Chief  Prieft  has  His  proper  Service^,  and  to  the  Priefts 
6  their  proper  Place  is  appointed .;  and  to  the  Levites  ap- 
'  .pertain  their  proper  Ministries;    and   the  Lay-Man  is  confined 

*  within  the  Bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  Lay- Men.  From 
which  He  inferrs  p.  109.  *  that  to  the  Bifhop,  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
'  .cons  in  the  Chriftian  Church  fuch  a  Diftinclion  of  Offices  does 

*  belong,  as  formerly  obtained  among  the  High  Priefts,  and  Levites 

*  under  the  Jewifh  Difpenfation  ;  which  is  further  confirmed  by 
6  the    Authority  of  St.  hrom  (that  pretended    Patron  of  Parity  J 

*  who  faies,  what  Aaron  and  his  Sons  were,  that  we  know  the  Bifhops  and 
4  Presbyters  are.     Thus  Mr.  Rhind.     Now  let  us  examine  all  rhis. 

In  the  fir  ft  Place.  Was  Clemem  Bifhop  of  Rome  when  he  wrote 
this  Epift'e?  Hear  Dr.  Wake  (?)  '  I  conclude  then,  faith  He% 
'vthat  this  Epiftle  wa?  written  fhortly  after  the  End  of  the  Periecu- 

*  -lion  un  !er  Nero  :    Between  the  LXIV  and  LXX  Year  of  Chrifb 

*  .And  that,  as  the  Learned  Defender  of  this  Period  fuppofes,  in  the 

*  Vacancy  of  the  See  of  Rome;  before  the  Promotion  of  S.  Clement 
x  ctothe  Government  of  it.  Thus  He.  Plainly, this  Epiftle  was  writ- 
ten at  feaft  forty  two  Years  before  Epifcopacy  was  inftitute,  by  Mr. 
HodwdPs  Accompt ;  and  before  there  was  any  fuch  thing  as  a  Bi- 
fhop in  the  World  except  James  Bifhop  of  Jerufalem  who  was  in 
Pi  ace  of  Univerfal  Pope.  This,  I  hope,  is  more  than  Sufficient  to  take 
off  Clement's  Teftimony  :  For  how  could  he  fpeak  of  a  Thing  which 
was  not  yet  in  Being.  Yet  left  Mr.  Rhind  fhould  complain  of 
Neglea 

Id  the  Second  Place.    I  ask,  does  that  PafTage,  which  he  has 
cited  from  Clemens ,  in  the  leaft  tend  to  prove  that  there  were  then 
three  Diftinci   Orders  of  Bifhops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  the 
Chriftian  Church?    No.  He  ufes  it  only  by  way  of  General  Ac- 
commodation, 


£ej  Ubi  Supra  I  £dic.  p.  34.. 


§e$.  V»        Presbyterian  Government]        145 

commodation,  that  the  Chriftians  at  Corinth  fhouM  be  Subjefl:  to 
their  Spiritual  Guides  j ,  as  the  Jews,  whofe  Polity  was  yet  (landing, 
were  to  theirs.  But  it  never  entered  into  his  Thoughts  to  run  a 
Parallel  'twixt  the  Officers  in  the  one  and  the  other  Polity.  And 
Mr.  Rhind  might  as  well  have  proved  that  the  Officers  in  the  Chri- 
stian Church  correfponde<1  tothofe  in  the  Roman  Army,  hecaufethe 
Tame  Clement-fats  beet.  37     '  Let  us  confider  the  Souldiers  who 

*  obey  their  Leaders  in  War,  how  orderly,  readily  and  with  all 
**  Subjection  they- execute  their  Orders.  All  are  not  Pretors  or  Chi- 
■*  liarofis,  nor  Centurions  nor  Commanders  of  Fifty.  Every  one 
•*  performs,  in  h«s  Order  and  Station,  what  is  commanded  by  the 
'  King  and  the  Leaders.  Plainly,  one  needs  no  more  to  convince 
Him  that  Epifconacy  did  not  obtain  in  that  Time,  but  to  read 
Clement's  Epilrie.  The  Occafion  and  Subject  of  it  is  this.  The 
People  of  Cofimh  had  railed  a  Sedition  againft  their  Presbyters,  and 
would  not  be  regulated  by  them.  Clemens  wrote  his  Epiftie  on 
Purpofe  tocompefce  that  Sedition.  c  They  are  fhamefull  yea  very 
€  fhdmefull  things  beloved,  faith  he  SeB.  47,  to  be  heard,  that  the 
'*  moft  firm  and  Ancient  Church  of  the  Corinthians  fhould  by  (  or  for 
■*  the  Sake  of  J  one  or  two  Perions  rife  up  in  Sedition  againft  the  Pref- 
byters.  Does  he  ever  recommend  it  to  them  to  referr  their  Quarrel 
to  the  Bifhop?  Not  once.  What  could  be  the  reafon  of  this? 
had  he  been  abfent,  Clement  might  have  entreated  them  to  wait  his 
Return.  Had  he  been  Dead,  he  might  have  defired  them  to  keep 
Quiet  till  there  were  a  new  one  Cholen.  Yet  Clemens  advifes  to  nei- 
ther of  thefe,  no  not  by  a  Hint.  Does  he  acknowledge  any  moe 
•than  two  Orders  of  Officers  in  the  Church  Btfhops  and  Deacons? 
No.  '  The  Apoftles,  faith  He  Serf.  42.  preaching  through  Countries 
■*  and  Cities  constituted  their  firft  Fruits,  having  proved  them  by 

*  the  Spirit,  for  Btfhops  and  Deacons  of  thofe  that  fhould  afterwards 
believe.  No  mention  of  Pr esbyter s  here.  Did  he  not  pofitively  Own 
that  thefe  Bijbops  were  no  other  than  Pjesbytets-'?  Yes.  '  For  it 
c  would  be  our  no  fmall  Sin,  faith  He  Self.  44,  fhould  we  caft  eff 
€  thofe  from  their  Bifhoprtck  who  without  Bictne  and  Bolily  offer 
€  the  Gifts.  Bleffed  are  thofe  Presbyters  who  having  fimfhed  their 
'  Cootie  have  obtain'd  a  fruitful!  and  perfect'  Dhlblution.  To  con- 
firm all    Qmius  in  his  Epiftie  to  Bignonw  proves  this  Epiftie  of 

T  Clement 


145  Defence  of  the  Chap.  I/. 

Clement  to  be  of  undoubted  Antiquity*  '  Becaufe,  faith  he  (/),  no 
4  where  therein  does  he  make  Mention  of  that  Paramount  or  Pe- 
**cuUar  Authority. of  Bifiops,  which,  by  Ecclefiaftical  Cuftom,  be- 
<i  gan  after  the  Death  of  Mark  to  be  introduced  at  Alexandria-,  and 
'■from  that  Precedent  into  other  places;  but  He  plainly  fhews,  as 
6  the  Apoftle-  Paul  Ind  done,  that  the  Churches  were  governed  by 
'  the  Common  Council  of  the  Presbyters,  who  are  ail  called  Bifbops 
4  both  by  Him  and  Paul.ThmGrotius.  But  Grotius'was  a  Dutch-Man. 
True.  But  his  Reafoning  was  right  Englijb. c  They,  faith  the  Learned 
e  l  Stillingfleet  (g)  that  can  find  any  one  (Ingle  Bifhop  at  Corinth  when 
iK  Clement  wrote  his  Epiftle  to  them,  muft  have  better  Eyes  and 
6  Judgment  than  the  defervedly  admired  Grotius. 

In  the  Third  Place.  I  ask  how  Jeromes  Words,  What  Aaron 
and  his  Sons  were  that  we  know  the  Bifhops  and  Presbyters  aref  contri- 
bute to  the  clearing  or  confirming  Clements  Tefrimony.  Why  did 
nor  Mr.  Rhind  tell  where  Jerem  has  thefe  Words  ?  'Twas  too  much 
Nicenefs  in  him  to  think  that  citeing  Authors  in  luch  a  Cafe  as 
this  would  be  reckoned  Pedantry:  The  induftrious  avoiding  of  it 
rather  deferves  that  Name.  But  the  Reafon  is  Evident,  Mr.  Rhind 
knew  very  we!l,thatifany  one  would  look  the  Place,  He  would  fee 
how  afeferdly  it  were  alledged.  Plainly  the  words  are  taken  out  of 
n?si  famous  Epiftle  to  Evagrius,  the  Occafion  and  Contents  of 
which  are  thefe.  A  certain  Deacon  of  the  Church  of  Rome  had  Part- 
ed a  pretty  odd  Opinion  viz.  that  Deacons  were  Juperioar  to  Presbyters* 
For cbaftifiag  the  Arrogance  of  that  Spark,  Jerom  wrote  the  faid 
Epiftle,  *  A  Fool,  faith  he  {h )  will  fpeak  foolifh  Things,  ..I  hear 
e  there  Js  one  who  has  broke  out  into  fuch  a  Height  of  Folly  as  to 
*4pfeferr  Deacons  to  Presbyters;  that  is,  to  Bifhops. .  Then  He 
proceeds  to  confute  Him  by  Arguments.  And  the  great  Argument 
upon  which  he  goes  is  this,  Biihops  and.  Presbyters  were  in  the  A- 

poftks 


[fj  Quod  nnfquam  nswninit  frxibrriS  illius  Epifcoporum.auctoriufis,  qux  Ecclefix  Confuciudine,poft  May  - 
ti  mortem,  Alexandria:,  atque  eo.  exemplo,   alibi   incroduci  cepir;   fed    plane  ut  Paulus  Apoftolus  oftendir,   , 
Eccleihs  CommuniPresbyce-rGrum,  qui  lideni,  omnej.ec  j  Epj/copi    ip'fi    Pauloque  dicuntur,    conkiio    finite 
|ubernatas .    [gj  Irenie  p.  i8o. 

Cn  J  Legimu?  in  Eiaia.  Fatuusfatua  loquetur.  ■ .  Audio  quendam  in  tantam  Erupifle  vecordiam  ■.  UcDr-:- 
aconos  Presbyteris,  id  ell,  Epifcopis  antefcrret.     Nam  cum  Apoftolus  perfpicue  doceac  eoldem  efle  Presby-  - 

ierosqtios.Epifcopos,  quid  patitur  Menfaiu.m  5c  Viduarum  Mmifter,  utiiipra  eos  fe.tnmidus  efferat.-« =  - 

Quod  a utem  poftca  udus  elecius  eft,  qui  cceteris  praspoueretur,  in  fchifmatis  remediumiactum  eft. •  Nam  7 

ct.  Alexandria:  a  Marco  Evangelifta  ufciue  ad  Heraclam  &  Dionyfium  EpifcopoSj  Presbyter! fsmper  vmuna  1 ' 
ex  fe  Liechim  in  Excelfiori  gradu  collo'catum  Epiicopum  nomiiisij:*:.--'-  <~[uid  euira  &C«,  eif«£;<i  €>£«■- 
«JjnaiiQne,Epiicopiis,  ouod  fiesbyter  nou  f agist,  t  . 


Bed:,  V9         Presbyterian  Government;        147 

.■■poftles  Time  all  one.    But  it  were  a  palpable  Folly  to  preferr  Dea- 
cons to  Bifhops.     Ergo  it  is  the  fame  Folly  to  preferr  Deacons  to 
Presbyters.    The  fi'rfl  of  thefe  Proportions  viz.  that  Bifhops  and 
Presbyters  were  in  the  Apoftles  Time  all  one.  He  proves  from  the 
very  fame  Scriptures  which  the  Presbyterians  have  ever  infifted  on. 
And  tho7  Epifcopacy  was  fo  far  advanced  in  his  Time,  which  had 
been  fet  on  Foot  after  the  ApoMles  Days  for  a  Remedy  of Schifm\  yet 
-even  then  he  declares,  That  excepting  Ordination  the  BijJjop.  does  no* 
thing  which  the  Presbyter  might  r.ot  do.  Is  it  then  Imaginable  that  af- 
ter allihis£fer0m  in  that  very  fame' Epiftle  fhould  allow  Bifhops  to 
be  Superiour  to  Presbyters  by  Divine  Right,  as  the  High  Prieft  un- 
der the  Law  was  to  the  ordinary  Priefts?  No.'  'Its plain  that  the 
Comparifon  runs,  not  between  Aaron  and  his  Sons  under  the  Law, 
and  Bifhops  and  Presbyters  under  the  Gofpel;  but  between  Aaron 
and  his  Sons  as  one  Part  of  the  Comparifon  under  the  Law,  and  the 
Levites  under  them  as  the  other.    So  under  the  Gofpel  Bifhops  and 
Presbyters  make  one  Part  of  the  Comparifon,  anfwering  to  Aaron 
and  His  Sons  in  that  wherin   they    all  agree  viz.  the  Order  of 
■Priefthood,  and  the  other  Part  under  the  Gofpel  is  that  of  Deacons 
anfwering  to  the  Levites  under  the  Law.  And  thisGlofs  upon  Jtroms 
'Words,  as  the  Context  neceffarly  requires,    fo  the  learned  Stilling? 
fleet  Q)  has  exprefsly  confirmed.     And   befides,  Dr.   Hammond,  as 
we  have  before  obferved,  by  denying  the  middle  Order  of  Presbytem 
in  the  Apoftles  Days,  has  quite  deftroyed  the  Argument  frornthe  Jew* 
>i[b  Priefthood.    Was  not  then  Mr.  Rhindvevy  well  advifed,  when 
he  would  prefs  Jerom  into  his  Service  in  the  very  Face  of  his  own 
Proteftation  to  the  Contrary  ;  and  that  too  for  confirming  Clement's 
Teftimony  whenever  dropt  fo  much  as  one  Syllable  in  favours  of 
a Bifhop  above  a  Presbyter.  So  much  for 'Clemens ;and  I  don't  think 
but  the  Reader  is  by   this  Time  convinced,  that  Mr.  Rhind  could 
have  been  at  no  lofs  though  he  had  never  mentioned  Him. 

His  Third  Teftimony  is  from  a  Letter  of  the  Emperour  Adrian 
to    Servianus,  but,  fuppofing  it  were  for  his   pur- 
pofe,  'tis  fo  very  fhamefull  a  one,  that  for  the  Ho-    The  Emperour 
nour  of  the  Epifcopal  Order  it  ought  to  have  been     ADRIAN 
juried  in  Silence.  But  Di.  Monro  (k  )  hadtcuch'd 

T  2  upon 


£[i3  Irenic.  p.  26B,    [\2  Enquiry  into  the  new     ©pinions. 


148  Defence  of  the  Chap.  W 

upon  it,  and  therefore  Mr.  Rhind  thought  it  neceflary  heflioulddo 
fo  too.  The  Words  of  the  Letter  infifted  on  by  Mr.  Rhmd  p. 
109  are.  There  are  Cbrijkians  who  Worship  Serapis,  and  they  are  devotm 
edto  Serapis  who  call  themfdves  the  Bifhops  of  Chrift,  There  no  Ruler 
of  the  Synagogue,  no  Chriftian  Presbyter,  who  does  wot,?gc*  From 
this  he  inferrs,  '  That  when  Adrian  was  in  j£gy?t  Anno  Chrift.  131. 
'  the  Diftinftionof  Bifhops  and  Presbyters  was  fo  notorious,  that 
*  the  Emperour  fuppofeth  it  as  an  undoubted  Truth.  But  the 
very  contrary  is  evident  from  the  Emperour^s  Words.  And  Vis 
clear  as  Light  that  thefe  whom  he  calls  B?fljops  in  the  fir  ft  Claufe  . 
are  the  fame  with  thofe  he  calls  Presbyters  1.1  the  next:  A -a  ay  of 
Speaking  which  every  Body  knows  to  be  according  to  she  conftant 
Stile  of  the  Scripture,  and  confequently  of  all  fuch  as  knew  any 
Thing  of  the  Chriftian  Affairs.  I  have  fer  down  -(-the  Emj  erourV 
Words  as  He  wrote  them,  that  the  Reader  may  fee  this  the  more . 
evidently. 

His  Fourth  Teftimony  p.   no.  is  from  henaus  Lib.  3.  Cap.  3- 
contra  Heres.  who  faies,     We  can  reckon  them,  who . 
1REN jEVS     were  appointed  Bffhops  by  the  Apoftles  in  the  Churches9  ', 

and  their  Succejfors  to  our  Day  :  To  wfjom  alfo  they 
committed  thefe  Churches,  delivering  to  them  the  fame  Dignity  of  Power, 
'Tis  anfwered. 

Firft,  Suppofirig  frd'/z^.f  were  again  ft  us,  yet  his  Judgment  about 
Traditions  is  of  no  great  Weight.  Fotyn  that  fame  Chapter  which  Mr. 
Rhind  has  cited,  KeafTerts(/jnotonly  the  Preeminence  of  the  Church 
9f  Rom?,  but  the  neceffary  Dependence  of  all  other  Churches  upon. 
Her.  .  And  elfewhere  {w)  he  aflerts  Chrift  to  have  been  paft  the 
Fortieth  and  near  the  Fiftieth  Year  of  his  Age,  when  he  fuffcred :  And 
that  the  Elders  who  were  whhjohn  in  Aft  a  teftifyed,  that  they  had 
that  by  Tradition  from -Job*  himfelf,  yea  that  the  Gofpel  it  felf 

Teaches 


•f  Adrianus  Aug.  Serviano  Cos.  S.  jEgyptum  queni  mihi  laudabas,  Serviane  Chariflune,  toram  didici, 
levein,  pendulam,  &  aci  omnia  famse  momenta  yol.icante.m,.  Hit  qui  Serapiu  coiunt  Chnitiani  funr,  &  de- 
vori  flint  Serapi.  Qui  fe  Chriili  'Epifcopos  dicunt.  Nemo  iliic  Ardiifynagogus  Judseorym  nemo  Samances, 
nemo  Chriftianorum  Presbyter,  non  Maihematicus  &c. 

[  I  J  Ad  hanc  enim  Ecciefiam,  propter  Potenciorem  Principalitatem,  necefTeeit  omnem  convenire  Ec. 
clefiam. 

[  m  ]  Lib.  a.  Cap.  39.  40.  A  quadrsgefimo  aut  quinquagcfimo  Anno  declinat  jarri  in  ^Etatem  feniorem, 
quam  habens  Dominus  nofbsr  doccbat,  ficut  Erangeliuiim  &  omnes  Seniores  teftantur,  qui  in  Alia  apud  Jo- 
sruicm  Difcipulurn  Domini  convener unr,  idipfura  tradirTe  eis  Joannem— -  (^uinquagerhTXUW.  suitem.  aBUUflfc 
itoadmn  sttigic,  mil  uaien  aiujtum.  S  quiiiquagtfirno  Anno  abltmu   .. 


Se££  Vi       Presdyterian  Government]         *49 

Teaches  if,  and  he  is  very  angry  with  thofe  who  think  otherwife.- 
When  he  ttumbled  fo  prodigioufty  info  plain  a  Cafe;  Pray  what 
Credit  is  to  be  given  to  his  Traditions  about  the  Secceftion  of  Bi- 
fhops,  which  is  generally  acknowledged  by  the  Epifcdpalians  them- 
felves  to  be  a  raoll:  perplexed  and  uncertain  Piece  of  Hiftory. 

Secondly,  Does  Irenaus  fay,  as  Mr,  Rhind  has  Tranflated  him, 
that  the  Apoftles  delivered  to  the  Bifhops  the  fame  Dignity  of  Power? 
No,  bis  Words  (n)  Whom  alfo  ('viz.  the  Bifhops  )  they  left:  their 
SuGCtffars,  delivering  to  them  their  own  Place  of  Maflerfhip.  That  is,  - 
the  Apoftles  con&itute  them  the  Supream  Officers  in  the  Church,  ■ 
fo  that  they  were  to  have  none  above  them  any  more  than  the  A- 
poftles  had.  But,  that  they  delivered  either  to  Bifhop  or  Presbyter 
the  fame  Dignity  of  Power,  bena-us  never  faid.     But 

Thirdly,  There  is  no  need  either  of  Declining  Irenatifs  Tefti- -• 
mony,  or  refining  upon  his  Words.  Mr.  Rhind  tells  he  cou'd  im-  - 
prove  upon  his  Teftimony  :  •  And  I  cannot  but  wifh  he  had  made  all 
the  Improvement  of  it  he  could.  For  that  die  Apoftles  appointed  Bi- 
fhops in  the  Churches,  every  Presbyterian  owns.  But  that  he  appoint- 
ed■  PreUts  or '  Diocefan  Biftops,  no  Epifcopali an  -has  yet  proved.  If 
they  will  ftill  go  on  to  expofe  themfelves  by  infilling  upon  the  Word 
Bifbopno  Body  can  help  it.  Presbyterians  muft  take  Care  they  be 
not  impofed  upon  by  raeer  Sounds.  5Tis  certain  that  Irenam  took 
Eifiop  and  Presbyter  fo?  one  and  the  fame  GiBcer.  *  Wherefore,  faith 
1  b&  (°h  li  behoves  us  to  hearken  to  thofe  who  are  Presbyters  in  the 

*  Church,  to  thole  who,  as  we  have  fhewn,  have  their ■  Succtfjhn  from 

*  the  Apoftles ;  who,tpgether  with  the  Succeffion  of  the  EpifcopatefiavQ 

*  alfo  received  the  certain  Gift  of  theTruth  according  to  the  f  feature 
'  of  the  Father,  Thus  Iren&w*  And  what  ft  range  Conf upon,  faies  Stil- 
ling fleet  (  p  ),  muft  this  raifein  any  one's  Mind  that  fetks  for  a  Succrffion 
of  Mp if "copal-  Power  over  Presbyters  from  the  -Apoftles  by  the   Teftimony 

'  of  -Jren&us,  when  he  fo  plainly  attributes  both  the  Succejjion  to  Presbyters, 
and  the  Epifcopacy  too  which  he  f peaks  of    So  much  for  Irenaus*  ■ 

His 


[n]  Quos  ec  fucceflbres  relinquebant,  fuum   ipforum  locum  Magifterij  tradenres. 

£0]  Quaproprer  eis  qui.  in  Ecclefia  fun:  Presbyteris  obaudire  o porter.  His  qui  fucceffionem  hz- 
fcenuab  Apofcolis,  ficut  oitendioius,  qui.cumEpifcopams  Sueceffionej  Chariiuia  vericaus ■  central,'  -fecund  una 
pla,ciuim  Paths  -accepeyunc.  ■  - 

£pJ.-rremc..p\3.o^./;, 


150  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II. 

His  Laft  TcfHmony,  p.  no,  is  SxomTerttdlian,  who^  faith  He,  be- 
gan to  flour  iff)  at  the  fame  Time  with  Irenaeus, 
TERTVLLIAN.     that  is,    in  the  Declenfwn  of  the  Second  Cen. 

tury,  and  fates  Lib.  de  Baptifmo,  '  The  High 
1  Pried,  who  is  the  Bifiiop,'  has  the  Right  of  giving  Baptifm,  after 
c  him  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  but  not  without  the  Bifliop's  Au- 
thority.    For  Anfwer. 

In  the  Fir  J?  Place.  I  fhould  be  Glad  to  know  where  Mr.  Rhind 
came  by  this  Piece  of  Chronology.  5Tis  true  Tertullian  began  to 
flourifh  in  the  Declenfion  of  the  Second  Century,  viz. 
after  the  Year  192:  And  wrote  his  Book  de  Baptifmo,  from  which 
Mr.  Rhind  cites  about  the  Year  201  (f  ).  But  henduPs  Flourifhing 
was  well  nigh  blown  off  e're  that  Time:  For  he  died,  faies  Mr. 
Dodrvsll  (r  )  before  the  Perfecution  under  Severus  which  began  in 
the  Year  202  or  203.  'Tis  thenfomething  Hard  to  conceive,  how 
Tertullian  beg&n  to  flourifh  at  the  fame  Time  with  Irenaeus.  But 
paffing  this 

In  the  Second  Place.  I  ask  What  would  Mr.  Rhind  inferr  from 
Tertulliatfs  Teftimony?  Is  it  that  there  were  three  diiiind  Orders 
of  Ecclefiaflical  Officers,  Bifhops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  the 
Beginning  of  the  third  Century?  Every  Presbyterian  owns  it.  Is  it 
that  the  Bifhops  had  this  Paramount  Power  of  Baptizing,  beyond 
the  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  by  Divine  Right?  Tertullian  Himfelf 
denys  it,  and  that  in  the  very  next  Words  to  thofe  cited  by  Mr. 
Rhind.  '  It  remains,/*/'//?  He  (/),  for  concluding  this  little  Mat- 
c  ter,  to  advife  alfo  concerning  the  Obfervation  of  giving  and  re- 
i  ceiving  Baptifm.  Of  Giving  indeed  the  High  Frieft  who  is  the 
4 -"Bifhop  lias  the  Right,  then  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons;  yetnoc 
'  without  the  Authority  of  the  Bifiiop  FOR  THE  HONOUR 
«  OF  THE  CHURCH,  which  being  Safe,  Peace  is  Safe.    Other- 

*  wife  EVEN  LAY-MEN  HAVE  THE  RIGHT:    For  what  is 

*  equally  received,  may  be  equally  given.     Thus  Tertullian.    Say 

now 


f  q  ]  Spanheim  Hift..-EccleG  p.  719.  [r]  Differ*.  3.  in  lien. 

I    i  ]  Supercffc,  ad  conchidendam    materiolain,    de    obfervatione  qiioque    Dandi    &    accipiendi  bapti- 

m   1   imrrj<  at   .-cie.     Dandi    quidem  habet  jus  fummus  Sacerdos,    qui  &    Epifcopus:     Dehinc  Presby- 

ien  &  Diaco:ii,  non  ramcn  fine  Epifcopi  auftoritate,  propter  Ecclefue  honorem,  quo  izlvo,  .i'aiva  .pax  elt. 

^iioguin  etijtra  Laicis  jus  eft.     Quod  enjm  ex  suquo  accinkur,  ex  aequo  can  poceli. 


&e£h  V.        Presbyterian  Government,  V51 

now,  Good  Reader,  if  Mr.  Rbind  was  not  either  very  ///furnifhed 
of  Teftimonies,  or  very- mil  with  Affurance,  when  he  infilled  on 
this% 

And  thus  now  X'have  gone  through  His  Antiquity,  and  hope 'tis 
plain  that  when  he  was  a  entring  on  it,  he  might  have  fpared  his 
Harangue  wherein  he  would  perfwade  the  Presbyterians  to  appeal 
to  the; Fathers :  ■  For  I  can  hardly  believe  he  has  gained  much  by 
referring  to  thefe  Judges.  And  if  his  own  Confcience  was  fat  is  fl- 
ed with  thefe  Tefiimonies  he  has  produced,  I  rnuft  needs  fay  it  is 
do  Ill-Natured  one. 


T 


herein'  Mn  RMnd  s    Argument'  for ■  Prekcy 
from :  the  hnfofibility  of  its  obtaining  fo  Early 
and  Univerjally  if  it  had  not  been  of  Divine 
Inftitutioiti  is  Examined \     From-  P5  111.   w 


HERB  can  be  nothing  more  Ridiculous  than  todifpurea- 
gainft  the  Poflibility  of  a  Matter  of  Facl.  If  I  had  feea 
Mr."  Khind  fome  Time  at  Edinburgh  ;  and,  within  a  Short  while  af- 
ter, had  heard  from  unexceptionable- Witne-fTes  that  he  was  at  a 
Bonder  Miles  Diftance  from  it,  mull  I  believe  notwithftandingthat 
he  never  changed  Places ;  becaufe  I  am  not  able  to  tell  How  or 
When  he  did  it,  nor  perhaps  anfwer  all  the  Objections  one  might 
puzzle'-me. with againft either,  the  Phyfical  or  Moral  liupoffibility 
of  his  having  done  fo. .••  Becaufe  Mr.  Rbind  was  educated  Presby-  ; 
leriaay ,  W-as  -  a  ■  Zealot  dn  -that  .-Way,  and  profited    (  more  ■■■Ways'- 

ifoaa 


■152  Defence  of  the  Chap^  II. 

than  one,)  above  many  of  his  Equals;  mufl:  I  therefore  deny  that 
he  is  now  EpiTcopalian,  and  of  the  new  Cut  too ;  becaufe  neither  I, 
nor  indeed  any  Body  elfe,  can  account  for  his  Change.  Has  he 
not  heard  Mr.  Dodwell  fo  often  affirming,  that  the  Government  was 
changed  about  the  YearCVI;  changed  too,  not  only  without  any 
Account  of  it,  but  without  any  Warrant  for  it  contain'd  in  the  Scri- 
ptures? Why  then  will  he  difputeagainftthe  PoiTibility  of  a  Change? 
But 'twas  his  Pleafure,  as  it  has  been  of  many  of  his  Brethren  Wri- 
ters to  do  fo  ;  and  we  muft  attend  Him  in  His  Performance. 

That  a  Change,  of  the  Government  of  the  Church  by  a  Parity 
of  Paftors,  into  a  Government  by  Prelacy,  hid  been  morally  Im« 
poffible,  he  argues  I.  From  the  Piety  and  2>al  of  the  Primitive 
Times.  II.  From  the  Univerial  fpread  of  Bpiicopacy.  III.  From 
the  Vigilance  of  the  Governours  of  the  Church.  IV.  From  the 
Unparallel'dnefsof  the  Cafe.  V,  From  the  No-Oppofition  made  to 
the  Change,  and  the  Want  of  any  Infinuation  that  ever  the  Church 
was  governed  according  to  the  Presbyterian  Model.  Of  thefe  in 
Order. 

I.  He  argues  p.  t  11.  112.  from  the  Piety  and  Zed  of  the  Primi- 
tive Times.  c  If  the  Presbyterian  had  been  the  Divine  Form  of 
Government,  it  could  never  once  have  entered  inro  the  Thoughts 
of  Men  who  had  fhared  in  or  been  Subjecl  to  this  Government, 
to  attempt  or  allow  its  Change.  Would  thefe  Primitive  Perfons 
who  were  Bifhops  in  the  firit  Ages,  have  ufurped  an  Antifcri- 
ptural  Authority.  What  could  have  tempted  them  to  it  ?  Not 
the  Love  of  Riches,  they  for  look  all  for  the  Sake  of  Chrift. 
Not  Ambition  ;  for  they  knew  their  Promotion  rendered  them 
the  more  Obnoxious  to  the  Fury  of  their  Perfecutors.  Suppof  ng 
they  had  been  aOed  either  by  Worldlinefsor  Ambition,  yet  would 
the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  have  fufTered  fuch  an  Encroachment 
to  be  made  upon  their  Divine  Right  ?  Or  would  the  People  have 
'  fubmitted  to  fuch  an  Ufurpation  ?  To  this  Purpofe  he.  For 
Anfwer.  It  cannot  be  denyed,  that  the  Zeal  and  Piety  of  the 
Primitive  Times  was  much  greater  than  of  ours:  But  whv  would 
he  impoie  upon  People  by  a  Chimerical  Reprefentanon  of  thefe 
Times,  contrary  to  the  Faith  of  all  Hiit-ory  ?  Men  Mill  were,  and 
always  will  be  Men 5  that  is,  very  Corrupt,  how  Holy  f jever  the 

Rdigiorj 


Sed  V*         Presbyterian  Government]         153 

Religion  is  which  they  profefs.     And  Church-Men  are  Men  too; 
and,  even  in  the  Primitive  Times,  gave  many  and  very  Scandalous 
Examples,  and  were  the  greater!  Caufe  of  the  Corruption  of  Chri- 
ftians,  and  fometimes  of  their  Perfection  too.    What  a  tragical 
Complaint  does  Eufebius  (?)  make  of  the  Wicked  nefs  of  Chrijlians 
'n  general,  and  of  Church-Men  in  particular?     '  Bifhops,  faith  He, 
rufhed  ilike  mad  Beasts)  againft  Bifhops.     Moft  deteftable  Hy- 
pocrifie  and  Diffimulation  advanced  even  to  the  very  Height  of 
Wickednefs.     We  were  not  touched  with  any  Senfe  of  the  Divine 
Judgment  creeping  in  upon  us,  ufed  no  Endeavours  to  regain 
bis  Favour;  but  wickedly  thinking  that  God  neither  did  regard 
nor  would  vifit  our  Crimes,  we  heaped  one  Wickednefs  upon 
another.     And  thofe  whofeemed  to  be  our  Pallors,  rejecting  the 
Rule  of  Piety,  were  enflamed  with  mutual  Contentions  againft 
one  another ;"  and   while  they  were  only  taken  up  with  Con- 
tentions, Threatnings,  Emulation,   Mutual  Hatred  and  Enmity, 
and  every  one  eagerly   puriued   his  Ambition  in  a  Tyrannical 
Manner,  then  the  Lord  covered  the  Daughter  of  ZJon  with  a    Cloud 
in  His  Anger,    and  remembered  not  His  Foot  fool  in  the.  Day  of  His 
Anger,  but  raifed  up  the  D/W?/w#  Perfecution  againft  them.     Thus 
Eufebius  and  a  great  deal  more  to  this  Purpofe.     Fifty  Years  be- 
fore that,  Cyprian  (i/)  complain'd  of  an  Univerfal  Depravation  in 
the  Clergy  as  well  as  the    Laity.    '  That  the  Priefts  had  no  De- 
c  vorion,  the  Minifters  or  Deacons  no  Fidelity,  That  there  was  no 
*  Charity  in  Works,  no  Difcipline  in  Manners.    And  does   not 
Jerom  *  tell  us,  that    *  the  Primitive  Churches  were  tainted  with 
e  many  grofs  Errors  whilft  the  Apofties  were  alive,  and  the  Blood 
J,  of  Chrift  yet  warm  in  Judea  ?    But  why  do  I  infill  on  Human 
Teftimony?     Does  not  the  Apoftle    Paul  himfelf  make   the  like 
Complaint,     Phil.  3.18.  MANY  walk,  of  whom  I  told  you  often,  and 
now  tell  you  even  weeping,    that  they  are  the  Enemies  of  the  Crofs  of 
Chrifjt  \whofe  God  is  their  Belly, who  mind  Earthly  Things.  And  Chap. 2.2 1 . 
ALLfeek  their  own/tot  the  Things  which  are  Jefus  Chrifi^s.  Even  in  thofe 

U  early 


I  t  J  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  VIII.     Cap.  I.  . 

[  v  ]  Non  in  Sacerdotibus  Religio  devota,  non  in  Miniftris  fides  integra,  non  in  openbus  Miieficor- 
iia,  non  in  Moribus  Difcipiina  &c.     Cyprian  De  Lapfis. 
*  Adverfus  Luciferian, 


1 5  4  Defence  of  the  Chap*  II. 

early  Times,  and  while  the  Church  was  under  Perfecution,  aDfo- 
trephes  could  afpire  to  the  Preeminence  3  John  9.  And  even  the  Pes. 
pies  Liberality  made  To  confiderable  aProviHon  for  the  Maintenance 
of  Church-Men,  that  the  Apoftles  found  Caufe,  oftner  than  once, 
to  Caution  them  againft  Undertaking  the  Office  for  filthy  Lucre's 
Sake  1  Pet.  5.2.  1  Timc^.  3.  Where  then  was  the  Impoffibility 
of  9  Change  even  upon  the  Principles  of  Ambition  and  Covetcuk 
nefs?  Might  not  one  at  Mr.  £//*Wsrate  of  Reafoning prove,  that 
it  was  not  podible  there  fhould  have  been  any  fuch  Officers  as 
Sub°Deacons?  The  Deacons  (Good  Men  J  would  not  be  fo  Am- 
bitious as  to  feek  to  have  Underlings.  There  could  be  none  fo 
mean  Spirited  as  to  iubmit  to  be  fuch.  Suppofe  both  thefe,  the 
People  (of  whofe  Charity  the  Deacons  were  the  Truftees)  would 
not  have  fuffered  it.  Yet  Cyprian  (  x)  makes  Mention  of  them  as 
undifputed  Officers  in  his  Time ;  though  'tis  certain  there  was  no 
Divine  Inflitution  for  them,  any  more  than  for  Acolyths  and  Ex- 
oxcijts  whom  he  alfo  fpeaksof.  Again,  'tis  cenain  all  Bifhops  were 
Originally  equal,  how  is  it  poflible  then  that  ever  there  could  arile 
Jrch-BifioPs  ox  ■  Metropolitans^  Would  any  of  the  Bifhops  have 
ufufped  •  the  Honour?  W7ou'd  their  fellow  Bifhops  have  fub- 
roitted  to  the  Encroachment?  Would  the  People  have  fuffer- 
ed it  ?  Yet,  how  Impoffible  foever  it  was  that  they  jhould  be ;  Mr. 
Rhind  himielf  I  hope  will  not  deny  that  they  were-,  yea  and  that 
they  were  brought  in  fo  early  and  with  fo  little  Noife  that  fome 
Termed  Men  have  thought  they  were  from  the  Beginning.  We 
fee  then  how  Inefficient  Mr.  Rhintfs  firft  Argument  is. 

II.  He  argues  p.  112.  from  the  Univerfal  Spread  of  Epifcopacy.1 
Though  fuch  a  Change  might  have  happened  in  a  Corner;  yet, 
if  Prelacy  had  not  been  of  Divine  Inftitution,  how  could  it  have 
obtained  Univerfally?  Which  yet  it  did:  ,  '  For,  faith  he  p.  1 1 7, 
"  it  was  fully  eftablifhed  over  all  the  Earth,  without  any  Oppofi- 
f  tion  cr  Noife  a  Dozen  of  Years  or  fo  alter  the  fealing  of  the  Sa- 
cred Canon.  .  'Tis  anfwered.  This  is  a  very  Inefficient  Argu- 
ment. •.  *  Epifcopaey  fpread  it  felf  through  the  whole  Earth.  Why 
fo  did  ArrUmfm.     *  The  whole  World,  jates  Jerom  (y  J7  groaned 

and  i 


[   x  ]  Ep.  14.        [  y  ]  Ibid.  TJbi£upia< 


L  K         Presbyterian  Government]         tfj 

g  and  wondered  to  fee  it  felf  turned  Anion.  Befides,  'tis  falfe  that 
Prelacy  prevailed  Univerfally.  Many  Inftances  might  be  given 
to  the  contrary;  but  not*  to  wander  from  Home:  Though  Chrl- 
fhanity  was  planted  here  in  Scotland  in  the  Days  of  the  Apoitles, 
and  got  the  Legal  Eftablifhment  in  the.  Beginning  of  the  third 
Century;  yet  we  had  no  fuch  Thing  as  ?relacy  till  near  the  midie 
of  the  -fifth  that  Palladia*  brought  it  hither  from  Rome;  asBede, 
For  dun  i  John  Major,  Heel  or  BQAihius^  Buchanan  and  Craig  with 
others  do  te.ftifie. 

III.    Fie  argues  from  the  Vigilance  of  the  Governoors  of  t he- 
Church.     6  For,  faith  he  p.  1 1 5.  if  Errours  in  DoQrine,  which  may 

*  more  eafily  pafs  without  Notice,  did  not  efcape  their  Gbfervation 
i€  and  Cenfure;  how  can  it  be  fuppofed  that  they  wou'd  not  have 
1  obferved  and  condemned  any  Incroachments  made  upon  the  Con- 
c  ftitotion  of  their  Society  ?  But  who  fees  not  how  falfe  this  way 
of  argiieing  is  ?  Whence  came  all  the  Ufurpations  and  Corrup- 
tions both  in  Principle  and  Practice  which  began  to  take  Place  from 
the  earlieft  Ages  of  Chriftianity  ?  Does  not  every  Body  know,  that 
at  leaft  a  great  many  of  them  crept  in  Infenfibly ;  and  that  the  Tares 
were  fown  while  Men  Slept?     '  No,  fates  Mr.  Rhind  p.nj.  tliefe 

*  did  not  obtain  till  after  fome  Centuries.  They  were  remonftrated 
f  againft  by  many.  They  were  never  allowed  by  one  half  of  the 
Church.  This,  I  muft  needs  fay,  is  confident  enough  talking.  I 
fball  give  one  Inftance  for  Mr.  Rhind  to  try  his  Skill  on:  It  is 
the  giving  of  the  Eucharift  to  Infants.  It  obtained  early.  Cyprian 
:('«)  fpeaks  of  it,  not  as  anew  thing,  but  as  an  Ordinary  Pra&ice. 
It  obtained  univerfally.  Aaguftin  (a)  calls  it  Apoftolical  Tradi- 
tion. No  Wonder;  for  it  was  pretended  to  be  founded  en  that 
Te&t  of  Scripture  John  6.  53.  Except  ye  eat  the  Fle(Jj  &c,  and  he  is 
fo  brisk  on  that  Head,  that  he  affirms  '  that  none  who  minds  He 
6  is  a  Chriftian  of  the  Catholick  Church  denys  that  Expofition  or 
6  doubts  of 'its  Truth.  It  prevailed  fo  /wag,  that  the  Famous  Benigne 
Bojfuet  Bifhop  of  Meaux  (  h  )  brings  it  down  to  the  Twelfth  Century ; 

U  2  and 


[  z  J  Serm.  de  Lapfis.  Soft.  2.0.        fa]  Vide  Ep.  106.  Lib.  1.  contra  Juliamim.  Lib.     1.  De  Peccat' 
■merit.  &  Remisfiorie  contra  Pelagiaimm. 

£b]  Txaice  de  la.  Communion  ferns  Les  Deux  Efpeces.  p.  81.  &c 


156  Defence  of  the  Chap.  \L 

and  affirms  it  to  be  ufed  at  this  Day  in  the  Greek  Church.  'Tis 
plain  that  the  Practice  was  unaccountable,  and  the  Principle  on 
which  it  was  built  falfe.  But  can  Mr.  Rhind  name  the  Perfon  that 
remonftrated  againfl:  the  Introduceing  it  I  Can  he  name  any  Church 
that  refufed  it?  Can  he  tell  the  Century  in  which  it  began?  No, 
nothing  of  all  this  is  poflible.  Where  is  now  the  Vigilance  of  the 
Church  Governours?  If  it  could  not  fecure  in  one  Thing,  how 
{ball  it  do  in  another? 

IV.  He  argues,  p.  116,  from  the  UnparallePdnefs  of  the  Cafe, 
*■  That  the  like  never  happened  in  the  Government  of  any  other 
1  Society,  whether  of  former  or  latter  Times.  For  Inftance,  the 
1  EftabliQimentoi  the  confular  Dignity  upon  the  Expulfion  of  their 
'  Kings  by  the  Roman 9and  the  Change  of  the  Republican  into  a 
'Monarchical  Form  occafioned  a  vaft  ExpenceofTreafureand  Blood. 
*■  And  inthe.DaysofourK.C/w/wIthe  Monarchy  was  not  deftroyed 
1  nor  the  Common-  Wealth  eftablifhed  till  after  a  confiderable  Re- 
'  fiftance.  From  all  which  he  inferrs,  that  fuch  an  in  fen  fib  le  Change 
in  the  Government  of.  the  Church  ought  not  to  befuppofed*  Thisrea- 
foning  is  built  upon  Grounds  fo  notorioufly  falfe,  that  it  fcarce  de- 
ferves  the  Name  of  a  poor  Piece  of  Sophiftry.  For  it  is  contrary 
to  all  Hiftory  and  Experience,  which  fhews  us  there  have  been 
great  Changes,  the  Authors  and  the  Beginnings  and  Oppofers  of 
which  cannot  now  be  known:  Tho'  no  Man  can  doubt  there  hath 
been  an  Alteration  made.  For  the  Body  Spiritual  and  Civil  too,  is 
like  the  Body  Natural;  in  which  as  there  arefome  Difeafes  which 
make  fuch  a  violent  and  fudden  Affault  that  one  may  fay,  at  what 
Moment  they  began  ;  fo  there  are  other,  which  grow  fo  infenfibly 
and  by  fuch  flow  Degrees,  that  none,  can  tell  when  the  Firffc  Al- 
teration was  made,  and  by  what  Accident  from  a  good  habit  of 
Body  to  a  Bad.  'Tis  true,  the  inftanced  Changes  both  in  the  Ro- 
man and  Englijb  Government  occafion'd  a  vaft  Expence.of  Blood 
and  Treafure.  But  within  thQ  Memory  of  Man  the  Portuguese 
in  the  Year  1640 .{Look  off  the  Castilian-  Yoke  and  fet  up  the  Duke 
of  Braganza  for  their  King:  And  yet,  fo  far  as  I  can  learn,  there 
was  neither  a  Farthing  Treafure  fpenr3  nor  a  Drop  of  Blood  fpilt  in 


Se£L  V.         Presbyterian  Government;        157 

the  Quarrel.  Becaufe  the  Proreftants  cannot  (  which  Bellarmin  (c  ) 
challenges  them  to  do)  in  all  Cafes  give  an  Account  ofthe  Author/ 
of  the  Change,  the  Time  when  it  began,  the  Place  where,  who 
oppofed  it  and  fo  on;  moft  we  therefore  believe  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  hath  made  no  Change  at  all  as  to  her  Doctrines  and  P  ra- 
dices which  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  fettled?  Who  can  give  us  the 
Hiftory  ofthe  Communion  in  one  Kjnal  It  grew  by  Degrees  to  be  a 
general  Cuftom;  but  no  Body  I  fuppofe  can  tell  where  or  when 
it  began?  Who  is  able  to  trace  the  Beginnings  of  the  lying  Ora- 
cles among  the  Pagans?  But  mull:  we  therefore  afcribe  them  to 
God?  According, to  Mr.  Rhintfs  Way  of  Reafonisig,  the  Traditi- 
onary Law  of  the  Jews  mud  pafs  for  true,  and  that  it  came  front 
Mount  Sinai  by  Word  of  Mouth,  as  the  Written  Law  did:  For  none 
can  fliew  its  Original,  much  lefs  name  the  Authors  ofthe  feverall 
Traduions5and  who  oppofed  thenrs, as  Dr.  Sjmon  Patrick  late  Bifbop  of 
Ely  has  obferved  (~d )r  and  from  whom  I  have  taken  theSu'oftance 
of  all  this  Anfweiy  that  the  Epifcopal  Party  may  fee  how  their  Rea-- 
fonings  againft  the  Church  of  RomeqmtG  deftroy  their  Reafonings 
againft  the  Yresbyterians.  Nay  'are  indeed  the  very  Reverfe  of 
them.  This  might  be  Sufficient  to  take  off  his  next  Argument, , 
yet  ex  Superabundant!  I  fhall  confider  it  particularly,  I  fhould,  ac- 
cording to  the  Order  of  his  Book,  have  inferted  it  before ;  but  for 
a  Reafon  which  will  j.uft  now  appear,  I  have  delayed  it  till  the 
La  ft: 

V.  He  argues  from  the  No-Oppofition  made  to  the  Cliange,and 
the  want  of  any  Insinuation  that  ever  the  Church  was  governed 
according  to  the  Presbyterian  Model.  Thus.  '  When  Antichri- 
6  ft ian  Prelacy  is.  fuppofed  to  be  univerfally  eftablifhed  upon  the 
4  Ruins  of  Jure  Divwo  Presbytry;  there  is  no  condderable  Body 
6  of  Diflemers,  not  one  ..Presbytry,  nofafingle-  Presbyter  orDea- 
e  con,,  nor  fo  much  as  one  Contemporary  Chriftian  reunifying  againft 
'"  the  one,  or  declareing  for  the  other,  or  once  insinuating  that  ever  the 
*'  Church  was  governed  according  to  the  Presbyterian  Model.  iNlor  did 
^  any  in  the  fuccee&ing  Centuries  pretend  it  did  obtain,  except  Aerius 

6 '  and 


(T.cJ  Lib  4..  Cap.  j.  De  Nocis  Eeclefia:.  ■ 

£d  2,  Oa.Bsliarmiu's  fecond  Nate  of  [he  Church,; 


158  Defence  of  the  Chap.  77. 

*  and  St.  Jerora  in  the  Fourth.     The  one  an  infamous  Heretick ; 

*  witnefs  Epiphamus  Heres.  75.  So  that  hisTeftimony  can  be  of  no 
'  great  Advantage  to  any  Caufe,  and  Jeror/fs  as  litrle  Serviceable  on 
many  Accounts.  Thus  he  p.  113,  114.    For  Anfwer. 

First,  Does  not  Mr.  Rbind  know  how  inefficient  a  Negative 
Argument  in  this  Cafe  is  ?  Does  he  not  know  how  few  Monu- 
ments we  have  of  thefe  Times .?  Or  has  he  himfelf  recovered  them  ? 
Does  he  not  know  how  ill  furnifhed  even  E»/e£/«jhimfelf  was  with 
Documentswhen  he  wrote  hisHiftory,&what  brokenScrapes  he  went 
on?  'Tis  no  Wonder  we  cannot  give  a  diftinft  Account  of  the  Rife 
and  firft  Steps  of  Epifcopacy :  For,  frcm  the  Death  of  the  Apoftles 
Veter  and  Paul  in  the  End  of  Nero's  Reign  about  the  Year  6$ 
for  the  fpace  of  28  Year?,  that  is,  till  the  Year  96;  we 
have  either  no  Hiftory  to  give  us  Light ;  or  what  is  worfe  than 
none,  a  parcel  of  fabulous  Legendary  Stories.  The  learned  Jefuit 
Petavius  ( e )  f peaking  of  that  Period  delivers  himfelf  thus.  '  The 
c  Chriftian  Affairs  of  this  Period  ftand  in  a  faint  Light  rather  through 

*  Scarcity  of  Writers  than  Matter.     For  it  is  not  Credible,  but  that 

*  the  Apoftles  and  Difciples  ofChrift  in  all  the  World  aQed  Things 
c  both  great  &  worthy  to  be  known.  But  they  are  generally  blended 
€  with  Fables  and  uncertain  Narrations.  And  'tis  very  obfervahie, 
and  I  defire  the  Reader  to  remark  it ;  that,  at  the  very  Time  where- 
in by  Mr.  DodiveWs  Account  Epifcopacy  was  fet  up,  that  is  about 
the  Year  CVI  or  fomewhat  fooner,  the  Chriftians  are  represented 
as  faint  and  languifhing  in  their  Profeffion  and  enclinedto  Apofta- 
tize.  The  Author  of  the  younger  P/i/yr's  Life  prefixed  to  his  Epiftles 
(f)  cbferves  p,  55.  that  he  wrote  his  Letter  to  Trajav  concerning 
the  Chriftians  betwixt  the  Moneth  of  September  CHI  and  Spring 
Time  in  the  Year  CV.  Now  in  that  Letter  he  gives  a  moil  lamen- 
table Account  of  the  Chriftians.  For,  though,  as  he  there  re- 
lates, Chriftianity  had  fpread  it  felf  through  Cities,  Villages  and 
Country,  yet  he  was  of  the  Mind  that  a  (top  might  be  put  to  it. 
And  as  Evidence  of  this  he  tells  the  Emperour  that  the  Temples 

of 


C  ■  res  zllitis  Temporis  haud    magna  in  Luce  verfancur,  Scriprorum   magis'lnopia.quam  quia 

poflTec  Lireris  excarec  nihil.     Namneque  parva,    neque  fcicu  indigna  credible  eft  Apofloloss 
fti  Qifcipalos  coro  Orbe  geflifle.     Sed  pleraque  fabulis  cc  incams  Nauauoiubus  afperfa  Ainc.     Pew. 
Ration.  Temp.  par.  10,    Tom.  poll.  Lib.  j.  Cap.  /. 
I  i)  Edit.  tfxon.  1703. 


Si&i  V.        Presbyterian  Government.  i  59 

of  the  Heathen  Gods  which  were  formerly  almoft  defolate  now  be- 
gan-to  be  frequented,  and  that  Sacrifices-,  hitherto  neglected,  were 
coming  from  all  Hands;  and  that  the  Return  of  the  Chriftians  to 
Pagamfm  might  be  yet  greater,  if  they  were  pardoned  for  what 
was  paft/^  ).-  zdly.  Is  the  e. any  improbability inconceiving,that 
Teftimonies  given  againil  a  Government  which  afterward  otftain'd 
univeifaily  might  be  neglected  and  loft,  perhaps  indnltrioufly  fmoth- 
ered  and  deftroyed.  5Tis  certain  that  there  were  FaiTages  foifted 
into  Books,  in  Favours  of  Epifcopacy,  as  we  have  already  proved 
in  the  Cafe  of  the  Ignatian  Epifties,  and  as  is  confefled,  as  to  the 
^Editions  of  them,  even  by  the  Epifcopalians  themfelves.  And 
thefethat  could  find  in  their  Heart  to  foift  in  Fa ffages_/w  themfelves, 
would  make  no  Bones  of  razing  oik  inch  as  might  bsagaintt  them. 
^dfy,  What  though  we  had  not  the  Contemporaries  who  teftified  : 
againO:  the  Change,  or  at  leaft  insinuate  that  Fariij  of  Paftors  did 
at  fir  ft  obtain;  may  not  thofe  that  lived  fhortly  after  do  as  well, 
efpecially  when  it  was  againft  their  Intereft  to  give  any  fuch  Te- 
ftimon-y  ?  But  indeed  we  need  not  run  to  this.  The  Fathers  of  all 
Ages  ( ; fa  far  as  their  Teftimony  is  worth  the  Regarding  )  have 
given  as  ample  Teftimony  in  favours  .of  Presbytry  as  Heart  Could  * 
wifh;  whereof  it  will-not  be  amifs  to  give  fome  Inftances.  - 


Hmomes  for  Presbytry  from 'Antiquity-'  - 

H  E  Epiftleof  Clemens  to  the  Corinthians  is  the  Earliefl:,'  and 
perhaps  the  poreS  Piece  of  Antiquity  ex-  - 
tant.    We  have  already  heard  Groiius  obfer vin g,     CLE  MENS 
and. 'StiJli'hgfleet  ■  juiiifying  -  him'  in    his    Obfer ve,  ■  ROMJNVS* 
that  it  is  written  on. the  Presbyterian  Scheme.  And     Ann.  Chr.  66, 
I  need  not  add  to  what  I  have  already  advanced^  , 

to 


f_g]  Neque  enira  Civitates  tan  turn,  fed  Vicos  etiam  atque  .Agros  Superflitionis  iftius  contagio  penragata 
eft,  qua;  videcur  sifbi  et  Corrigi  pofie.  •  Certe  fatis  Conltat,  prope  jam  defofata  terripla  cicpiffe  celeb  ran,  8c 
facra  Solennia  dm  intermiffa  repeti :  pas&mque  venire  victim  is,  qua  rum  adhtic  rarilli'mus  emptor  invenisba- 
tur.  Ex  quo  facile  eit' opinarij  (jugj'turba 'Jiominuaj-  eaiendari  posiit, •  £i  lit  "Penitentwc  Locus.-  -Plm.-  Lib, 
ioj  Ep.'  517,./- 


i6o  Defence  of  the  Chap.  //, 

to  fbewtbat  Father  to  be  on  our  Side.  Only  'tis  no  unpleafant  Di- 
ver/Ion to  behold  the  Epifcopal  Scuffle  about  him.  By  Mr.  Dodwe/l's 
Calculation  there  was  no  Bifhop  (  in  the  Epifcopal  Senfejin  the 
World  at  the  Time  of  the  Writing  of  thatEpiftle,  fave  James  fit- 
ting Pope  at  Jerufalem :  All  were  Presbyters.  No  wonder  then 
that  Klemem  was  filent  of  Bifiops  above  Presbyters.  No,  faith  Dr. 
Hammond '(A),  Clement1  s  Presbyters  were  all  Bifhops,  there  was 
no  midle  Order  of  Presbyters  at  that  Time.  Nay,  faith  Dr.  Burnet 
(  i )  now  Bifhop  of  Saram,  you  are  both  wrong,  Clemens  makes 
Mention  both  of  Bifhops  and  Presbyters.  But  pray  where  ?  For 
in  all  that  Epiftle  there  are  but  two  Orders  of  Ecclefiafticksfpoken  of 
vi&.  Bifhops  and  Deacons:  That's  nothing,  Clemens,  faith  he,  by 
Deacons  means  Vresbyters.  I'm  fure,  however  Decent  it  may  be, 
yet  'tis  pretty  Difficult  for  one  to  be  Witnefs  to  this  bkirmifh  and 
keep  His  Gravity. 

Ignatius,  who  wrote  his  Epiftles,  as  Dr.  Wake  teflifies  (  k  ), 
An.  i id  is  the  fiift  who  diftinguifhes  betwixt  Bi- 
1G N  ATIVS  (hop  and  Presbyter.  And  he,  as  I  have  fhewn  quite 
Ann.Chr.  116.  deffroys  the  Modern  Epifcopacy.  And,  that  the 
Ignatian  Presbyters  were  employed  either  in 
Preaching,  Baptizing  or  giving  the  Eucharift  I  have  fhewn  to  be 
ineer  Suppofition  which  there  is  not  one  Title  in  the  Epiftles  them- 
felves  tofupport.  Dr.  Hammond  (I)  mocks  Salmafms  mightily  for 
faying,  *  that  the  Ignatian  Epiftles  were  written  when  Epifcopacy, 

*  properly  fo  called  came  into  the  Church,  becaufe  in  all  his  Epiftles 

*  he fpeaks  highly  in'Honourof  Presbytry  as  well  as  of  Epifcopacy ,that 

*  fothe  People,  that  had  been  accuMomed  to  the  Presbyterian  Govern- 

*  ment,  might  the  more  willingly  and  eafily  receive  this    NEW 

*  Government  by  Epifcopacy ,  and  not  be  offended  at  the  NOVEL- 
1  TY  of  it.  And  yet  I  have  already  produced  Mr.  Dodmll  faying 
the  very  fame  thing  on  the  Matter. 

Polycarp  who  wrote  his   Epiftle  to  the  Philippians  immediatly 

after 


l  h  ]  Vind.  of  the  Diflert.  Chap.  III.' Soft.  I.        [i]  Uift.  of  the  Rights  of  Princes  p.  6.     [  k  ]  JJhi 
$upr»  II.  Edit.  p.  ;•.        [  1  ]   Vbi  Supra  Chap.  III.  Se&.   4. 


Se&.  V.         Presbyterian  Government.        161 

after  Ignatius,  as  Dr.  Wake  (  m  )  would  have  us 

believe ;  though  he  had  the  faireft  Occafion  for  it,    POLTC  J  RP 

yet,  as  I  obferved  before,   makes  not  the  lead     Ann.Chr.   117. 

.Mention  of  two  Orders  of  Yaftors,  but  of  Priefts 

and   Deacons  only.     And  Dr.  Hammond  (»)  Himfelf  can  find  no 

orher  Way  to  fhift  the  Force  of  this,  but  by  turning  thefe  Friefts 

or  Presbyters  into  Bifljops,  and  is  content  to  drop  the  Presbyters  to  fave 

the  B'fljops,  who  yet,  without  Vresbjters  to  back  them,  can  make 

but  a  very  Whiggifh  Figure. 

Juffm  Martyr  in   his  Apology  for  the  Christians   relates  that  in 
Every  of  their  AfTemblies  there  was  one, 

whom  he  calls  ?reftdent,  who  Preached,  Pray-     JVSTJN  MARTYR 
ed,  confecrated  the  Euchariftical  Elements,     Ann.  Chr.  1  50. 
which  by  the  Deacons  were  distributed  to 

thofe  that  were  prefent,  and  fent  tothofe  that  were  Abfent  (  0).  But 
that  this  ?refident,  whereof  there  was  one  in  each  Chriftian  AfTembly, 
was  under  the  JurifdiSion  of  another  Superior  to  himfelf;  orthathe 
had  any  others,exceptthe  Deacons,  Inferiour  to  Himfelf;  Justin gives 
not  fo  much  as  the  leaft  hint  from  the  one  end  of  his  Works  to  the  other. 

Iren&us,  as  we  have  heard  the  Learned   StilltngjUet  already  con~ 
feffing,  Attributes  both  the  ApoftolickSucceffion 
and  the  Epifcopate  to  the  Presbyters;  and  moft     IRENyEVS 
exprefly  makes  them  both  one  Order  (p).    'It     Ann,  Chr.   180. 

*  is  Neceflfary,  faith  he,    to  withdraw  from  all 

1  iuch  wicked  Presbyters,  but  to  cleave  to  fuch  who,  as  we  have 

*  faid  before,  both  keep  the  Doctrine  of  the  Apoftles,  and  Soond 

*  Speech  with  their  Yresbyterial  Order,  andalfofhew  an  InofFenfive 
1  Converfation  to  the  Information  and  Correction  of  the  reff.- 

*  Such  Presbyters  does  the  Church  bring  up,   concerning  whom 

*  the  Prophet  aifo  faies,  I  will  give  thy  Princes  in  Peace  ana  thy  Bu 
4  (hops  in  Righ.eoufnefs.  And  concerning  whom  the  Lord  laid. 
*■  Who  is  that  Fatthfuil  and  Wife  Steward  whom  the  Majler  fets  over 
His  Houjhold.  'Tis  plain  then  that  Inn  us  makes  his  Presbyters 
Bijhops,  and  Bifbops  and  Presbyters  to  be  one  and  the  fame  Order; 

.  J  X  and 


[m]  Ubi  Supra  p.  20.        [n]    Ubi  Supra  Chap  III.  Se&.    z         [0]  Apoll.    II.  Edit.Graf.La6 
£oton.  1686.  2' 97'       L?l  Lib.  IV.  cap. 4.4., 


1 62  Defence  of  the  Chap,  II. 

*  and,  by  necefTary  Confequence,  Presbyters  mud  needs  have  all 
the  fame  Powers  with  Bifhops;  which  is  the  main  thing  contend- 
ed for.In  a  Word,though  Hifbop  and  Presbyter ■  were  ditHnguifhed  in 
Iter?£us>s  Days,  yet  in  all  his  Writings  he  has  not  given  fo  much 
as  the  lead  Hint  that  that  Diftin&ion  was  of  Divine  Right  •  But 
on  the  contrary  ftill  infinuates,  that  They  are  one  and  the  fame 
Officer  in  Point  of  Order. 

Tertullian,  as  I  have  obferved  before,  founds  the  Diftinftion'twixe 

Bifhop  and  Presbyter  not  upon  Divine  Right, 

TERTVLL1AN    but  the  Honour  and  Order  of  the  Church ;  a,nd 

Ann.  Chr.  203.       reprefents  the  Presbyters  as  prefideing  in  the  Eccle- 

fiaftical  Courts   for  the  Exercife    of  Difcipline. 

1  Judgment  is  palfed,  faith  he  (q )>    with  great  Weight  as    by 

*  thofe  who  are  perfwaded  that    God  is  Eyeing  them  ;  and  it  is 
&  the  greateft  Fore-Token  of  the  Future  Judgment,  if  any  one  have 
Mo  offended,  as  to  be  excluded  from  Communion  in  Prayer  and  of 
'  the  AfTembly  and  of  all  Religious  Commerce.     Certain  approved 
c  Elders  pre  fide  who  have  obtain'd  that  Honour  not  by  Price,  but 

*  by  Teftimony.     Thus  he. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  manifeftly  on  our  Side.    '  Thofe  Offices, 

*  faith  he(  r),  are  an   Imitation  of  the  An- 
CLEMENS  c  gelick  Glory,  and  of  that    Difpenfation, 

4LEXANDR1NVS  e  which,  as  the  Scriptures  fay, they  wait  for, 
Ann.  Chr.  204, .  '  who  trad  ing  in  the  Steps  of  the  Apoftles, 

'  live     in    the    Perfection    of    Evangelick 
**  Righteoufnefs;  for  thefe  the  Apoftle  Writes,fhall  be  taken  up  into  the 

*  Clouds,  and  there  firit  as  Wmms  attend  and  then  according  to 
1  the  Procefs,  or  next  Station  of  Glory,  be  admitted  into  the  Pref. 
€,bytry\  for  Glory  differs  from  Glory,  till  they  increafe  to  a  per- 
feci:  Man.  Which  Paffage,  as  Sir  Peter  Kjng  has  mofl:  Judicioufly 
obferved  (O,  proves,  that  in  the  Judgment  of  this  father  there 
■were  but  two  Ecclefiaftical  Orders  : ;  The  Inferior,  that  of  Dea- 
sQxs,  who  never  fat  at  the  Ecclefiaftical  Conventions,  but  like  Ser- 
vants flood;  as  the  Saints,  when  caught  up  in  the  Clouds  at  thelaft 


f  q  ]  Apolof.  Car.  35,     [  r  ]  Stromal.  Lib.  VI,  p.  4,8 1 .  ■ .      £s]  Enquiry  i  nto  die  Ceoftiwrio*  ?f  §&« 
?:;i)iitivj  Cruras  p.  7c, 


Se9:w  V;       Presbyterian  Government.         16$ 

Day,  ifhiti&aitd  and  wait  on  Chrift's  Judgment  Seat.    The  Superb 
cur,  that    of    Presbyters,    defign'd  alio  by  the  Name   of  Bijbops ; 
who,  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Confiftories,  always  /at  on  Thrones  or 
Seats ;  juft  as  the  Saints  when  the  Judgment   is  over  fhall  be  re- 
jieved  from /landing  or  waiting,  and  have  their  Glory  perfected,  in 
being  placed  on  the  Celeftial  Thrones  of  that  Sublime  Presbytry,  where 
they  fhall  be  forever  BlefTed  and  Happy.     In  a  Word,  as  there  are 
but  two  Proceffes  of  the  Saint's  Glorification  viz,  Handing  before  the 
Judgment  Seat,  and  being  feated  on  a  Throne  of  Glory,  beyond 
which  there  is  no  higher  Dignity:  So  Clemens  makes  but  two  Or- 
ders of  Church  Officers,  Deacons  to  attend  and  ferve,  and  Presbyters 
to  fu  and  Judge. 

Origen  does  indeed  di&inguifh  'twixt  Bijbops  and  Presbyters*     But 
no  where  can  I  find  him  founding  the  Diftin&ion 
on  Divine lalfawtion.     But  I  frequently  find  him     ORIGEN 
making  moil:  horrid  Reprefentations  of  the  Pomp     Ann.  Chr.  226. 
&  Pride  and  Prodigality  Of  the  Sifhopseven  inthefe 
Times  of  Perfecution.     Thus,  upon  thefe  Words  The  Princes  of  the 
Gentiles  exerci/e  Dominion,  but  it  fhall  not  be  fo  among  you.  He  runs  out 
into  a  mort  Lamentable  Complaint.  '  Thus,  faith  ht{t"),  the  Word 
f  of  God  teaches  us.     But  we,  eitheir  not  underftanding  the  Will 

*  of  God  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  or  contemning  Chrift's  Re- 

*  commendation,     are    fuch    that  we  feem  to  exceed  the  Pride 

*  even  of  the  wickedPrinces  of  the  World:  And  we  not  only  as  Kings 
f  feek  Armies  to  go  before  us,  but  we  make  our  feives  terrible  and 

*  moft  difficult  ot  Accefs  to  the  Poor ;  and  are  fuch  to  thofe  who 
c  apply  to  us  for  any  Thing,as  even  Tyrants  and  the  more  cruel  Prin- 

*  ces  of  the  World  are  not  towards  their  Subjects.  And  we  may  fee 
e  in  fome  Churches  efpecially  of  the  greateft  Cities  the  Princes  (  that 
c  is  the  Bijbops  J  of  the  Chriftian  People  have  no  Affability,  or  allow 
c  Accefs  10  the mfe Ives.  And'  the  Apoftle  indeed  charges  even  Ma- 
'  fters  concerning  their  Servants  faying,  Ma/lers  give  unto  your  Ser- 
4  wants  that  which  is  Ju/l  and  Equal,  knowing  that  ye  alfo  have  a  Ma/ler 
'  in  Htaven.  And  he  commands  them  alfo  to  forbear  Threading. 
I  But  fome  Bijbops  threaten  cruelly,  fometimes  indeed  upon  the  Oc- 

X  2  '  cafion 


t  )  la  Match.  Tra&.  XII, 


x&4  Defence  of  the  Chap.  //. 

*  cafion  of  Sin,  but  at  other  Times  out  of  Contempt  of  the  Poor. 
Thus  Qrigen.  And  all  this  State  which  the  Bifhops  took  on  was  the 
more  Intollerable,  that  their  Title  to  the  Chief ty.  feem'd  fomewhat 
Dubious  to  him.  '  It  (hall  not  be  fo  among  you,  that  is,  faith  he,  Let  not 
'  thole  who  SEEM  to  have  SOME  Cheifty  in  the  Church  aft  the 
'  Lords  over  their  Brethren,  nor  exercife  Power  over  them  f. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus^s  Dr.  Burnet  ( v)  from  his  Life  written 

gregorivs         by  Gre&ory  Nyffen  relates his  Story>  c  BeinS 

THJVMsTVRGVS  '  "2?^  0n  the  Study  of  Philofophy,  was 
Ann  Chr  o->?  affraid  of  engagingin  the  Paftoral  Charge, 

Ann.-cnr.233..  ,  apd   tlierefoie  avoided    all    Occafions  in 

1  which  he  might  have  been  laid  hold  on  and  Ordain'd :  Which 
1  Bhedimus  a  Neighbouring  Bifhop  obferving,  though  Gregory  was 
'  then  Diftant  three  Days  Journey  from  him,  he  did  by  Prayer  De- 

*  dicate  him  to  the  Service  of  God  at  Neocefaria  where  there  were  then 
4  but  Seventeen  Christians ;  to  which  the  other  iubmitted,and  came 
'  and  ferved  there.  Whether  he  received  any  new  Orders,  is  but 
c  dubioufly  and  darkly  expreiTed  by  that  Author.  Thus  Dr.  Burnet. 
From  which  two  Things  appear.  Fir  ft,  That  Imptfuion  of  Hands 
is  not  abfolutly  neceffary  to  make  a  Church  Officer  as  Mr.  Rhind 
would  have  us  believe.  Secondly,  That  though  Gregory  was  a  Bi« 
fhop,  yet  it  was  but  of  one  Congregation,  and  a  very  fmall  one  too 
at  firlr,  fo  that  he  neither  had  nor  needed  Presbyters. 

Cyprian  needs  not  be  infixed  on.     Mr.  Jamefon  f  and  Mr. Lau- 
der *  have  fo  learnedly  and  largely  proved  that  the 
CTPRIJN  Cyprianic  Bifltop  had  neither  abfolute  Power,  nor 

Ann.  Chr.  240.     Plurality  of  Congregations,  nor  a  Negative  Voice, 
nor,  in  a  Word,  contributes  any  Thing  to  fupport 
the  modern  Epifcopacy  ;  that,  to  add  were  fuperfluous :  And  there-' 
fore  I  mail  refers  the  Reader  to  their  Labours* 

Baftlius 


t -Inter  vos  aiirem qui  eftis  mei,  nonerunt  hxc.  Ne  forti  qui  viientur  habere  utlquem  in  Ecclefia  Pria-- 
cipatum,  domineiuu;-  Fratribus  pioprii?,  vel  poceftacem  iaeos  exerceanc.  0, igen.  Trait.  12  in  Mdlth.  LAW, 
Gcvehfitri.   Paiifus.   \6j\. 

(  vjJiiit.  oi  the  Rights  of  Princes,  p.  9.        f  Cypr.  Ifor,        *  The  Ancient  Biihops  conftderecj^. 


Se&  V»        Presbyterian  Government.        1^5 

Bafdius  Magnus  in  terras  aflerts  the  equal  Power  of  all  Paftors 
and  Doctors.    e  And  this,  faith  he  (  x  ),  we  are 
c  taught  by  Chrift himfelf when  he conftituted  Veter    BASI LIVS 
f  Paftor  of  his  own  Church  after  himfelf.    For  he    MAGNVS 

*  faith  ;  Peter  love  ft  thou  me  more  than  thefe ;  feed  my     Ann.  Chr.  2  70. 

*  Sheep.     And  to  all  Paftors  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  foofe  as-he  did.     Thus  he. 

Aerius  is  confeffed  to  have  been  Presbyterian.    Bur,   faith  Mr, 
Rhind,  He  was  an  Infamous  Heretick.     Be  it  fo,   yet 
not  a  greater  one  than  Tertullian,  whom  yet  Mr.    AER1VS 
Rhind  cited  in  favours  of  Epifcopacy.    Foe,  befides     Anri^Chr.371^ 
his  Montanifm,  fome  of  the  Learned'fl:  Doctors  in 
die  prefent  Roman  Church  have  taken  a  great  deal  of  Pains,  faith 
"Dr.Sjmon  Patrick  (y)  to  make  the  World  believe  that  Tertullian 
and  a  Number  of  other  Ancient  Fathers  were  infected  with  the 
Arian  Herefy.     But  who  faies  that  Am  us  was  a  Heretick?     Mr. 
Rhind  anfvvers,  'twas  Epiphanius  Heres.  LXXV.    But  who  knows 
not  that  Efiphanjus's  Teftimony  is  of  very  fmall  Weight?    Is  it  not 
his  known  Character  that  his  Learning  was  above  his  Judgment, 
but  his  Invention  above  them  both  ?     Was  there  ever  a  more  piti- 
full  Piece  written  than  his  Book  about  tferejiesl     Was  there  ever 
any  thing  weaker  than  what  he  has  advanced  againft  Aerius  even 
upon  the.  Point  of  Epifcopacy?    Do  not  the  Epifcopal  Writers  (  zS) 
themfelves  own,  that  he  has  lpoken  Nonfenfe  on  that  Head  ?     Muft 
not  every  Protectant  own  that  Aerius  was  a  better  Man  than  him- 
felf and  more  Orthodox  in  the  Faith,  when  he  condemned  Prayers 
for  the  Dead  which  Epiphanius  undertakes  to  juftifie  againft:  Him. 
Is  it  not  known  that  a  great  deal  more  has  been  faid  to  purge  Aerius 
from  the  Charge  of  Anamfm  than  ever  was,  or  perhaps,  can  be 
faid  for  proving  him  Guilty  of  it?"    Mr.  Rhind  then  ought  to  have 
Been  a  little  more  modeft  in  his  Character  of  Aerius,  till  he  had 

difcouried  the  Matter  more  fully. 

Ambrofe0 , 


[  x   ]  Conftitiu:  Monadic.  Cap.  XXII.        [y~]  On  Belhimin's  II.    Note  of  the  Church,        lzl  Dff 
Reignoids  Letter  to  Sir  Francis  Knolls.  .Bellarmin.  Tom.  i. Contra.-  j.,  Lib.i.  cap.  ij.- 


i66  Defence  of  the  Chap.   II. 

Awbrofe,  or  the  Hilary  whom  I  cited  before,  upon  thefe  Words 

Eph.  IV,  ij.  And  he  gave  fome  Apoftles.     Gives  a 

AMBROSE     plain  Account  of  the  Change.     '  After,  faith  be 

Ann.Chr.376.    '  (  a  ),     that    Churches  were    planted    in     all 

'   Places, and  Offices  ordain'd,  Matters  were  fetled 

otherwife  than  they  were  in  the  Beginning. And  thence  it 

is  that  the  Apoftles  Writings  do  not  in  all  things  agree  to  the 
prefent  Conftitution  of  the  Church  becaufe  they  were  written  un- 
der the  firft  Rife  of  the  Church:     For  he  calls  Timothy,   who 
was  created  a  Presbyter  by  him,  a  Bifhop  :    For  fo  at  firft  the 
Presbyters  were  called,   among  whom  this  was  the  Courfe  of 
Governing  Churches,  that  as  one  withdrew  another  took  His 
Place,  and  in  Egypt  even  at  this  Day  the  Presbyters  O.dain  in 
the  Bifhop's  Abfence.     But  becaufe  the  following  tresbyters  be- 
gan to  be  found  unworthy  to  hold  ihe  fi>  ft  Place  ;    the  Method 
was  changed,  the  Council  providing  that  rot  Order  but    Merit 
fhould  create  a  Bifhop.     Thus  he      And  Juguflm,  as  Stillingfleet 
(b)  obferves,   cites  thefe  Commentaries  with  Applaufe,   without 
Stigmatizing  him  for  a  Heretick. 
Chryfofiom  delivers  himfclf  with  abundance  of  Freedom  on  the  Pre- 
sbyterian Side.  'The  Apo(tles,faith  he(V),  having 
CHRYSOSTOM    '  difcourfed   concerning  the  Btfhops  &  defcribed 
Ann.  Chr.  398.      *  them,  declaring  what  they  ought  to  ha ve,&  from 
'  what  they  ought  to  abftain  ;  omitting  the  Order 
I  of  Presbyter  s,  he  defcends  to  ihe  Deacons;  and  why  fo,  but  becaufe 
c  between  Btjhvph  Presbyter  there  is  no  great  Odds;  and  to  them  is 
'  committed  both  the  Inflruction  &  the  Presidency  of  the  Church : 
<  And  whatever  he  fa  id  oi  Bifhops  agrees  alfo  to  Presbyters.     In  Or- 
1  dinat ion  alone  they  have  gpm  beyond,  and  in  this  only  they  Seem 
I  to  defraud  f  the  Presbyters.    Thus  he.    And,  faith  Wtllet  (  d  ) 

the 


[a]  Tamen  poftquam  omnibus  locis  Ecclefise  funt  Conftirutse,  &  Officii  ordinata;  Aliter  compofitx 
res  eft,  quim  cxperac.-— -Id;o  non  per  omnia  conveniuuc  Scripca  Apoftoli  Ordinationi  quse  nunc  in  Ec- 
clefia  eft,  quia  hxc  inter  ipfa  Piimordia  funt  fcnpta.  Nam  &  Timotheum  Presbyterum  a  fe  creaturn 
Epifcopum  vocat,  quia  primum  Presbyteii  Epifcopi  appellebantur.  Uc  recedente  uno  fequens  ei  fuccederec. 
Demque  apud  ^Egyptum  Presbyteri  Confignant,  fi  pnefens  non  lie  Epifcopus.  Sed  quia  Cscperunt  iequentes 
Presbyteri' Indigmi  inveniri  ad  Primacus  tenendos ;  immutata  eft  Ratio,  p'rofpiciente  Concilio;  Ut  non  ordo, 
fed  meritum  crearet  Epifcopum,  multorum  Sacerdotum  jtidicio  conftuutum,ne  indignus  cemere  ufurpaiet  <?C 
eflet  multis  fcandalum.     JLmb.of.  in  Eph.  4. 

£bj   Irenic.  p.  313.     [c  ]    In   Prior  Ep.  ad  Tim.  Hom.^XI. 
fVide  I  Theft.  C.  IV.  v. 6.  in  the  Greek,  and  compare  if  With.  Ckryfoftom'$. 
(  d;  Synops.  Papis.  Controv.  V.  Quell.  III.  p.  273. 


Sed.  V.       Presbyterian  Government  167 

the  DifttnBion  of  Biffiops  and  Presbyters,  as  it  is  now  received,  can- 
not be  directly  proved  out  of  Scripture  :  And  of  this  "Judgment  Bifhop 
Jewell  againft  Harding  fheweth  Chryfoftom  to  have  been.  So  that 
here  we  have  two  Church  of  England  Divines  owning  Chryfoftom 
to  be  on  our  Side. 

Augushn  in  his  Epiftle  to  Jerom  difclaimsthe  Divine  In Jiitution 
of  Prelacy  and  founds  it  upoo   Ecclefiafhck  Vfe.- 
6  Although,/^  be(e),  according  to  the  Words     AVGVSTIN 

*  of  Honour,    which  Vfe  has  now  made  fafhion-    Ann.  Chr.  42©1 
4  able  in  the  Church  the  Epifcopate  is  greater  than 

*  the  Presb}  terate :  Yet,  in  many  Things  is  Auguftin  inferiourto 
Jerom.  That  this  Teftimony  is  not  (trained,  1  appeal  to  Bifhop 
JewelPs Declaration.-  *  In  St.  Jeromes     Time,  faith  he  (/),  there 

6  were  Metropolitans,  Archbifhops,  Archdeacons  and  others,     bu£" 

*  Chrift  appointed  not  thefe  DiftinQions  of  Orders  from  the  Begin. 
€  ning.     This  is  the  Thing  which  we  defend.    St.  Jerom  faith,  LeP 
i:  Bifhops  understand  that  they  are  in  Authority  over  Priejls  more  byCu->* 
6  Bom   than  by  Order  of  God? s  Truth,  ■   And  Auguftin  declares.  Thai  ' 

*  the  Office  of  a  Bifhop  is  above  the  Office  of  a  Prieft  not  by  Authority  of ' 

*  the  Script  ure,but  after  the  Names  of  Honour  which  the  Quftom  of  the 
' Church  hath  now  obtdrPd.     Thus  Bifhop  Jewell. 

Thodoret    in  like  manner  faith  (g  J7  *  The  ApoMles  call  a  Pre- 
i  shyter  a    Bifiop,    as   we  fhe wed   when  we 

*  exponed  the  Epiftle  to  the  Phihppians,  which  THE  0  DO  RET 
6  may  be  alfo  learned  from  this  Place,  for  after    Ann.  Chr.  4  jo. 

'  the  Precepts  proper  to  Bifhops,  he  defcribes  ■ 

'  the  Things  that  agree  to  Deacons :  But;  as  I  faid,  of  Old  they  cal- 

c  led  the  fame  Men  both  Bijhops  and  Presbyters.'    Thus  Theodoret*  - 

V   Primafids,  who  is  faid  by  fome  to  have  been  AuguftirPsDifcigte 

puts  the  Queftion  Why  the  Apoftle  leaps  from  thz- 

Duties  tf/Bifhops  to  the  Duties  of  Deacons  with-     PR  I  MAS  IVS 

qui  any j  Mention  of  Presbyters  • ;  and  '•■  anfwers  *  Anno  Chr.  440. 

plainly 

[_  e  ]  Quanquamenim  fecundum  Honorum  Voeabula,  qua;  jam  Ecclefia»  ufus  obrinuir.  '•  Epifcopatus  Pr€~  ■ 
sfcyterio  major  lit:  Tamen  in  multis  Reims  <Auguflintts  \Heronymo  minor  eft.  oiug^Ep.,  i$»y 
l{  2  Apolog.^ParcJIi'C.HI.Div.vj.  .^g  ]  In  prior  Epv.adTira.C.  III.  • 


1 68  Defence  of  the  Chap,  77. 

pbinly  as  before,  That  Bifhops  and  Presbyters  are  the  fame  Degree  (h). 
Sedulius  out  Countryman,  in  his  Commentaries  on  Tit.  7.  afferts 
the  Identity  of  B/fiop  and  Presbyter,  that  not  only 
SEDV  LIVS    the  Names  are  interchangeable,  but  the  Office  the 
Ann.  Chr.470.     fame;  many  of  them  being  to  be  found  in  one 
City  ;  which  could  not  be  true  of  D/oce/an  Bifhops. 
And  for  Proof  and  Inftance  he  adduces  the  Elders  of  Ephefus  Atts 
XX,  who  dwelling  all  in  one  City,  though  ihey  are  called  Elders  or 
Presbyters  in  the  1 7  verfe  are  yet  called  Bifhops  in  the  2  8  verfe.     In- 
deed it  was  no  wonder  Sedulius  was  Presbyenw  \  For  though  he 
wrote  not  his    Commentaries  till  he   went  abroad,   yet  in  Scotland^ 
where  he  was  born  and  bred,  there  was  no  flich  thing  as  a  Bijbop 
while  he  lived  in  it  (*);  whatever  Spoijivood  rush  fdid  to  the  Contrary. 
The  Second  Council  of  Sevil  plainly  declares,   That  though  there 
are  many   Euntttons  of  th<-   Ministry   common  to 
CONCILIUM       the    Presbyters  with   the  B.fljops,  yet     BY  THE 
HISPALFNSEJL     MODERN  and  ECCLBSI4S  FICAL 
Ann.Chr.  619.  RULES,   there  are fome   Functions  denyed  to 

them,  fuch   as  the  Ordination  of  Presbyters  (  £). 

That  Council^  we  fee,  does  not  infiftupon  Divine  Right,  but  upon 

Ecclefiafiical  Rules,  and  owns  the  Appropriation  of  Ordination  to 

the  Bijbop  to  be  a  Modern  Practice. 

I  might  alfo  give  the  Teftimony  otTheophyLB,  who  is  faid  by 

fome  to  have  flourifhed  about  the  Year  Eight 

THEOPHTLACT    Hunder  and  Eighty,  but  placed  by  Baronius 

Ann.  Chr.  880.         in  the  Year  1071.     But  his  Teftimony  being 

the  fame  with  that  of  Chryjo(tom  whofe  Echo 

St  tiling  feet  calls  him,  I  need  not  repeat  his  Words. 

Oecumenius,  faid  by  fome  to  have  lived  in  the  Eight,  by  fome  in 

the  Ninth,  and  by  others  put  ofTtill  the  Eleventh 

VECVMENIVS    Century.     Up.n  Acls  XX.  17,  thus  delivers 

Ann.  Chr.  900.       himfslf.     '  Many  are  Ignorant  of  the  Manner 

J  efpecially  of  the  New  Teftament,  whereby 

Bijhops 


[  h  3  In  I  Tim.  III.  [  i  ]  See  Dalrymple's  Colled*.  C.  IV.  V.  Seduhj  Poem.  Prefer  Dipm 
Cent.  V.  p.  yo.  £  k  J  Caranz.  Summ,  Concil.  Hifpal.  Can.  7  p.  [  rruhi  ]  269  Quamvis  cum  Epifcopis  plu- 
rima  illis  Mmifteriorum  communis  fit  difpeniario,  qusdam  Novellas  &  Ecclellalticis  regulis  fibi  prohibi- 
ta  noverint,  licucPresbyteroium  Coufecracio, 


Se&.  V»         Presbyterian  Government.        169 

Bifhops  are  called  Presbyters,  and  Presbyters  Bifhops.  This  may  be 
obferved  both  from  this  Place,  and  from  the  Epiftle  to  Titus,  and 
from  the  Epiftle  to  the  Philippians,an& from  the  firft  Epiftle  to  Timothy. 
From  this  Place  therefore  of  the  Atfs  we  may  arrive  at  the  Certainty 
of  this  Matter :  For  thos  it  is  written,  From  Miletus  he  pent  and  called  the 
Elders  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  faid,the  Bifhops;  and  yet  afterwards  he 
fubjoins,  Over  which  the  Holy  Ghofi  hath  made  you  Bifhops  to  feed  or  rule 
the  Church.  And  from  the  Epiftle  to  Titus,  That  thou  mighteft  appoint 
Elder sin  every  City,  which  Elders  are  after  wards,  called  Bifhops.  And 
from  the  Epiftle  to  the  Philippi&ns.  To  all  that  are  at  Fhilippi  with  the 
"Bijhops  and  Deacons.  And, as  I  believe, the  fame  may  be  gathered  from 
the  firft  Epiftle  to  Timothy.  If  any  Man  defire  the  Office  of  a  Bifiop,  he  de~ 
fires  a  g ood  Work.     Thus  Oecumenius, 

To  all  thefe  we  may  join  the  Canon  Law,  in  which  we  find  Pope  IV- 
han  pronouncing  in  thefe  Words.     We  call  the 
Diaconate  and  the  Presbyterate  the  Sacred  Orders,     CANON  LAW 
for  thefe  ALONE  the  primitive   Church  is  read  to 
have  had  (  /), 

And  now  I  think  I  may  conclude  with  Jeromes  Teftimony,  who 
has  declared  more  roundly  for  Presbytry,  than  any, 
perhaps  <*//the  Fathers  together  ever  did  for  Epif-     J  E  RO  M 
copacy.     Jerom,  Ifay,ofwhom  Erafmus  witneffetb,     Ann.  Chr.  385. 
that  He  was,  without  Controvevfy,the  moft  Learned 
ofallChrifiians,  Prince  of  Divines,  and  for   Eloquence  that  he  excelled 
Cicero.      We  have  heard    him   already   in    his    famous  Epiftle 
to  Evagrius.     And  Mr,  Rhind  p.  114  feems  as  if  hewou'd  have 
his  Reader  believe  that  that  is  the  only  Place  in  which  he  declares 
for  Presbytry.     But  herein  he  impofes  upon  his  Reader :  For  dk- 
where  viz,,  in  his  Commentaries  upon  the  Epiftle  to  Titus,  he  de- 
clares yet  more  explicitly  for  Presbytry,  if  more  can  be,  than  in  that 
famous  Epiftle.    .Nor  does  he  manage  his  Bufinefs,  as  the  pretend- 
ed   Patron  of  Epifcopacy  the  falfe  Ignatius  does  his,  by  a  Flow  of 
Words  and  high  ranting  Expreftions  which  muft  needs  give  Scan- 
dal to  all  the  World ;  but  he  talks  like  a  Learned  Man,  reafons 

Y  the 


£  1  ]  'Decree,  ima  pars  Did.  60.  c.  4  nullus  in  Epif.  Sacros   atnem  oniines  dicimus  Diaconau  m  &  Presby- 
£gracum„     Has  fi-]uidem  iblos  Primiciva  legicur  riabinlie  Eccleiia. 


ijo  Defence  of  the  Chap.  11. 

the  Matter,  applies  himfelf  to  his  Reader's  Underftanding,does  not 
put  him  off  with  Rapture  and  Harangue,  but  convinces  him  by  plain 
downright  Argument.  I  (hall  give  hisTeftimony  atlarge,&  lb  much 
the  rather,  that  it  contains  almoft  all  the  Scripture  Arguments  for 
Presbytry. 

(  Let  us,  faith  he  (  m  ),    carefully  heed  the  Words  of  the  Apoftle 

*  faying,  That  thou  mayeji  Ordain  Elders  in  every  City  as  I  have  ap* 
4  pointed  thee.  Who,  difcourfing  in  what  follows  what  fort  of  Pre- 
1  sbyter  ought  to.  be  Ordained,  fays  this,  If  any  one  be  blamelefs3the 
€  Husband  of  one  Wife  &c  afterwards  adds,  For  a  Bijhopmuft  be  blame- 
4  lefs  as  the  Steward  of  God.  A  Presbyter  is  therefore  the  fame  with  a 
'  Bifjop.  And  before  that,  by  the  Devil's  InftincT",  there  were  Par- 
'  ties  in  Religion:  And  it  was  faid  among  the  People,/  amofFaul,. 
4  IofJpollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  Churches  were  Governed  by  the 

*  Common  Councel of  Presbyters.  But  after  that  every  one  began  to 
4  think  that  thcfe  whom  he  had  Baptised  were  hisown  notCiirihVs.* 

*  It  was  decreed  in  the  whole  World,  that  one  chofen  from  among 
4  the  Presbyters  fhould  be  fet  above  the  Reft,  to  whom  all  care  of  the 
4  Church  fhould  belong,  and  that  the  Seeds  of  Schifms  might  be 

*  taken  away.  If  any  one  think  that  this  is  our  Judgment,  and  not 
6  the  Judgment  of  the  Scriptures  that  a  Bijlrf  and  Presbyter  avzofie; 
4  and  that  thQ  one  is  a  Name  of  Age,  the  other  of  Office:  Let  him 
4  read  again  the  Words  of  the  Apoftle  to  the  Philippians  faying, 
c  Yaul  and  TimotheuS  the  Servants  of  Jefus  Chrifl^to  all  the  Saints  in 
1  Chrijl  Jifus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  BifJjops  and  Deacons,  Grace 
4  to  you  and  Peace  and  fo  on.  Philippi  \sone  City  of  Macedonia ;  and 
4ifurely  in  one  City  there  could  not  be  a  Plurality  of  fuch  as  are 
c  called  ISifhops.  But  becaufe  at  that  Time  they  called  the  fame 
'Per  Ions  Bifhops  and  Presbyters:  Therefore  he  fpake  indifferently 
c  of  BiQiops  as  of  Presbyters.  This  may  yet  feern  doubtfull 
*■  tofome,uniefs  it  be  proven  by  another  Teftimony.  In  the^?* 
c  of  the  Apoftles  it  is  written,  that  when  the  Apoftle  had  come  to  Mile- 

4  tus}  he  fen  t  to  Ephefus  and  ended  the  Presbyters  of  that  izmzChurchy  , 
c  to  whom  afterward  among  other  Things  he  faid  :  Take  heed  to  your 

*  j elves  and  to  all  the  Flock,  over  which  the  Holy  Ghofi  hath  made  you 
J  Bilhops,  to  feed  the  Church   of  the  Lord9  which  hs  hath  pur  chafed 

with  > 


(m,)  Commcnr.  i»,Ti: 


Se&  V#        Presbyterian  Government  in\ 

»*  with  his  own  Blood.  And  here  obferve  carefully,  how  calling 
e  the  Presbyters  of  the  one  City  of  Epkefus,  he  afterwards  calls  the 
e  fame  Per  fonsBifbops.  If  any  will  receive  that  Epiftle,  which  is  written 
c  to  the  Hebrews  under  the  Name  of  Paul :  There  alfo  the  Care  of  the 
c  Church  is  equally  divided  among  many :  For  he  writes  to  the  People, 

*  Obey  them  thai  have  the  Rule  over you^and  fubmit  jour  felves,  for  they 
c  xv at ch  for  jour  Souls  as ihofe  that  mufl  give  an  Account  ^that  they  mm 
c  not  do  it  with  Grief,  for  this  is  unprofitable  for  you.  And  Feter 
6  who  received  his  Name  from  the  Strength  of  his  Faith,  fpea- 
i  keth-in  his  Epiftle  laying,  The  Presbyters  who  are  among  you  1  exhort, 

*  who  am  alfo  a  "Presbyter,  and  a  Witnefs  of  the  Sufferings,  of  ChriB  and  a 
'  Par  faker  of  the  Glory  that  /ball  be  revealed,  feed  the  Flock  of  the  Lord 
'  which  is  among  you,  not  as  of  Necefjlty  but  willingly.  We  have  ailed g- 
€  ed  thefe  Things,  that  we  might  (hew  that  among  the  An- 
'  cients  the  Presbyters  were  the  fame  with  the  B ifh op s :  But  that  by 
f  little  and,  little  the  Roots  of  Diientioo  might  bs  plucked  up,  the 
s  whole  Care  was  devolved  upon  one.  As  therefore  the  Presbyters 
'  know  that  ij  the  Custom  of  the  Church  they  are  Subject  to  him 
c  who  is  fet  over  them;  So  let  the  Bifhops  know  that  they  are 
\  greater  than  the  Presbyters  rather  by  CuTtom,  than  the  Truth  of 
c  the  Lord's  Difpofition  or  Ordering,  and  that  they  ought  to  govern 
f  die  Church  in  Common,  imitating  Mofes,  who  when  he  had  it  in 
jjj  his  Po^ev  alone  to  govern  the  People  of  Jfrael9cho&  Seventy  with 

whom  he  might  Judge  theFeople.  Thus  Jerom.  And  I  know  not  how 


any  Septs  Presbyterian  could  have  written  more  patly  in  Favours  of 
Fresbytry.  Yet  Mv.RhMh&s  many  Things  to  except  againft  Jeromes 
Tellimony ;  Whom  therefore  I  referved  to  the  Laft,putting  him  out 
of  the  due  Order  of  Time,that  I  might  confider  thefe  Exceptions  with* 
out  interrupting  the  Lift. 

I.  He  excepts  p.  114.  f  That  Jerom  lived  too  late  to  Teftifte 
f  concerning  Matters  of  Fa£t  that  happened  about  the  Beginning 
f  of  the  Second  Century.  Now  Jerom  was  born  Anno  Chr.  329. 
Did  he  live  too  late  to  Teftifie  of  what  happened  within  lefsthan 
200  Years  before  his  Birth?  If  fo,  the  Teftimony  of  mod  Part  of 
the  Fathers,  nay  indeed  of  alrnoft  all  Hiftorians  will  be  of  very  little 
worth.  Do  we  at  this  preient  live  too  late  to  Teftifie  concerning 
the  Form  of  Government  which  obtained  in  Scotland  about  the  Year 
1520,  when  aimoft  every  Plowman  can  tell  it  was  Popery^ 

II.  He  excepts*  that  Jerom  is  but  Tefiis  Singular  is  ^lbid*    'Tis  true, 

I  2  if 


172  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IT. 

if  a  fcore  or  moe  be  the  fame  Thing  with  one,  thQaJerom  is  Teftis 
6'fagalaris,  But  when  we  have  found  fo  many  of  the  Fathers  con- 
curring with  him,  I  need  not  tell  how  falfe  that  Exception  is. 

TIL  He  excepts,  Ibid.  c  That  Jerom  deftroys  the  Credit  of  his 
*'  own  Teftimony,  by  contradicting  himfelfin  this  very  Point.  la 
'•  Epift.  ad  Heliodor.  zno\Nepotian&  in  Comment  in  Pf.  45.  vers.  16. 
The  very  Truth  is,  there  are  few  of  the  Fathers  who  do  not  in  fome 
Points  contradict  themfelves  as  well  as  one  another.  But,  for  thefe 
Places  which  Mr.  Rhind  has  cited  •,  they  fignifie  nothing,  unlefs  he 
had  pointed  to  the  particular  Words  of 'era  wherein  he  thinks  Jerom 
has  contradicled  himfeif.  For  Inftance,  in  the  Epift. to  He/idor.ho 
makes  the  Presbyters  to  fucceed  to  the  Apoftles,  and  to  have  the 
Power  of  Excommunication  &c  (  »).  I  apprehend  this  is  no  Argu- 
ment either  for  Epifcopacy,  or  that  he  has  contradicted  himfeif.  And 
that  he  has  neither  there,  nor  indeed  any  where  elfe  contradicted 
himfeif  in  this  point;  St  Wimp  fleet  is  a  pretty  competent  Witnefs. 
'Among  all  the  fifteen  Teftirnonies,/^V/?  he  ( 0 ),  produced  by  a 

*  learned  Writer  out  of  Jerom  for  the  Superiority  of  Bifhops  above 
*'-  Presbyters,  I  cannot  find  one  that  does  found  it  upon  Divine  Right  ^ 

*  hut  only  on  the  Convenience  of  fuch  an  Order,  for  the  Peace  and 
4  Unity- of  the  Church  of  God. 

IV.  He  excepts,  Ibid,  That  it  reproacheih  the  Wifdom  of  our  Lord 
and  his  ApoHles  to  fuppofe  that  t  key  did  eftabltfjj  a  Form  of  Government 
Kecfjfar/j  produliive  of  Schifms :  This  is  to  his  old  Tune  of  prefcribs- 
ing  to  Chrift  and  the  Apoftles.  The  Government  which  they  efta- 
bli filed,  which, I  hope,  we  have  proven  to  have  been  Presbyteriant 
did  not  mceffarly,  that  is,  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing,  produce 
Schifms;  bat  by  Accident  only.  Our  Saviour  forefaw  that  Schtfms* 
would  arife  even  under  the  Government  of  Divine  Inltitution.  Suppofe 
ye  that  I  am  come  to  give  Peace  on  Earth,  I  tell  you  nay,  but  rather  Dim 
vifion.  Luke  XIL  51.  And  the  Apoftles  not  only  forefaw  but  kit 
it.  I -hear  that  there  he  Divipons  among  you.  1  Cor.  XL  18'.  And 
yet  they  would  not  prevent  them  by  fettingup  a  Government  that 

fliould 


f_  11  J  Ablic    ut  de  his  quicquam  finiftrum  loquar,  qui  Apoflolico    gradui  Succedentes    Chrifti  Corpus  fa.-. 
crp  ore  eonficiunr. Mihi  ante  Piesbyterum  iedere.  non  licet  ;  Illi, fi peccavero, licectf adwre  me  Batata* 


Sefr  V.        Presbyterian  Government.         xjf 

fttould  be  utterly  incapable  of  them.  No.  God  had  infinitely  wife 
Ends  to  (erveby  nor  doing  ir.  I  hear  t hat  there  be  Divisions  (Schifms) 
among  you^  and  I  partly  believe  if.  For  thsre  mufl  be  alfo  Herefks  (Se&sJ 
among  you  that  they  which  are  approved,  may  be  made  mknifift  amongyou* 
i  Cor.  XI.  18.   19. 

V.  He  excepts  p.  115,  c  that  it  is  too  fevers  a  Charge  to  be  of- 
'"fered  againfl:  the  Catholick  Church,  that  it  would  endeavour  to 
c'heal'thefe  Breaches  by  a  Device  of  its  own  Invention,  that  is, 
*  Do  Evil  that  Good  might  come  of  it.  I  anfwer.  'Tis  confefled, 
the  Charge  is  Severe ;  but  that  which  makes  it  fo  is,  that  it  is 
perfeOly  true  ;  and  not  in  that  only,  but  in  a  Thoufand  other  Cafes ; 
as  is  evident  from  the  innumerable  Corruptions,  which,  by  De- 
grees, did  overfpread  the  whole  Church.  And  Whit&her  (  Their 
own  Whitaker}  difcouriiog  of  Jeromes  forefaid  Teftimonies  very 
frankly  tells  '  that  the  Remedy  was  almoft  worfe  than  the  Difeafe. 
6^For  as  fir  ft  one  Presbyter  was  fet  over  the  reft,  and  made  Bi- 
6  [hop;  fo  afterwards  one  Bifhop  was  fet  over  the  reft.  And  fo 
'that  Cuftom  begot  the  Pope -with  his  Monarchy,  and  ■  by  little 
s  and  little. brought  them  into  the  Church.  Thus  he  (  py  And 
'tis  certain  that  Schifms  were  never  fo  frequent  as  after  Epifcopacy 
prevailed;  and  Bijbops  themfelves  were  generally  either  the  Au- 
thors, Occafion  or  Fomenters  of  them.  And  Ancient  Hiftories  Tup- 
pi  y  us  with  fuch  dreadfull  Accounts  of  fuch  Murder, Blood fned  and 
Horrid  Barbarities,  committed  by  the  contending  Parties  at  the  E- 
te&ion  of  Bifhops,  as  are  not  to  be  parallelled  among  the  Heathens. 
So  much  in  -Vindication  of  Jerowy  who,  I  hope,  is  dill  fafe  to  us 
after  ail  Mr.  RbintCs  Exceptions. 

And  now  to  conclude  this  Argument:  It  was  fo  far  from  be- 
ing morally  impoflible  that  Prelacy  (hould  obtain,  even  in  fpite  of 
the  Divine  Inftitution  of  Presbytry;  that,  confidering  the  Corru- 
ption of  Human  Nature,  it  had  been  next  to  aMiracleifit  had  not 
obtained.  For  is  there  any  Thing  to  which  Man  is  more  violent- 
ly addicted  than  the  thwarting  God's  Inftitutions  ?    Did  not  this 

Humour 


[  p  ]  Sed  ipfo  morbo  deferius  pene  Remedium  fuic ;  nam  m  prisno  urius  Presbyter  rcliquis  prcelatus  eft, 
&:faaus  Epifcoptg-:--  Ita  poftea-  unus-Emfcopsis  reliquis  eft  -Prsjlatus,  Sic  iita  Confuetudo  Papam  ciiijn 
fasi.  Monarqiua  peperar,  &  Pauiacim  in  jtc-cieliana  iavesu.     De  Region. ■Ecktif.  p.  J-P'  ' 


174  Defence  of  the  Chap.   //. 

Humour  begin  to  work  even  in  the  ?aradifiacal  State?  What  a 
fine  Speech  could  Mr.  Rhmd  make  to  dtfprove  the  1/raelits  making 
■the  Golden  Calf  atHorebl  '  No.  Tvvas  morally  impoflible  they 
'  fhouid.  God  had  deUveredJchem  out  of  Egypt  with  a  mighty 
c  hand,  and  in  a  wonderful!  Manner:     He  haddryed  up  the  Red 

*  Sea  before  'em,  and  drown' d  their  Enemies  in  it:     He  had  given 

*  them  the  Law  with  all  the  Solemnities  of  Majefty  and  Circum- 
'  ftances  of  Terrour;  Therein  he  had  exprefly  inhibited  'em  to 
c  make  unto  themfelves  any  graven  Image  :     They  had  in  the  mod: 

*  Solemn  Manner  Stipulate  Obedience.  Would  they  now  after  all 
'  tills,  within  forty  Days  too,  fo  impioufly  oppofe  God,  foperfidi- 
4  oully  violate  their  own  Engagements  as  to  contraveen  that  Law? 
'  No.  The  M^of 'em  furely  were  Matters  of  more  Reafon  :  The 
'  Women  and  Children  were  more  fond  of  their  Jewels  and  Ear- 
1  Rings,  than  to  part  with  them  to  be  melted  down  into  an  Idol.* 
1  Ail  -of  'em  had  either  a  warmer  Senfe  of  God's  late  Mercies,  or 

*  a  more  terrible  Impreflion  of  his  Majefty  and  Juftice  from  the 
c  late  Appearance  he  had  made  on  Mount  Sinai,  than  to  venture 

*  on  fuch  a  Prank.     Suppofe  they  had  been  all  willing,  yet,  would 

*  ever  Aaron  have  complyed  with  theMotion?  No.  It  mutt  needs 
'  be  all  Legend  and  Fable.  And,  which  confirms  this;  Jofephus, 
i  who  has  given  usfo  Judicious  and  accurate  a  Hiftory  of  the  Jews, 
1  is  utterly  Silent  of  it.  And  yet,  how  impoflible  ioever  it  was, 
there  is  notwithftanding  a  certain  Book  which  common  Folks  call 
the  Bible,  and  Chriftians  believe  to  be  the  Divine  Oracles  that 
allures  us  that  the  People  urged  it  Aaron  did  it,  and  the  molten 
Calf  was  fet  up  and  confecrate  with  great  Triumph  and  without 
Contradiction.  Thefe  be  thy  Gods  0  Jfr&el  which  brought  thee  out  of 
the  Land  of  Egypt :  And  without  any  further  ACi  for  Conformity 
the  People  got  up  early  next  Morning,  and  offered  up  their  Oxen 
to  the  Calf  the  God  and  the  Sacrifice  being  out  of  the  fame  Herd. 
So  eafie  a  Thing  is  it  to  make  a  Change  in  Religion  to  the  worfe, 
yea  and  to  bring  about  an  univerfal  Compliance  with  the  Change. 
Vain  Man  would  be  wife,  though  He  be  born  like  a  wild  Affs  Colt, 
There  is  Nothing  Men  in  all  Ages  have  been  more  bewitched 
with  than  an  itch  of  Refineing  upon  God's  Appointments.  And 
a  Conceit  that  they  were  able  to  better  them,  and  tljat  execrable 

Principle 


Se&.  VL       Presbyterian  Government*        *75: 

Principle,  That  they  had  Power  to  do  fo,  have  been  the  Original  of 
all  the  Corruptions  that  have  ever  defiled  or  pefter'd  the  Church. 
rTis  Plain  that  all  the  Fopperies  and  Ceremonies  that  have  crept 
into  the  Worfiiip  of  God  owe  their  Birth  to  this.  And  'tis  nolefs 
plain  from  Jerom's  former  Account,  that  Prelacy  was  hewn  out  of 
the  fame  Quarry.  Some  afpireing  Men  have  coloured  their  Am- 
bition with  the  Pretext  of  remeeding  Schifms;  and  the  reft;  either 
through  want  of  Thought  or  Courage,  have  been  gull'd  into  a 
Compliance,  or  blinded  poflibly  with  the  hopes,  that  the  Dignity 
might  on -Day  fail  to  their  own  Share.    But  enough  of  this* 


T~°\ 


'herein    Mr*  R  hind  cs    Redjbmngs  againfl  the 
Presbyterian  R  uling^Elders  and  Deacons £  ar& 

Examined.     From  P,  102  to  P.  107, 

HE  Main  Part  of  the  Controverfy  viz.  Whether  the  Or- 
der of  Bifiops  as  Super  iot/r  to  Presbyters  be  of  Divine 
Apoftolkdlmiituiion,  being  thus  difcuffed  ;  we  are  next 
to  conilder  what  Mr. ■  Rhind  has  advanced  a  gain  ft  the 

Vesbyterkn-  Ruling-  Elders  and  ..Deacons.---  And  firft   againft  the 

tuling!  Elders.:. 

IT.. 


ij6  Defence  of  the  Chap,  //, 


ARTICLE    I. 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhindcj  Reafonings  againjl  the  Pre- 
sbyterian Ruling-Elders,   are  Examined. 


L  rjf  E  Objects  that  the  Presbyterian  Ruling-Eider  is  an  Officer 

JT.1     of  Calvin's  Inftitution  p.  102.     But  here  His  Hiftory  has 

failed  him :     For  the  Churches  of  Bohemia  had  fuch  Officers  before 

,  tever  Calvin  fet  up  the  Difcipline  of  Geneva,  And  Martin  Bucer 
Divinity  ProfefTor  in  Cambridge  approved    and  commended  the 

*  Bohemian  Praclice ;  and  juftified  it  both  from  the  Scripture  and  from 
the  Writeings  of  the  Fathers.  This  was  long  fince  fuggeited  by 
the  Presbyterian  Authors  ($*):  And  I  do  not  find  that  ever  any 
Anlwer  was  returned  to  it ;  But  there  is  no  other  way  of  furnifhing 
out  of  the  Epifcopal  Books,  but  by  repeating  the  fame  baffled  Ar- 
guments over  and  over  again.  'Tis  plain  then,  how  Modern  fo- 
ever  the  Order  of  Ruling- Elders  may  be,  yet  it  is  not  of  Calvitfs 
fflftitution. 

II.  He  objects,  ibid.  '  that  fuch  an  Officer  was  never  heard  of  in 
1  the  Church,  till  1  500  Tears  after  the  f eating  of  the  Canon  of  the  Scri- 
pture. But  here  he  is  out  again  in  Point  of  Hiftory,  yea  and  con- 
tradi&s  his  former  Argument:  For,  by  the  common  Account,  the 
Canon  of  the  Scripture  was  not  fealed  before  the  Year  of  Chrift 
96.  The  Difcipline  and  Ruling- Elders  were  eftablifhed  at  Geneva 
in  the  Year  1642.  So  that  he  is  wrong  in  His  Account  by  more 
than  50  Years,  even  keeping  within  the  Bounds  of  the  Reformation' 
by  Calvin. 

III.  He 


[  q  2    Alt.  Damage,   p.  6$j. 


Se<9>  VI.       Presbyterian  Government'       1 7  7 

III.  He  objects,  ibid,  that  there  is  not  a  Title  concerning  them  in 
the  Bible.  This  is  not  arguing,  but  Impudence.  We  have  an  Ac- 
count of  them  Rom.  XII.  8.  in  theie  Words,  He  thai  ruleth,  with 
Diligence.  And  i  Cor.  XII.  28.  we  have  them  mentioned  under 
the  Title  of  Governments.  And  iTim.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,  faith  Dr.  Whitaker 

*  in  his  Prelections,  the  Apoftle  manifeftly  diftinguifheth  betwixt 
4  the  Bifhops  and  InfpecTors  of  the  Church.  If  all  that  rule  well 
i  are  worthy  of  double  Honour,  efpecially  they  who  labour  in  the 

*  Word  and  Doctrine,  it  is  clear  there  wereiome  who  did  not  la- 
c  bour:  For  if  they  had  all  done  fo,  theText  had  been  Nonfenfe. 
4  But  the  Word  ejpecially  makes  the  Difference.  If  I  fhould  fay, 
c  that  all  thefe  who  ftudy  at  the  Univerfity  are  worthy  of  double 
4  Honour,  efpecially  they  who  labour  in  the  Study  of  Theology ;  I 
€  behoved  either  to  mean,  that  all  do  not  apply  themfelves  to  the 

*  Study  of  Theology,  or  I  fhould  fpeak  Nonfenfe.  Wherefore  I 
4  con fefs  that  to  be  the  moft  genuine  Senfe  of  the  Text  by  which 
4  the  Paftors  and  Doctors  are  diftinguifhed  from  thofe  who  only 

*  governed  Rom.  XII.  8.  And  concerning  whom  we  read  in  Am* 
<  brofe  on  1  Tim.  V.  Thus  that  great  Light  and  Patron  of  the  Church 
of  England  (r).  But  what  faies  Mr.  Rhind  to  it?  Not  one  Syl- 
lable. He  owns  the  Presbyterians  found  upon  Texts  of  Scripture, 
but  is  fo  wife  as  not  to  name  them,  far  lefs  to  effay  to  wring 
them  from  the  Presbyterian  Senfe.  And  indeed  his  ConduQ:  in  this 
is  wifer  than  any  where  elfe  in  his  Book:  For,  it  would  touch  any  Man 
of  Bowels  with  Commiferation  to  fee  into  what  various  Forms  the 
EfiJ copal  Writers  twift  themfelves  to  avoid  the  Force  of  the  Text 
lad  cited.  It  has  but  fourteen  Words  in  the  Original  even  Particles 
included ;  and  they  have  put  at  leaft  fourteen  Senfes  on  it.  Dido* 
clavius  difcuffed  ten  of  them  in  his  Days,  and  they  have  been  ever 
fince  inventing  new  ones  :  And  had  Mr.  Rhind  told  us  which  of 
'em  he  pitched  on,  I  don't  believe  it  would  be  any  hard  Matter  to 

Z  difcufs 


£  r  ~\  Apud  ^Didoclav.  p.  68 1.  Ex  Sheeiyodio. 


178  Defence  of  the  Chap.  // 

difcufs  that  too,  unlefs  it  be  one  of  his  own  which  the  World  ne- 
ver yet  heard  of;  for  indeed  the  Senfe  of  the  Text  is  fo  very  obvi- 
ous, that  none  can  mifs  it  who  does  not  induftrioufly  refolve  to  tor- 
ture it.  He  faw  very  well  that  he  could  have  made  but  a  fcurvy 
Figure,  had  he  tryed  his  Critical  Talent  on  it;  and  therefore  he 
had  recourie  to  the  Popular  Art  of  Declaiming  againft  the  Ignorance 
or  Difmgenuity  of  the  Presbyterians  :  And  every  Body  muft  own 
that  this  was  both  moreeaue  and  innocent,  than  if  he  had  fallen  to 
the  wrefting  of  Scripture,  which  would  have  both  expoled  his 
Weaknefs,  and  made  him  Liable  to  Damnation.  And  yet  he  is 
unlucky  even  in  that  fame  Popular  Art,  the  Epifcopal  Writers  them- 
feives  having  proclaimed  it  Ignorance  to  take  the  (aid  Text  in  any 
other  than  the  Presbyterian  Senfe.  '  Art  thou  fo  Ignorant,  faith 
'  the  forecited  Whitaker  ( s )  to  Dury  the  Scots  Jejuit,  that  thou 
u  knoweft  not  that  there  are  Elders  in  the  Church  of  Chrift  whofe 

*  Work  it  is  to  govern  only,  not  to  preach  the  Word  or  difpenfe 

*  the  Sacraments. 

IV.  He  Objects  p.  ioj,  that  this,  viz.  the  bufinefscf  the  Ruling* 
Elders,  feems  to  be  the  weak  Side  of  the  ?arty9  their  more  Learned  Ad- 
vocates having  abandoned  its  Defence.  Who  are  thefe  pray  ?  Nay 
we  muft  wait  for  a  Second  Edition  of  his  Book  e're  we  know  that. 
Twas  his  Bufinefs  to  aflert  not  to  prove.  For  my  own  part  I  nei- 
ther know,  nor  can  hear  of  any  Yresbyterian,  Learned  or  Unlearn- 
ed, that  has  abandon'd  its  Defence.  'Tis  true  Mr.  Jamefon  of  late 
has  faid  (*),  that  the  Ruling-Elders  are  not  in  a  ttriti  Senfe  Church 
Officers,  and  retraces  any  Thing  he  had  faid  before  to  the  contrary. 
And  him  indeed  I  acknowledge  to  be  a  very  Learned  Man.  But 
has  he  therefore  abandon'd  the  Defence  of  the  Ruling.  Elders?  No* 
He  owns  they  are  the  Reprefentatives  of  the  Sacra  Plebs,  He  has . 
proved  by  very  many  Authorities,  Epfcofal  too  among  the  reft  that 
fuchought  tobe  intheChurh.  Nay,the  very  Argument  of  hisChap- 
ter  isThe  Divine  Right  of  Ruling  Elders  fuflained.  Where  then  is  that 
Advocate  for  Presbytry  that  has  abandon'd  its  Defence?    If  any 

has, , 


[  s  ]  Ita  ignarus  es,  uc  effe  in  Chrifti  Ecclefia  Freajjyceros  uefcias  *jui  gubenutioni,  taptiun,..  nou  yeifejj! 
aac  Saaamentoium   Admjnillratioziii.pperam.  dartau.. 

1}  ]_cypl>-Jto'P\  Jt'°?~ 


Sed  VJ*        Presbyterian  Government]        179 

lias,  we  are  not  likely  to  be  altogether  lofers,  the  Advocates  for 
Prelacy  having  taken  it  up.  Not  to  name  again  the  Learned  Whi- 
taker,  Dr.  Whitby  on  the  forecited  Text  has  delivered  himfelf  ac- 
cording to  our  Hearts  wifb.    '  The  Elders,  faith  he\  among  the 

*  Jews  were  of  two  Sorts,  lfi,  Such  as  governed,  in  the  Synagogue. 
'  And  2dfy9  Such  as  miniftred  in  reading  and  expounding  their 
f.  Scriptures  and  Traditions,  and  from  them  pronouncing  what 
4  did  Bind  or  Loofe,  or  what  was  forbidden,  and  what  was  hw- 

*  full  to  be  done And  thefe  the  Apoftle   here    declares  to  be 

*  the  moil  honourable,  and  worthy  of  the  chiefeft  Reward :     Ac- 

*  cordingly,  the  Apoftle  reckoning  up  the  Offices  God  had  ap- 
'  pointed  in  the  Church,  places  Teachers  before  Governments  i 
t  Cor.  XII. 

V.  He  Objeds,  p.  104,  That  all  the  Ecclefiafticks  in  the  Jp folic al 
Age  were  initiated  into  their  r  effective  Offices  by  the  Impofition  of  Hands; 
whereas  Ruling- Elders  are  admitted  by  no  juch  Ceremony ;  or  if  there  be 
any  Solemnity  ufed  at  all  in  their  Defgnation  to  the  Office,  it  is  perfor* 
med  by  every  Parifh  MiniUer  in  his  private  Congregation ;  which  is  con- 
trary to  Presbyterian  Principles  \  and  is  to  exercife  the  fole  Power  of 
Ordination ,  which  is  not  fo  much  as  pretended  to  by  Bijhops,  'Tis  An- 
fwered  if,  The  want  of  the  Impofition  of  Hands  will  not  argue  them 
to  be  no  Church  Officers.  Not  to  mention  the  Apoftles  and  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus^  of  whom  before ;  Ignatius  himfelf  (  if  all  Traditions 
are  true  )  was  not  ordain'd  by  Impofition  of  Hands  (  v  ).  No  Body 
doubts  it  is  very  lawfull;  and  for  my  own  Part  I  heartily  wifh  it 
were  pra£fcifed  ;  but  I  deny  that  it  is  abfolutly  neceffary,  there  being 
no  Precept  enjoining  it,  and  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  his  extra- 
ordinary Charifmata  which  accompanied  the  Impofition  of  the  A- 
poftles  Hands  being  now  ceafed.  And  of  this  Judgment  are  not 
only  Presbyterians,  but  even  the  moft  learned  Men  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  her  felf,  though  other  wile  fo  much  addicted  to  Ceremonies. 
Of  this,  to  omit  other  Teftimonies,  that  Judicious  Hiftorian  Father 
Paul  informs  us  (  x  ).  '.  Melchior  Cornelius  a  Portugal,  faith  He,feem- 
{  ed  tofpeak  muchtothePurpofe,  whofaid,  the  Apoftles  did  un- 

Z  2  doubtedly 


£v]   Dr.  Wake's  Genuine  Ep.  2d.  Edit.  p.  <J.|. 
£xj  Hid.  Council  of  Trent,  p.  j/j. 


i8o  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II, 

•■  doubtedly  ufe  Impofition  of  Hands  in  Ordination,  fo  that  none 

*  is  mentioned  in  the  Holy  Scripture  without  that  Ceremony ;  which, 

*  infucceeding  Ages  was  thought  to  be  fo  eflential,  that  Ordination 
'  was  called  by  that  Name.  Notwithftandiog  Gregory  the  Ninth 
'  faith,  It  was  a  Rite  brought  in,  and  many  Divines  do  not  hold 
'•  it  to  be  neceffary,  howfoever  others  be  of  the  contrary   Opinion. 

*  And  the  famous  Canonists,  Hottienfis,  Joannes  Andreas,  Abb  as  and 
1  others  do  affirm,  that  the  Pope  may  Ordain  a  Prieft  with  theie 
'■  Words  only,  Be  thou  a  Priest,  and  which  is  of  more  Importance, 
6  Innocentius  Father  of  the  Canonifts  faith :   That  if  the  Forms  had 

*  not  been  invented,  it  had  been  fufficient  if  the  Ordainer  had  ufed 
*■  thefe  Words  only  ;  or  others  Equivalent,  becaufe  they  were  infti- 

*  tuted  by  the  Church  afterwards  to  beobferved.  idly,  That  Bi- 
fhops  do  not  pretend  to  the  Sole  Power  of  Ordination  is  fhamelefsly 
falfe.  We  have  given  Teftimony  before  p.  65  that  they  not  only 
pretend  to  it,  but  praclife  it.  And  after  that  Heap  of  Proofs  which 
Mr.  Jamefon  has  brought  in  his  Cyprianus  Ifoiimusiov  that  Purpofe^ 
a  Man  muft  be  even  fteel'd  in  the  Forehead  that  denies  it.  And 
even  when  the  Presbyters  are  admitted  to  join  with  the  Bifliop  in 
Acts  of  Ordination,  it  is  meerly  as  Witnefles  or  Confenters,  not  as 
having  the  leaft  Share  of  Power.  This,  Mr.  Draryhasmoft  rounds 
ly  after  ted  in  the  Vindication  of  his  Avfiver  to  Mr.  Boyfe"*s  Sermon 
concerning  the  Scriptural  Bijbop\  and,  as  I  am  imformed  is  digni. 
fled  with  the  Title  of  DOCTOR  for  his  Pains.    '  AM,,  faith  be,  than 

*  the  Presbyters  had  to  do  was  only  to  give  their  Gonfent,  and  to 

*  let  the  Church  know  that  fo  Sacred  an  Action  was  not  done  rafhly, 

*  nor  out  of  Favour  and  Affection.     That  they  had  no  Divine 

*  Right  to  concur  with the  Bifliop,  that  the  Power  of  Ordination  was) 

*  in  the  Bifliop  alone,  the  Presbyters  were  only  allowed  to  perform 
4  a  (bare  in  the  outward  Ceremony.  $dly,  That  the  Solemnity  ufed 
in  the  Defignation  of  the  Ruling  Elders  to  their  Office  is  contrary  to? 
Presbyterian  Principles,  Mr.  Rbind  ought  to  have  proved  not  meerly 
offer  ted  :  For  by  doing  fo  4ie  has  mightily  expoied  himfelf.  'Tis  true 
it  is  performed  by  every  Parifh  Minifter  in  his.  private- Congrega- 
tion, he  alone  enjoins  them  their  Duty,takes  their  Engagements,and  i 
byfolemn  Prayer  fets  them  apart  for  the  Office.  And,  as  this  is  , 
itjejjr.cQntont,  Practice,  fo  they  have  ftilfown'd  it,  to  be  thekPrin- 


£e&  VI.       Presbyterian  Government*         1 8  i 

ciple,that  it  islawfull  to  do  fo.  But  then  the  Tryal  is  made  by  the 
Mintfter  and  Elderjhtp  of  the  Congregation ;  or,  in  want  of  thefe,  by 
the  Presbytry,  and  the  whole  People  are  by  a  publick  Edici  allowed, 
nay  required  to  reprefent  their  Obje&ions  againnV  their  Admiflion, 
if  any  they  have.  This  is  to  treat  the  People  like  rational  Creatures: 
Whereas,  the  Bifhop's  putting  men  into  Deacon's  or  PrieJPs  Orders 
privatly  in  his  own  Chamber,  which  was  the  conftant  Practice  in 
the  late  Epifcepal  Times,  not  only  choaks  Reafon,  makes  Beafts  of 
the  People ;.  but  is  contrary  to  the  whole  Stream  of  Antiquity,  'The 

*  People  themfelves,  as  it  is  in  Cyprian  (y),  having  efpecially  the 

*  Power  of  chufing  worthy  Priefts,  or  of  rejecting  fuch  as  are  un- 
'  worthy. 

VI.  He  Obie£ls  p.  105*  that  the  Scriptural  Presbyters  were  to 
continue  ad  VitamaatCulpam.  Ianfwer,  fo  are  the  Presbyterian  El- 
ders. For  once  an  Elder  ftill  an  Elder  ^  unlefs  he  is  depofed  for  Mal- 
verfation.  If  in  fome  great  Towns  they  are  relieved  in  Courfe  by  0- 
thers,or  Honourably  difmkTed  upon  their  Defire,  when  Agedifables 
them  for  Service,  this  is  only  fuch  an  Allowance  as  was  made  to  the 
Levites  under  the  Law  ;  and  therefore  is  not  inconfiftent  with  the 
Character  of  a  Church  Officer: 

VII.  He  objects,  Ibid.  c  That  the  Scriptural Presbyters  were  al- 
1  lowed  their  proper  Maintenance,  whereas  the  Presbyterian  Elders 
*"*  plead  no  Title  to  any  fuch  Thing,  but  are  rather  lofers  by  the  Inter- 
ruption of  their  Trades.  The  Anfwer  is  plain.  The  fame  Scri- 
pture which  founds  their  Office,  entitles  them  to  Maintenance.  For 
the  double  Honour  certainly  imports  nolefs.  But  that  they  do  not 
plead  it,  is>  becaufe  the  Government  has  fetled  no  Fund  for  that 
Purpofe,  and  that  in  the  prefent  Circumftances  they  know  it  would 
be  in  vain  to  plead  it.  But  will  that  make  them  no  Church  Officers? 
Was  Paul  no  Church  Officer,  becaufe  he  made  the  Go/pel  of.Chritt 
without  Charge  1  Cor.  IX  18  ?  Are  not  the  Epifcopal  Deacons  Church 
Officers?  They  are  not  now  provided  in  any  Maintenance,  where- 
as in.  the  .Primitive  Church,  they  were,  as  Jerom  witnefleth,  better 
feen  toihan.thePm%tfmhemfelves  Q&  ).  .'Tis  true  the  Presbyterian 

Elders 


fy]  Plebs  ipfa  maxime  habec  poceftatem  vel  Eligendf  dignos  Sacerdot«s  vel  indignosrecufandi.  Ef.  6j.y- 
I  ^  j  Ant  li  ex  Diacouo  ordiiiatur  Presbyrer,  npyenc  i'e  _Lucris  raiaurem,  Saoetdoao  -  cfle-  majorem.  £/>»  -ad  a 


182  Defence  of  the  Chap   //. 

Elders  are  fometimes  avocate  from  their  Employments  by  their  Office : 
But  this  only  fpeaks  forth  their  Generous  Temper,  in  that  they  pre- 
fer the  publick  Service  of  the  Church  to  their  private  Intereft.  Nor 
are  they  likely  to  be  lofets  thereby :  For,  God  will  not  be  unmindfully 
nor  forget  their  Work  and  Labour  of  Love. 

VIII.  Reargues,  Ibid.  '  Were  there  any  Foundation  for  fuch 
c  an  Office  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  whence  was  it  that  Ruling-El- 
'  dm  did  fo  early,  fo  univerfally  and  fo  tamely  give  up  their  Di- 
1  vine  Right,that  there  is  no  once  Mention  made  of  any  fuch  by  Di- 
1  vine  Right  in  the  Homilies  and  Commentaries  of  the  Fathers.  For 
Anfwer,  I  fhall  read  to  Mr.  Rhind  a  Homily  from  the  Commenta- 
ries of  one  of  the  Fathers.     '  Age,  faith  theforecited  Ambrofe  or  Hi' 

*  lay  (a )9\s  honourable  among  all  Nations,  whence  firft  the  Syna- 

*  gogue  and  afterwards  the  Church   had  Elders,  without  whofe 

*  Councel  nothing  was  done  in  the  Church.     Which  by  what  ne- 

*  gligenceit  is  falPn  into  Difuetude,  I  know  not,  if  it  be  not  through 

*  the     Sloath  or     rather     Pride     of  the  Doctors,     whilft    they 

*  alone  will  feem  to  be  fomething.  Thus  he.  I  think  it  is  tolerably 
clear  from  this  Teftimony  that  there  were  fuch  Elders  in  the  Church 
atfirft;  For  it  is  not  poffible  Hilary  could  underftand  either  Bi- 
fljops  or  preaching  Presbyters  by  them,  feeing  thefe  ftill  continued  in 
the  Church.  And  I  think  it  is  as  clear,  that  their  being  difufed 
was  owing  to  the  Prelatick  Spirit  of  Ambition,  which  has  been  the 
Mother  of  fo  many  Mifchiefs  to  the  Church.  'Tis  therefore  no 
wonder  that  we  don't  find  the  Names  of  the  Ruling-Elders  in  the 
Afts  of  the  Generator  Provincial  Councils, when  the  Doctors  wereof 
fuch  an  ufurping  Temper.  And  perhaps  that  is  the  Reafon  why  there 
are  fo  very  few  Councils  that  had  agoodlflue,  or  ofwhomwehave 
a  comfortable  Account.  Even  the  Fathers  of  the  flrft  Council  of  Nice 
were  in  Peril  of  throwing  their  Bibles  at  one  anothers  Heads,  had  not 
Con(tantine  wifely  moderated  their  Choller,  and  charitably  burned 
their  fcandalous  Libels  againft  one  another.  Mr.  Rhind  indeed  p.  218 
taxes  the  Presbyterians  that  they  dubbed  here  a  Godly  Webfter,  there  * 

SanClifed 


[a  ]  Nam  apudomnes  unique  Gentes  honorabilis  eft  Seneitus,  unde  &  Synagoga  &  poftea  Ecclefia  Se» 
mores  habuic,  quorum  fine  Confilio  nihil  agebatur  in  Ecclefia.  Quod,  qua  negligemia  abfoleverk,  nefcio, 
aift  fane  Dottorum  defidia,  auc  magis  fuperbia,  dual  foli  volunt  ahquid  yidea    Comment-  in  i  Tim-J.  i. 


Se#.  VI.        Presbyterian  Government        183 

Sanctified  Cobler  Ruling  Elders.    But  I  cannot  fee  why  either  the  Web- 
Jlero?  ih.Q  Cobler  might  not  be  as  ufefull    Members  in  a  Council  as 
many  oi  the  Bifhops.    For,  we  have  uncontested  Evidences  (b)  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,  beeaufe  they  were  not  prefentat  Coun- 
cils^ nor  their  Names  recorded  in  the  Ails  of  them:  For,  if  that 
Argument  be  good,  it  will  prove  that  even  the  Epifcopal  Presbyters 
are  not  Church  Officers;  BelUrmin  having  fbewn  (.*  )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  firft- 
and  beH  Council  that  ever  was,  Imean  that  atjerufakm  AclsXV*. 
Both  the  Jpoftles and  Elders,  yea  and  the  whole  Churcb  v.  22.  were 
Members ;  and  the  Acls  and  Decrees  thereof  paffed,  not  only  by  their 
Advice,  but  with  their  Suffrage. 

Thus  now  we  have  feen  that  the  Ruling-Elder '5  are  of  Divine  In- 
ftitution,  that  they  obtained  in  the  Primitive  Church,  that  they   fell 
into  Defuetude  through  the  Pride  of  the  Bifhops;  and  that  in  the  berl 
conftttuted  Churches  in  the  World,  they  were  revived  again  uporr 
the  firft  Dawning  of  the  Reformation. 

And  indeed  the  Wifdom  of  our  Lordand  his  care  of  his  Church; 
is  very  much  feen  in  the  Inftitution.  For,  as  he  has  appointed  Afi- 
nifters,  that  the  Faith  of  the  Church  may  be  kept  found  ;  and  Dea- 
cons that  thQ  wants  of  her  poor  Members  might  be  fupplied  :  So  he 
has  appointed  Ruling- Elders  to  over  fee  the  Manners  and  outward 
Converfation  of  Chriftians,  thai  they  be  fuch  as  become  the  Gofpel. 
Befides,  by  this  Conftitution  the  Difcipline  is  the  more  willingly 
fubmitted  to  by,  the  People,  being  exerced  by  Perfons  chofen  from 
among  themfelves,  appointed  to  reprefent  them,  to  take  care  of  their 
Ihterelt,  and  that;  they  may  have  no  Reafon  to  complain  of  the  Ri- 
gour or  Severity  of  the  Minifters.  .Toilluikate  this  a  little  from  the- 

Con- 


(b)  Heiius  Epifcopus  Hadrianopolitantis  defiaiens  fubfcripfi  per  Romanum  Epifcopnrn  Myronum,  eo  quod. 
nefciumLiterus.  Cajumus  Epifcopus  Phainicenfis  definiens  fubfcripfi  per  Coepifcopum  meum  Dronyfium, 
proprerea  quod  Uterus  ignorem.  ConciLEphcf.  2.  in  <JtF.  1.  Chulced,  Couc:  in  "rub.  Ton:.  -I.  p.  830.  Cone. 
Epbef.  I.  Patncius  Presbyter  de  vico  Paradioxilo,  manu    ucens  Maximi  Coinpresbyteri,    ob  hoc,  quoi  U- 

tera.signcr.trem..    Zenon  Chorepifcopus manura  accomodavi  pro  eo  ego    Flavius    Palladius,    ob  hoc 

oupd  prefens  dixerk  Liter  as  fe  ignorure.  in  xAci.   1.  Cotu  Chalced.    in  Crab.  p.  ai6.  vide  plura  apiid,  C/»^V . 
{on...Di&.  coaceirung  Liturgies  p,  1^  -     £  c  ]  _pe  CoaciLLU?..  1. •  Cap,,  i/., . 


184  Defence  of  the  Chap,  1L 

Conftitution  of  the  Civil  Government.  Princes  ordinarly  live  in 
State,  fee  Nothing  but  Coaches  and  Six,  fine  Roomsand  full  Tables; 
nor  does  any  Body  appear  before  'em  but  in  his  Sunday's  Cloaths. 
All  this  is  very  neceflary  and  reafonable  ;  yet  it  leaves  Them  very 
much  unacquainted  with  the  Condition  of  the  Country  ;  nor  can 
They  have  other  than  a  very  faint  Senfe  of  the  Prefifures  and  Ca- 
lamities Their  People  may  be  groaning  under:  And  were  the  Le- 
giflature  folely  in  Their  hands,  They  cou'd  hardly  efcape  being 
blamed  for  every  Thing  the  People  might  think  a  Grievance.  But 
now  when  a  Parliament  meets  once  a  Year,  the  Prince  gets  the 
Condition  of  the  People  in  themoft  remote  Corners  of  the  King- 
dom reprefented :  And  the  People  cannot  but  be  fatisfied,  when  they 
confider  they  are  governed  by  no  other  Laws,  nor  burden'd  with 
other  Taxes,  than  what  were  asked  and  enacted  with  their  own 
Confent;  or,  which  is  the  fame  Thing,  by  Reprefentatives  of 
their  own  chufing.  Juft  fo,  Minifters,  through  their  retired 
Courfe  of  Life,  are  ordinarly  very  much  Strangers  to  the  Way 
of  the  World,  and  are  ready  to  meafure  the  World  by  the 
AbftraQ  Notions  they  have  gathered  out  of  Books  or  from  theic 
own  Solitary  Mufings,  which  don't  always  fuit  with  the  Practi- 
cal Part  of  Life.  Hence  it  comes  to  pafs  that,  till  Age  and 
Experience  have  mellowed  'em,  they  are  apt  to  have  too 
much  Keenefs  on  their  Spirits,  and  to  exprefs  too  much  Ri- 
gour in  their  Actings.  But  Raling-Elders  are  more  converfant 
in  the  World,  know  better  what  the  Times  will  bear,  and  what 
Allowances  are  neceffary  to  be  made  in  this  or  that  Cafe.  Now 
when  the  People  (in  the  Cafe  of  Scandals;  fee  themfelves  judged 
by  fuch  Perfons,  and  that  there  is  no  other  Difcipline  exercifed 
on  'em  but  what  even  their  own  Neighbours,  as  well  as  their 
Minifters,  think  reafonable,  they  can  have  no  juft  Caufe  of  Complaint. 
To  conclude.  It  is  very  Strange  that  the  Epifcopal  Writers 
fhou'd  inveigh  again  ft  Officers  whofe  Province  it  is  only  to  Go- 
ver/t,  not  to  Preach,  I  mean  by  themfelves,  feeing  they  have 
loudly  proclaimed  to  the  World,  that  they  look  upon  their  Bi- 
Ihops  only  as  fuch.  Thus,  Dr.  South  (d)  in  his  Sermon  preach- 
ed 


£  d  ]  Vol.  I.  P.  aej.  Sec. 


Se&.  v  I;       Presbyterian  Government.        185 

ed  at  the  Confecration  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rochester  upon  Titus  II. 
verfe  ulr.  TV^/e  things  [peak  and  exhort,  in  a  flat  Contradiction  to 
the  Text  faies,  c  That  a  teaching  Talent  is  not  abfolutly  ne* 
e  cejfary  in  aBzfiop,  nor  is  of  the  vital  Confiitution  of  his  Function. 
'  If  he  have  it,  it  is  not  to  be  refufed  ;  but  if  he  have  it  nor,  it 
c'is  not  much  to  be  defired.  And  if  any  of  their  Bilhops  do  make 
Confcience  of  conftant  preaching,  as  fome  of  them  have  done,  it-is 
•reckoned  a  Labour  of  Love,  as  not  having  a  Care  of  Souls.  Tims 
the  Bifihop  of  Sarum  in  his  Funeral  Sermon  on  Dr.  Tiliotfon  the 
late  Arch-Bifhop  of  Canterbury.    6  In  his  Function,  faith  He,  He 

*  was  a  constant  Preacher:     For  tho'  he  had  no  care  of Souls  upon 

*  him,  yet  few  that  had  laboured  fo  painfully  as  he  did,  And 
yet  the  Arch-Bifhops  and  Bifhops  have,  above  all  the  other  Clergy, 
she  greateft  Honour  and  the  larger!  Provifion.  I  wonder  upon  what 
Account,  if  it  be  none  of  their  Duty  to  labour  in  the  Word  and  Do- 
Brine.  And  I  wonder  how  Epfedpal  Ruling- Elders  can  be  lawfully 
and  Presbyterian  Ruling-Elders  not  fo.    But  enough  of  this.   . 


ARTICLE    II. 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhindcx  Reasonings  again fl  the  Pre- 
sbyterian Deacons  are    Examined. 
P.  106. 107, 

I.  TIE  Objecls  that  the  Primitive  Deacons  did  Preach  and  Bap- 
i  .1  tize,  which  the  Presbyterian  Deacons  cannot  do,  therefore 
they  are  not  the  fame.  'Tis  anfwered.  The  Scripture  Deacons  by  vir- 
tue of  their  Office  were  neither  to  preach  nor  Baptize,  but  to  ferve 
Tables:  For  the  Apoftles  unloaded  themfelves  of  the  latter  Fundion, 

A  a  becaufe 


i $6  Defence  of  the  Chap  II, 

becaufe  they  could  not,  with  it,  difcharge  the  former  Atts  VI.  2 
It  is  not  re&fon  that  we  foould  leave  the  Word  of  God  and  ferve  Tables, 
But,  faies  Mr.  Rhind,  Philip  who  was  ordain'd  a  Deacon  JtfsWI. 
did  Preach  and  Baptize  Acts  VIII.  12.  13.  'Tis  anfwered.  ift,  We 
have  heard  Hilary  before  declaring,  that  it  was  allowed  to  all  in 
the  Beginning  to  preach  the  Gofpel  and  to  Baptize.  2ly,  Philip 
was  an  Evangeh/l,  and  in  that  Capacity  preached  and  Baptized. 
Bur,  faies  Mr.  Rhind,  we  rend  of  no  ftcond  Ordination  He  had  for  the fs 
Pmpofes.  Is  not  this  pretty  ?  Is  he  not  exprefly  called  an  Evan- 
geliH  JctsXXl.  8.  And  fhall  we  think  he  took  up  the  Office  at  his 
own  Hand,  without  being  ordain'd  to  it;  becaufe  we  do  not, 
read  of  his  Ordination  ?  Or  dees  he  think  that  Evangelifts  had  not 
Power  to  Baptize?  But,  adds  he,  l  we  find  Peter  and  John  com- 
'  miiiioned  by  the  Apofiles  to  confirm  the  Sa maritans,  which  Office 
6  Philip  cou'd  have  diicharged  had  he  been  an  Evangelifi,  I  anfwer. 
He  could  not:  For  the  Confirmation  that  is  there  meant  is  the 
giving  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  his  extraordinary  Charifmata,  as  is  e- 
vident  from  the  whole  Hiftory  :  And  this  none  but  the  Apofiles 
could  give  ;  nor  is  there  one  Inftance,  either  in  the  Scripture  or 
Church  Hiftory,  where  ever  any  but  the  Apofiles  either  did  or 
could  give  it.  But  Mr.  Rhind  has  ftrongly  imagined  that  the  pre- 
lent  Ufage  among  the  PrelatiBs  is  according  to  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  Pratlice;  whereas  indeed  Epsfcopal  Confirmation  is  a  thing 
unheard  of  in  the  Scripture,  and  fois  ^baptizing  Deacon.  Nor  can 
I  look  upon  Baptiim  adminiftred  by  an  Epi/copal  Deacon,  any 
otherwife  than  as  if  it  had  been  adminiftred  by  a  Webfier  or  Cobkr 
Ruling  Elder  or  Deacon  among  the  Presbyterians.  Pm  fare  there 
is  not  the  leaft  Countenance  for  it  in  the  Scripture.  I'm  fure  the 
very  Defign  of  the  Deacon's  Office  declares  that  Baptizing  is  no 
part  of  it.  I'm  fure  likewife  the  Presbyterian  Deacon  is  the  only. 
Deacon  by  Scripture  warrant,  when  the  word  is  taken  as  fignify- 
ing  an  Officer  inferior  to  a  Presbyter. 

II..  He  objects  '  That  the  ancient  Deacons  did  confticwe  one 
'  of  the  Ordinary  and  perpetual  Orders  of  Ecclefiafticks,  whereas 
■  the  Presbyterian  Deacons  are  only  in  a  few  of  the  larger  Towns, 
6  there  being,  none fuch  in  any  other  Partofthe  Nation..  'Tis  an-- 
fwered. .  They^  are  m  eyerj  Congregation .  where  they  can  be  had: 

And.; 


Se£t  VI.        Presbyterian  Government        187 

And  to  my  certain  Knowledge  in  the  leffer  as  well  as  Urger  Towns; 
yea  in  many  Country  Congregations.  And  every  Miniller  ispofed 
upon  it  by  the  Presbytry  twice  a  Year,whether  his  Seffion  beconfti- 
tute  with  Deacons  as  well  as  Elders.  Poflibly  fome  Congregations 
may  have  little  or  no  Stock ;  and  perhaps  as  few  Poor  that  want 
it.  •  What  is  the  great  Hazard  tho',  in  fuch  a  Cafe,  they  have  no 
Deacons?  O,  faith  Mr.  Rhind,  IPs  a  fundamental  Defect  ij  they  believe 
them  to  be  of  Divine  In  flit  ut  ion.  Very  well  argued!  As  if  Deacons 
were  abfoludy  neceiTary  to  the  Conftitution  of  a  Church.  But  Time 
was  when  there  were  no  fuch  Officers  in  Being,  nor  any  Order  for 
them:  Nor  in  all  probability  would  there  ever  have  been  any, 
had  not  the  emergent  Circumftances  of  the  Church  made  it  necef- 
fary.  How  many  Inftances  have  we  in  Church  Hiftory  of  Bijhops 
without  Presbyters?  But  was  that  a  fundamental  Defect  ?  Orwou'd 
it  be  fufficient  whereupon  to  infer,  that  Presbyters  are  not  Church 
Officers ;  or  that  the  Office  is  not  of  Divine  Inftitution?  'Tis  Nau- 
feous  to  anfwer  fuch  Stuff.    So  much  for  thePresbyterian  Deacons. 


The  Conclujion  of  the  Chapter  concerning  Church- 
Government. 


H  U  S  now  I  have  got  through  the  Controverfy  of  the  Govern* 
ment  of  the  Church  ;  and  hope  I  have  made  it  fufficient- 
ly  clear  that,  neither  from  the  Nature  of  the  Thing,  nor  the  Form 
of  Government  among  the  jfejw,  nor  Political  Neceffity,  nor  the 
Inftitution  of  our  Lord,  nor  the  Practice  of  the  Apoftles,  nor  the 
pretended  Epifcopacy  of  Timothy  and  Titus, nov  the  Apocalyptick 
Angels,  nor  the  Teftimdny  of  Antiquity,  nor  indeed  from  any  Thing 
elfe  Mr.  Rhind  has  advanced,  does  it  appear  that  by  Divine  Right 
there  is7  or  ought  to  be  any  Officer  in  the  Church  fuperiour  to  the 
preaching  Presbyter.    Confequently  the  Presbyterian  Government 

A  a  2  is 


188  Defence  of  the  Chap.  II 

is  not  Schifmatical,  but  that  which  was  originally  inftituted,  and 
did  at  firft  obtain.  Confequently  Mr.  Rbind  in  feparating  from 
it  ( the  fame  is  to  be  faid  of  all  others  in  his  Cafe  J  is  become  a  Schif* 
matick.  Confequently  Epifcopal  Ordination  is  fofar  from  being  ne- 
ceffary,  that  it  is  without,  and  therefore  contrary  to  Divine  Infti* 
tution. 

And  now  to  conclude.  I  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the 
niceft  Turns  I  ever  heard  was  given  to  a  Caufe,  that  our  Scotch  E- 
pifcopalians  whd,!  the  other  Day  while  they  were  in  PofTemon,were 
glad  to  find  a  few  Colours,  and  watery  ones  they  were  God  wot,  to 
prove  Epifcopacy  Lawfully  and  would  have  been  heartily  well  con- 
•  tent  if  People  would  have  acquiefced  in  it  as  Tolerable ;  that  they  ,1 
fay,  fhould,  nov/  when  they  had  loft  all,  fet  up  for  the  Abiolute  Ne* 
ceffitycfi  it,  and  hope  to  recover  the  Sadie  by  that  Politick ;  I  cannot 
help  faying  in  the  Words  of  Catullus- 
Res  eft  Redicula  &  nimis  Jocofai 

*Tis  much  fuch  an  other  Trick  as  the  Church  of  Rome  ferves  the. 
Proteftants:  When  fhe  finds  her  Religion  almoft  one  continued 
Scab  of  Errtiurs  and  Corruptions,  Die  puts  on  a  brazen  Impudence, 
and.  will  needs  have  them  to  difpute  her  Infallibility.  Imufttherr. 
advife  our  Epiicopal  Writers  to  be  fo  modeftas  not  to  grafpatall  ; 
h\n  to  content  thernfelves,  as  their  Fathers  did  before  them,  with 
Effays  to  prove  the  Lawfullmfs  of  Epifcopacy,  without  infilling  on 
the  Neceffitycfi it.  And  as  for  ethers,  befides  the  Clergy,  who  are 
hjeeprpe  Drfciples  to  this-  new  Hypothecs,  I  cannot  but  ferioutly  ex- 
hort them  to  conflder  the  horrid  Ur.charitablenefs  and  bloody  Cru- 
elty of  it,  no  where  to  be  parallelled  except  amongft  the  mod: 
bigotted  Prists.  I  crave  leave  then  to  addrefsyouin  a  few  Words. 
I  hope,  Gentkmen%  you  know  that  there  are  other  Churches  in 
the  World  befides  the  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  which  neither  be- 
lieve the  NecefTity  of  Billions,  ncr  maintain  Union  withthem. 
There,  are  our  Brethren  DiiTenters  in  England  and  Ireland^  pretty 
considerable  Body.  There  was  the  French reformed  Church  while; 
f  he.  flood,  and, what  yet  remains  of  Her  in  a  difperfed  Condition. 
'Uiereaie  the.  Btlgick.  Churches.,  the  Church  of  Geneva,  the  Refor- 
med 


Sed:  V J\       Presbyterian  Government         1 8  9 

raed  Cantons  with  their  Proteftant  Confederates;  and  New  England- 
on  the  other  Side  of  the  World,  all  which  own  no  fuch  Office  as 
that  of  a  Diocefan  Bifliop.  Now,  pray  Gentlemen,  do  ye  think  it 
Nothing  to  unchurch  all  thefe;  and,  which  is  the  neceffary  Con* 
feqoence  of  that,  to  give  them  to  the  Devil ;  when  yet  all  the 
World  fees  that,  generally  fpeakingj  their  Convention  is  at  leaft 
as  good  and  as  becoming  the  Gofpel  as  your  own  ?  Do  ye  think 
it  nothing,  by  your  bigotted  Notions  thus  to  weaken  the  Proteftant 
Interelt,  and  to  make  fuch  a  dangerous  Gonceffion  to  the  Papiftsi^ 
that  fo  fair  a  Part  of  the  Proteftant  World  is  in  a  State  of  Schifm, 
out  of  Favour  with.God,  and  incapable  of  Salvation  :  And  all  this 
meerly  for  the  want  of  Frelates,  of  whom  there  is  not  the  leaft 
Mention  in  Scrip t  u  r  e  ? 

And  yettdie  malign  Influence  of  your  Principle  does  not  fift 
within,  thefe  Bounds  I  have  mention'd.  No.  All  the  Churches 
whoiiave  only  Superintendents  are  in  quite  as  dangerous  a  Condi- 
tion as  the  former.  For,  befides  that  thefe  Superintendents  pofi- 
tively  difown  their  Superiority  over  their  Brethren  to  be  by  Di- 
vine Right;  we  have  p.  45  heard  M.  Dodwdl  declaring,  that  they 
are  not  fufficient  for  a  Principle  of  Unity,  and  confequenrly  can- 
not be  the  Medium  of  Union  with  Chrift.  Now,  pray  confider  what 
a.  Havock  this  -mud  needs  make  of  the  remaining  Proteftant  - 
Churches.  Left  you  fhould  think  me  partial  in  giving  the  Detail 
of 'em,  take  it  in  h  tiling jhet\  Words*  '  In  ^plftein,  faith  he  f  e),. 
c  .j.Pomeren^ALclenburg,  Brunswick ,  Lunenburg,  Bremen ,  Oldenburg, 
4  Ea/t  Fricfland,  H?jfent  Saxony ,  and  all  the  upper  Part  of  Germany , 
'  and  the  Proteftant  Imperial  Cities,  Church-Government  is  in  the 
4  Hands  of  Superintendents,  In -the  Palatinate  they  have  U/pUtors 
'  and  Pr£?poJiti,ovQV  which  is  the  Ecclefialiical  Conftilory.-—  And' 
'  fo  they,  have  their  Prcepofitos  in  Wetter  aw,  Hejfen  and  ■  Anhdt. 
'  And  in  Tranjylv-ania,  Polenta -and  BoJiemi&tb&y  have  their  Senior es. 
4'  All  thefe,  he  ^'^acknowledge  ntf'fuch  Thing  as  a  Divine  Right 
1  of  Epifcopacy,  buB  ft'iffty  maintain  jmm%  Opinion  of  the  Psimi- 
6  five  Equality  of  Gofpel  Minifters.  And  therefore  they  muft'  all- 
go.  over  at  the  fame  Ferry  with  plain  Parity   Men  ;  and  you  know 

you 


£  e  .]  Ironic  p.  41,1.. . 


iqo  Defence  of  the  Chap  //. 

you  have  afligned  them  but  indifferent  Quarters  againd:  their 
Landing. 

Yet  further,  even  in  Denmark,  Noway  and  Sweden,  tho'chere  area 
i  few  that  have  the  Name  of  Bifhops ;  yet.  they  are  very  far  from  being 
looked  on  as  the  Center  of  Union,  or  myftical  High  Priefts,orthe 
v'ifiblereprefentatives  of  God  and  Chrift,  by  whom  alone  People  can 
JiaveU.iion  with  the  Divine  Perfons,  which  is  your  Scheme.  No, 
Thty  hive  no  fuchWhimfies  among  them  onthe  contrary  Writers, 
fpeak  mod    diminutivly  of  their  Power.     '  Here,  viz.  in  Denmark 

*  (faith  the  Author  of  the  pre fent  State  of  Europe  for  the  Year  i  05 
c  p.  134)  are  Bijbops,  but  they  are  not  much  different  in  Effedfrom 
c  Superintendents  in  other  Places,  depending  on  the  Super  tour  Conji- 
'  ftory.  '  And  (faith  the  excellent  Author  of  the  Account  of  Denmark 
1  for  the  Year  1692,  Third  Edit.  p.  251.  )  there  are  Six  Superin- 

*  tendents  in  Denmark,  who  take  it  very  kindly  to  be  called  Bi- 
1  fiops  and  My  Lord,  There  are  alfofourin  Norway.  Thefe  have 
e  no  Temporalities,   keep  no  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  have  no  Ca- 

*  thedrals,  with   Prebends,  Canons,  Deacons,    Sub-Deacons,  &c. 

*  But  are  only  Primi  inter  Pares.  Thus  he.  And  'tis  certain,  that 
in  the  Beginning  of  theReformation  it  was  Bugenhagius (who  was  but 
a  Presbyter,)  that  ordain'd  their  firfl:  [even  Superintendents  or  Bi- 
fhops  from  whom  all  their  SuccelTion  to  this  Day  does  flow  (f). 
The  fame  is  the  Cafe  of  Sweden.  *  The  Archbifhops  and  Bifhops 
'  of  this  Kingdom  (faith  the  forecited  Author  of  the  Prejent  State  of 

Europe  p.  147  )  retain  little  more  than  the  Name,  and  a  bare 
Primary  fort  of  Superiorityover  other  Superintendents,  the  eftabli- 
fhing  of  the  Lutheran  Religion  having  deprived  them  of  the  Eccle- 
fiaftical  Jurifdiction,  which  they  exercifed  before  the  Reforma- 
tion. Thus  he.  And  to  the  fame  Purpofe  Stillitigfyet  (g)  concern- 
ng  both  thefe  Kingdoms.  '  In  Sweden,  faith  he,  there  is  one  Arch- 
bifhop  and  Seven  Bifhops,  and  fo  in  Denmark,  though  not  with 

f  Jo  great  Authority. 

By  this  Calculation,   the  whole  forreign   Reformed  Churches 

will  be  found  to  be  of  Presbyterian  Principles,  and  confequently 

not 


fi]  Vide  Chytrxum  Saxon  p.  4.34.. 
j[g  J  Iienic.  ubi  fupu. 


Sc6k..yi.         Presbyterian  Government       191 

not  a  true  Church  among  'em  all  by  your  Scheme.    You'll  per- 
haps  fay   that  as  for  Sweden  and  Denmark  'tis  enough  to  fave  'em 
from  the  Guilt  of  Schifm,  that  they  havefuch  as  are  called  Bijhops, 
how  fmall  foever  their  Authority  be,  and  tho'  the  Divine  Infti- 
tution  or  Necejjity  of  them  is  not  believed.     But,  pray  Gentlemen,. 
confider,  if  their  Practice  fave  them  from  the  Guilt  of  Schifm,  does 
not  their  Belief  involve, them  in  the  Guilt  of  HerefisT    If  Union 
with  the  Bifhop  be  by  Divine  Command  a  neceflary  Duty,  then 
certainly  the  Belief  of  it  is  a  fundamental  Article,  and  confeqoently 
the  denying  thereof,  as  all  thofe  of  the  Lutheran  Communion  do, 
muft  be  Herefie.     And  fo  you  have  very  charitably  difpofed  of  all 
the  Proteftant  Churches,  fending  them  whole  Sale  to  Hell  upon  the 
Account  either  of  Herefie  or  Schifm. 

I  for'efee  what  Reply  you'll  make  to  all  this,viz.  that  the  Vmhari- 
tablenefs  of  a  Dotlrine  is  no  Argument  againft  the  Truth  of  it.    That 
oar  Thoughts  don't  alter  the  Nature  of  Things,  nor  can  change 
Divine  Eftahlifliments:     And  therefore  if  it  be  true  that  Epifccpal 
Ordination  is  neceffary  to  make  a  Minifter,  without  which  his  Ads 
are  not  valid ;    and  that  Union  with  the  Bifhop  is  neceffary  to  ex- 
ternal Life,  without  which  People  cannot  expect  it :  Be  the  Con-- 
fequencesof  this  never  fo  heavy,  or  extend  themfelves  to  never  fo 
many,  that- is-. what  you  cannot  help:'   The  Truth  muft  be  main- 
tain'd  ;  and  that  you  exprefs  your  Charity  fuftkiently  by  telling  us- 
of  our  Danger,  and  that  it  would  be  the  moil  uncharitable  thing 
in  the  World  to  conceal  the  fame  from  us,or  to  fhew  it  lefs  than  really 
it  is.  To  which Ianfwer.  'Tis  very  true,our  Thoughts  don't  alter  the- 
Nature  of  Things,nor  will  your  Rigour  or  our  Charity  make  the  o- 
ther's  Principles  -either-truer  orfalfer.But  tho' it  do  not  make^yet  it" 
may  go  a  great  length  to  fherv  whether  they  be  true  or  falfe.  •   For, 
'tis  a  fhrewd'.-Frefumption  in  moil  Cafes,  that  the  Opinion  which 
wants-.  Charity  is  nor  from  God,  and  that  the  Errour  lyes  on  the 
Damning  Side.-   This  the  Divines  of  the  Church  of  Evo /and  have 
oftimes  obferved  in  their   Difputes -againft  the- Church  of  Rome;. 
But  their  late  Writers  for  Epfecfacy  quite  forget  it  in  dealing  with 
the  Presbyterians*-   A  good  and  wife  Man,  even-  tho'  he  have  the  - 
Truth  on  his  Side,  will  yet  make  all  the  Allowances  the  Cafe  will; 
reafonably  bear  for thGfe-  that;  differ  from ft  him. .  He-  will  confider'' 

that' 


IC2  Defence  of  the  Chap!  II. 

that  their  difTenting  from  him  may  proceed  from  Education,  the 
Difficulty  of  the  Controverfie,  the  want  of  due  Helps  or  of  a  fuit- 
able  Genius  and  Capacity.  And  if  he  himfelf  make  Allowances 
for  them  on  thefe  or  the  like  Accounts;  He  will  readily  believe 
that  a  mercifUll  God  will  do  fo  much  more.  But  when  a  Man's 
Mind  is  darkned  with  Errour,  at  the  fame  Time  his  Temper  is 
low  red  :  And  becaufe  he  cannot  Reafon  others  into  the  fame 
Opinion  with  himfelf,  therefore  he  ettaysto  fright  them  into  it  with 
the  Argument  of  .Damnation.  And  this,  Gentlemen,  I  muft  take 
the  Freedom  to/fey,  I. apprehend  to  be  your  Cafe.  For,  Pray, 
whence  all  this  Height?  On  what  is  all  this  A  (Turning  in  your 
own  Cafe  founded?  Mr.  Rbind,  to  give  him  his  due,  has  laid  out 
all  your  bed:  Arguments  in  their  Strength,  and  fet  them  off  with  A- 
.bund  ance  of  Elegancy;  I  appeal  to  your  felves  whether  every  one 
of  them  is  not  anfwered  to  Satisfaction. 

I.  Is  it  on  the  Scrip  ares  you  found?  M.  Dodwell  has  fairly  quit 
ted  that  Fort,  and  frankly  owns  that  your  Prelacy  is  not  to  be  foui.;! 
there:  And  that  the  Original  of  it  is  at  leaft  ten  Years  Pofterior 
to  the  Sealing  of  the  Canon  of  the  Scripture,  a:.  J  half  a  Dozen 
years  to  the  Death  of  Jobnihe  longeft  lived  of  the  Apoftles,  And 
as  to  the  Bufinefs  coordination  which  you  fo  much  infill:  on,  He 
not  only  fuppofes  (/;)  that  Presbyters  might  chufe  their  Bifljop 
might  ufe  all  the  Ceremonies  of  Confecration  to  him,  might  invefl 
him  in  his  Office  by  Prayer  and  Imposition  of  Hands :  But  alfotells^ 
*  that  he  is  apt  to  think  that  this  muft  have  been  the  Way  obfer- 
'  ved  at  firfl  in  the  making  of  Bijbops.  Now,  if  the  Presbyters 
have  Power  of  Ordaining  Bijjjops,  is  it  not  ftrange  that  they 
fbould  want  the  Power  of  Ordaining  Presbyters  like  themfelves? 
Has  God  any  where  forbidden  it?  No.  But  Mr.  Dodwell  would 
perfwade  us  of  it  by  a  Simile,  which  yet  is  but  a  weak  way  of 
arguing,  viz.  That  as  though  a  Prince  is  inaugurated  by  his  Sub- 
jects, yet  when  once  he  is  inaugurated,  they  have  not  any  Power 
over  him,  nor  can  act  any  thing  without  him,  0a'  withdraw7  their 
Obedience  from  him,  fo  neither  can  the  Presbyters,  when  once 
they  haveOrdairi'd  a  Bifhop  over  themfelves,  dc  jny  Thing  either 
without  him  or  in  Oppofition  to  him ;  and  that  a_.iuch  Ads  are  not 

only 


[  li  J     Scp^rat.  of  Churches.  Chap.  XXIV.  p.  jzz. 


Se&.  VI.       Presbyterian  Governmenf.        193 

only  punifhable  but  invalid.  But  all  this  Reafoning  is  founded  on  two 
moft  precarious  Suppofitions  viz,,  i/l,  That  the  Presbyters  are 
obliged  to  have  a  Bifhop  over  them.  And  idly^  That  every  Biflhop 
is  a  Monarch  in  his  own  Diocefs,  for  which  there  is  juft  as  much 
to  be  faid  as  there  is  for  the  French  King's  being  Univerfal 
Monarch  of  the  World,  or  the  Pope  of  the  Catholick  Church. 
Such  Things  ought  to  be  proved  not prefumed  ;  fo  much  the  rather 
that  in  Fact  we  find  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England,  e- 
ven  the  High-Church  Presbyters,  have  difowned  that  Principle. 
For,  in  the  late  famous  Concerts  between  the  two  Houfes  of  Convo- 
cation, the  Plurality  in  the  lower  Houle  aflumed  to  themfelves  a 
Power  over,  and  fet  themfelves  in  opposition  to  their  Superiours  : 
And  would  needs  have  their  Metropolitan  and  Bijhsps  to  be  account- 
able to  them  for  their  Conduct  in  their  Visitations,  they  wou'd  needs 
cenfure  the  Bifhop  of  S'arumh  Book  on  the  XXXIX  Articles:  Nay 
wou'd  need's  fit,  and  act  too,  after  the  Metropolitan  their  Prefident 
had  adjourned  them.  By  this  Conduct  of  theirs  they  broke  through 
th.Q  Ignatian  and  Dodivellian  Scheme  at  once,  and  loudly  proclaimed 
to  the  World  that  they  did  not  believe  their  Bifhops  tobeabfolute 
Monarchs.  Thus  the  Presbyterians  were  beholden  to  the  lower 
Houfe  of  Convocation.  But  indeed  the  upper  Houfe  obliged  them 
no  lefs.  For,  the  lower  Houfe,  apprifed  of  the  Constructions  were 
made  of  their  Actings,  on  Dec.  n.  1702  fent  a  Declaration  to  the 
upper  Houfe  whereof  the  Import  was,  That  whereas  they  had  been 
Jcandaloujly  and  Mdicioufly  reprefented  as  Favourers  of  Presbytry,  in  Op. 
po fit  ion  to  Epifcopacy,  they  now  declared,  That  they  acknowledged  the 
Order  of  Bifhops,  to  be  of  Divine  ApoHolical  Institution.  Several  of  the 
lower  Houfe  had  diffented  from  this  Declaration,  and  refufed  to 
fubfcribe  it.  But  did  not  their  Lordfiips  in  the  upper  Houfe  go  in 
to  it  ?  No.  Notwithstanding  the  lower  Houfe  by  an  additional 
Addrefs  begged  their  Lordfhips  to  abett  and  fupport  the  forefaid 
Doctrine,  yet  their  Lordfhips  objected  againft  the  Legality  ofaflert- 
ing  it,  and  in  end  flatly  refufed  it.  So  that, even  in  Englandit  felf, 
to  this  Day  there  has  never  been  any  Declaration  made  of  the  Di- 
vine Inftitution  of  Prelacy  either  by  Parliament  or  Convocation'.  Nor 
can  I  find  that  there  is  any  Thing  in  any  of  their  publick  Formu- 
las afTertiflg  it,  except  fome  Words  in  the  Preface  to  the  Form  of 

B  b  Ordi: 


194  Defence  of  the  Chap,  II. 

Ordination,  which  are  too  loofe  and  weak  to  bearfuch  a  Weight. 
And  'tis  certain,  that,  at  the  Reformation,  Prelacy  was  fet  up  in  Eng- 
land on  a  far  different  Footing  from  that  of  Divine  Right.  For 
in  K.  Henry  the  VIII's  Reign  Anno  1539.  l  The  Bifhops,  faith  Dr. 
'  Burnet  (i),  took  out  Commiffions  from  the  King,  by  which  they 

*  acknowledged  that  all  JurifdiOion  Civil  and  Ecclefiaftical  flowed 
4  from  the  King,  and  that  they  exercifed  it  only  at  the  King's 
i  Courtefie,  and  that  as  they  had  it  of  his  Bounty,  fo  they  wou'dbe 
'  ready  to  deliver  it  up  at  his  Pleafure,  and  therefore  the  King  did 

*  empower  them  in  His  Head  to  Ordain,give  Inftitution,and  do  all  the 

*  other  Parts  of  the  Epifcopal  Function.  Upon  which  the  Hiflom 
rian  makes  this  Remark,  By  this  they  were  made  the  Kjngs  Bifhops 
indeed. 

Nor  was  the  Matter  mended  by  K.  Edward  VI.    c  In  the  fir  ft 

*  Year  of  whofe  Reign,  fays  the  fame  Hifiorian  (  k)9  all  that  held 
c  Offices  were  required   to  come   and  renew  their  Commiffions, 

*  Among  the  reft  the  Bifhops  came,  and  took  out  fuch  Commiffions 
&  as  were  granted  in  the  former  Reign  viz.  to  hold  their  Bifhop- 
'  ricks  during  pleafure,  and  were  empowred  in  the  King's  Name3 
6  as  His  Delegates,  to  perform  all  the  Parts  of  the  Epifcopal  Fun- 
c  8  ion,  and  Cranmer  fet  an  Example  to  the  reft  in.  taking  out  one 
'  of  them.  And  indeed  Heylin  acknowledges  (/)  that  K.  Ed- 
ward's fir  ft  Parliament  forced  the  Epifcopal  Order  from  their  flrong 
Hold  of  Divine  In  ft  it  ut  ion  >  and  made  them  no  other  than  the  Kjngs 
Miniflers  only. 

Upon  this  Footing  was  Prelacy  fettled  even  in  England  at  the. 
Reformation:  And  I  challenge  any  Man  to  produce  Documents 
where  ever  to  this  Day  they  have  bettered  its  Foundation,  or  fet- 
tled it  upon  Scripture  Authority  or  Divine  Inftitution.  And  muft 
she.  Scats  Presbyterians  be  Scb/fmaticks  for  not  believing  what  the: 
whole  Forreign  Proteftant  Churches  have  declared  againft,  and 
England  her.felf  durft  never  affert.  Gentlemen,!  can  affure  you  there 
is  Nothing  in  the  World  makes  a  Party  appear  with  a  more 
Contemptible  Figure  than  weak  Arguments  and  a  high  Air.  Pleafe 

there-  - 


[i]  Hjft.  Reform.  Abridg.  Vel.  I.  p.  22S.  \ 
^     k]  Ulnfupra.  Vol.  II.  p.  *>        [1]  HifL  Edw.  VI.  p.  52.  ■■ 


Se£L  VT»        Presbyterian  Government'        105 

therefore  only  tolow'r  your  Air  in  proportion  to  your  Arguments, 
and  I  hope  it  will  be  no  hard  Matter  to  deal  with  you.  'Tis 
true  your  late  Writers  will  needs  perfwade  you  that  all  Chriftia- 
nity  depends  on  Prelacy,  and  that  there  cannot  be  any  Church 
where.it  obtains  nor;  and  their  Plot,  viz.  The'  Ruin  ofthe  whole 
Proteftant  Intereft  through  the  World,  is  too  evident  either  to  be 
miftaken  by  us,  or  coloured  by  thenifeives.  But  I  muft  tell  you 
that  Cra»mer9  Therleby,  Redman,  Cox,  Whitgift,  Co  fins  t  Low,  Bridges, 
Hooker,  Dounham,  Willet,  Mafon^  Chillingrvorth,  Sutclifey  and  all  thofe 
great  Names  who,  for  feveral  Scores  of  Years  after  the  Reformation, 
baffled  Popery  by  their  Arguments,  or  gave  Teftimony  againft 
it  by  their  Blood ;  tho'  they  were  deeply  engaged  in  the  Interefts 
of  Prelacy,  and  loved  it  with  their  Soul ;  yet  they  frill  either  de- 
layed the  Neceffity  of  it,  or  frankly  difowned  its  being  founded  on 
Scripture.  And  when  the  Scripture  Fort  is  fotfaken,  pray  what 
will  ye  betake  your  felves  to.     For 

II.  Will  you  found  on  the  Fathers?  'Tis  true  your  Writers  a- 
mufe  you  with  their  Names,  and  dazle  your  Eyes  with  Citations 
out  of  'em  which  mention  Bifhop  and  Presbyter  as  diifincl.  Bur, 
pray  defire  them  to  cite  the  Fathers  declaring  for  the  Divine  Right 
of  that  Diftinetion,  as  the  Presbyterians  cite  them  declaring  for 
their  Scripture  -Identity.  Without  this,  all  their  Endeavours  are  on- 
ly a  Learn'd  Labour  to  buble  the  World,  and  does  either  dif- 
cover  their  own,  or  prefume  their  Readers  want  of  Judgment 
Stillingpet  has  fpoken  ingenuoufly  on  the  Head.  '  As  to  the  Mat- 
,'  ter  it  felf,  faith  he  ( ' m\  I  believe  upon  the  ftri&eft  Enquiry 
1  Meetings  Judgment  will  prove  true;  That  Jerom,  Auftin,  Am- 
6  brofe^  Sedulius,  Primafus,  ChryJo(tomy  Theodore t,  Theophyia^^WQYQ 
4  all  of  Aeriush  Judgment  as  to  the  Identity  of  both  Name  and  Or- 
*  der  of  Bifhops  and  Presbyters  in  the  Primitive  Church.  I  have 
fhewn  how,  not  only  thefe  but  feveral  others  of  the  Fathers  are  on 
the  Presbyterian  Side ;  and  acknowledge  not  only  that  the  Names 
Bijbof  and  Presbyter  are  Common  ;  but  alfo  that  the  Office  and 
Character  was  the  fame  in  the  Apoftolick  Times.  I  have  produced 
diem  interpreting  the  Scriptures  that  relate  to  this  Controverfy,  as 

B  b  2  the 


[  m  J  Irenic.  p.  276; 


i~$6  Defence  of  the  Chap.  III. 

tbe  Presbyter Uns  now  do.  I  have  {hewn  that  the  Divines  of  the 
Church  of  England,  even  her  Bifhops  and  Doclors  acknowledge  the  , 
Fathers  to  be  one  the  Side  of  Presbytry.  If  the  Epifcopd  Writers 
can  produce  as  many  of  the  Fathers  declaring  as  exprefly  for  the 
Superiority  of  Bifhops  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  alledged  with  the  Approbation  of  the  Epifcopalyl  here- 
by engage  to  become  their  Profelyt.  If  this  is  not  to  be  done,, 
you  muft  blame  your  felves  you  have  not  moe  Difcipies.  But, 
'tis  high  Time  to  proceed  with  Mr.  RbinL 


CHAP.     III. 

Wherein  Mr.  RhindV  Second  Reafon  for  federat- 
ing from  the  Presbyterian  Party  vi%.  That 
their  Articles  of  Faith  are  fundamentally  Falfe 
and  Pernicious,  is  Examined.  From  P?  i  io, 
to  P.  148. 


HIS  is  a  very  high  Charge,  and  for  making  it  Good  H6 

infifts  againft  the  Doctrine  of  the  Decrees  in  general;  the 

Decrees  of  PredeFiination  and   Reprobation  in  particular, 

the  JDoclrine  of  the  Efficacy  of  Grace,  and  the  Doctrine  of 

the  Per  fever  ance  of  the  Saints.     For  Anfwer,  I  iliall  first  particular-  > 

ly  confider  his  Objections  againft  thefe  Doclrines,  and  Secondly  prove 

ibat  .they  are  the  ,  Doctrines  of  the  whole  Qhnflian  Church . 

sect; 


Se&.  I  Presbyterian  Faith  tgj 


sec  x    I 

in  Mr  RhincKr  ObjeUions '  againfi  the  Pre-; 
sbyterian  Articles  of  Faith^  are  confidered. 


N  the -Fir  ft  Place  Mr.  Rhind  infifts  againft  the  Doftrine  of  the 

Eternal  Decrees  in  General,  which  in  the  Weftminder  Leffef 
Gatechifm  are  defined  to  be  God's  eternal  Fur- 
pofe,  according  to  the  Qounfel  of  His  own  Will',  Of  the  Divine  De« 
whereby  rf or  his  own  Glory,  He  hath  foreordained  crees  in  General. 
whatjoever  comes  to  pafs.  One  wou'd  think  the 
Truth  of  fuch  a  Do&rine  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  fuch 
Decrees?  Does  not  the  infallible  Omnifcience  of  God  neceffarly  in- 
ferr  them?  Is  it  polTible  otherwife  to  conceive  how  Events,  that 
flow  from  Rational  free-Agents,  or  depend  upon  Contingent  Caufes, 
fhou'd  be  certainty  known,  when  they  are  not  certainly  to  be  ?  Does 
Mr.  Rhind  think  that  God  has  forfaken  the  Earth,. or  laid  theReins 
on  the  Neck  of  the  Creatures,  allowing  them  to  hurry  both  them- 
felves  and  him  whither  they  lift?  Has  he  formed  his  Notions  of 
the  Deity  upon  Lucretius\ Syftem,  who  would  Complement  him 
out  of  his  Concernment  for  the  World 

Immortali  ■  avo  fumma  cum-  Face  fruatur 
Semota  a  .noftris.  Rebus  jejun&do[ue  longs,  , 

Or  doth  he  think.  Him  fuch  aone  ashimfelf,  to  take  His  Meafures 

upon 


198  Defence  of  the  Chap.  HI 

upon  the  Spot  as  be  fees  Things  are  likely  to  frame?  In  the  Con- 
fidence  of  what  did  he  oppofe  fuch  a  Doclrine? 

Why,  faith  He  p.  1.20,  Nothing  comes  to  pafs  more  frequently 
than  Sin;  And  therefore  if  God  has  foreordained  whatioever  comes 
to  pafs,  then  it  will  follow  that  God  has  ordain'd  Sin,  and  confe- 
quently  muft  be  the  Author  of  Sin,  which  is  Blafphemous,  and  de- 
ftroys  the  Effential  DiftinQion  'twixt  good  and  evil,  all  Juft  No- 
tions of  God,  the  Natural  Freedom  of  Man's  Will,  takes  away  Re- 
wards and  Punifhments,  and  in  a  Word  excufes  the  Sinner  and 
lays  the  Blame  upon  God.  This  is  the  full  Sum  of  what  he  has 
offered  again  ft  the  Vresbyterian  Doclrine  of  the  Decrees,     But 

I.  Thefe  are  not  Arguments  againft,  but  Conferences  wrung  from 
it;  Conferences  too  which  the  Presbyterians  tefufe  with  Abhorrence, 
and  that  in  their  publick  Formula's.  Thus  in  their  Confjfion  of 
'Faith  (  #)  They  Teach,  '  That  God  from  all  Eternity  did  by  the 
'  moft  wife  and  Holy  Councel  of  His  own  Will  freely  and  un- 

*  changably  Ordain  whatfoever  comes  to  pafs:     Yet  fo,   as  that 

*  neither  is  God  the  Author  of  Sin,  nor  is  Violence  offered  to  the 

*  Will  of  the  Creatures,  nor  is  the  Liberty  or  Contingency  of  fecond 
€  Caufes  taken  away  but  rather  eftabliflied.  'Tis  therefore  not  only 
uncharitable  but  unjuft  to  load  the  Doclrine  with  fuch  Confequen- 
ces,  when  they  exprefly  declare  that  they  do  not  understand  the 
Doctrine  in  fuch  a  Senfe  as  to  admit  of  thefe  Conferences. . 

II.  Cannot  Mr.  Rhind  conceive,  that  'tis  very  poffible  for  the 
Divine  Majefty  to  decree  the  Event,  without  decreeing  the  Sin 
that  adheres  to  it,  any  further  than  that  he  will  permit,  direct,  and 
overrule  it,  to  ferve  his  own  wife  and  Holy  Ends  ?  Whether  he 
can  conceive  it  or  nor,  there  is  no  one  Thing  more  exprefsly  laid 
down  in  the  Scripture  than  this.  I  am  very  fare  that  Shi?nei  fin- 
ned grievoufly  in  curfing  David,  and  yet  I  am  as  fure  that  the 
Lord  faid  unto  him  Curfe  David  (of  I  am  fure  it  was  with 
wicked  Hands  that  Herod,  Pontius  Pilate  and.  the  People  of  the  Jew's 
took  and  crucified  and  (lew  the  Son  of  God  (/>  ).  But  lam  as  fure, 
not  only  that  He  was  delivered  by  the  determinate  Councel  and  Fore- 
knowledge of  God,  but  alfo  that  They  did  Nothing  to  him  but  what 

God's 


I  11  J  Chap.  HI,  Scft.  1.       I  o  ]  2  Sam.  XVI.    10.        [  p  J  A&s  II.   13. 


Sed.  L  Presbyterian  Faith.  199 

God's  Hand  and  Councel  determined  before  to  be  done  (q).  Are  the 
Expreflions  in  the  Presbyterian  Catechifm  harder  than  thefe  of  the 
Scripture?  And  mud  not  Presbyterians  teach  as  the  Scriptures  do? 
becaufe  Mr.  Rhind  will  needs  harangue  a  little againfl:  them? 

III.  How  does  the  Decree  of  God  excufe  the  Sinner?  Does  not 
Mr.  Rhind  know,  that  it  is  not  the  Decree  but  the  Precept  that  is 
given- to- be  the    Standard  of  our  Obedience?     No  indeed;  this^ 
Mr.  Rhind  knew  not,  or  did  not  advert  to  :    For  he  has  exprefly 
made  the  Decrees  and  the  Commands  of  God  the  fame  Thing  ;  and 
the  Differ  to  be  the  Rule  of  our  Duty,     if,  faith  he  p.  122,  God 
has  decreed  Sin9  it  is  our  Duty  to  commit  it9  His  Commands  being  the 
Standard  of  our  Obedience.     This  is  a  horrid  Blonder  he  has  made. 
So  far  are  the  Decrees*  from  being  the  Rule  of  our  Duty,  that  it  is 
both  impoffible  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  thofe  Things  which  are  re- 
vealed belong  unto  us.     (r)  And  therefore  God  very  juftly  punifhes' 
the  Sinner,not  for  fulfilling  his  Decrees  in  which  he  was  not  concerned; .; 
but  for  tranfgrelling  his  Precepts  which  he  had  revealed  to  him.  God  de- 
cree'd  that  the  Son  of  Man  (hould  be  betrayed  fk  betrayed  by  Judas' 
too.  The  Son  rf  Man  goeth  as  it  was  determined  (s),  yet  this  Decree  could 
not  excufe  J*^,  becaufe  he  neither  defigned  the  fulfilling  of  it  by 
his  Treachery,  nor  indeed  was  it  given  him  as  the  Rule  of  his   Be-* 
baviour :     And  therefore  'tis  prefently  added  W-o  unto  that  Man  by 
whom  he  is  betrayed.-    And  therefore?  when  Mr.  Rhind  affirms  p.  130  : 
\  That  it  is  Nonfenfical  and  Blafphemous  to  fuopofe  that  God's 
i '  fecret  and  revealed  Will  are  not  one,  He    coritradids  exprefs  Scri- 
pture, and  thereby,  makes  himfelf  guilty,  of  that  Blafpheniy  he  im- 
putes to- others;-- 

IVY  Whatever  Difficulties  there  are  in  the  Presbyterian  Doclrine 
of  the  Decrees^  the  drminians  mult  be  intollerably  fancifull,  if  they 
do  not  own,  that  they  are  at  leaH  equal  on  their  Side;  with  this 
very;  eoafiderable  Difference,  that  generally,  the  Qbjedhonsj- again fiL 

th@-: 


[q]  ■  Alls'-  IV.~27.-28v'. 

£  r  J  Dent,  XXIX..  zy.j      [  s  ]  _ Luke^  XXII.  zz,~ 


2o6  Defence  of  the  Chap"  7/7. 

the  Presbyterian  t)o£trine  arife  from  pretended  Reafon:  Whereas 
the  Objections  againft  the  Arminian  Doctrine  are  founded,  not  only  . 
upon  plain  Reafon,  but  exprefs  Declarations  of  Scripture :  And 
where  thefe  are,  and  the  Conteft  is  'twixt  feeming  Reafon  and  the 
clear  Revelation  of  God ;  it  feems  but  good  Manners  to  yeild  to 
God.  Mr.  Rbind  cannot  digeft  this  Doctrine  of  the  Decrees,bQcaufe 
he  cannot  (  without  fubmitting  his  Judgment  to  the  Scriptures  )by 
meer  Strength  of  Natural  Reafon  anfwer  all  the  Difficulties  &  Objecti- 
ons that  may  be  brought  againft  it.  But  can  he  anfwer  all  the  Difficul- 
ties &  Objections  againft  a  Trinity  of  Perfons  in  the  Divine  Nature? 
Can  he  anfwer  all  the  Objections  that  may  be  made  againft  the  Re- 
furredion  of  the  Body  after  the  Infinite  and  inconceivable  Changes 
which  Time  and  Corruption  bring  upon  it?  If  he  can  anfwer  thefe, 
I  fay,  upon  the  meer  Strength  of  Reafon;  it  muft  be  owned  he  is 
the  ableft  Divine  the  World  was  ever  yet  bleffed  with.  If  he  will 
not  believe  them,  becaufe  he  cannot  anfwer  all  Objections  againft 
them;  then  'tis  plain  he  ought  to  have  continued  in  his  State  of 
Difcreet  Scepticifm  to  this  Day.  But  if  he  can  believe  thefe  Doctrines 
notwithstanding  his  inability  to  folve  the  Difficulties  that  hang 
on  'em  ;  why  might  he  not  alfo  believe  that  God  has  decreed  what- 
ever comes  to  pafs ;  for  the  one  is  as  plainly  revealed  in  the  Scripture 
as  the  other.    And 

V.  There  is  fo  much  the  more  Reafon  for  this,  that  the  Belief  of 
the  Decrees  is  neceflary  in  order  to  the  Conduct  of  Life.  For 
when  lam  afflicted  by  the  Hands  of  wicked  Menandfuffer  from  their 
Sins,  how  fhall  I  poffefs  my  Soul  in  Patience,  or  keep  my  felf  from 
Revenge ;  if  I  don't  believe  that,  tho'  God  has  abfolutly  free  of 
their  Sin,  yet  he  ufes  them  as  the  Tools  andlnftruments  of  his  Pro- 
vidence for  ferving  his  Purpofes  upon  me,  and  that  fucb  Things 
were  meafured  out  for  me  by  his  Decree.  It  was  upon  this  Confi- 
deration  that  Job  finned  not,  nor  charged  God  foolifhly,  not  with- 
Handing  the  Injuries  the  Sabeans  and  Caldeans  had  done  him.  It  was 
this  preserved  Jofeph  from  all  Refentment  againft  his  Brethren  for 
their  Barbarous  Uiage  of  him,  Te  thought  Evil  againfi  Me,  but  God 
meant  it  untoGooL  Gen.  L.  20.  It  was  upon  this  that  David  quieted 
his  Spirit,and  rvas  Dumb  not  opening  his  Mouth,  becaufe  the  Lord  had  done 
it  Pialm  XXXIX.  9.    And  what  God  doesm  Time  without  Sin,might 

he 


Sed.I.  Presbyterian  Faith.  '201 

he  not  from  all  Eternity  decree  without  Sin.  It  was  upon  this  Ar- 
gument that  our  BlefTed  Saviour  bore  the  Contradictions  and  Cru- 
elty of  Sinners  with  a  perfect  Compofure  of;  Spirit.  The  Cup  that  my 
Father  hath  given,  me  to  drink  (hall I  not  drink  it.  John  XVIII.  n. 
Nay,  even  a  Heathen  &?#^~prefcribes  the  belief  of  the  DoBrinc 
of  the  Decrees  to  his  Friend  as  a  Remedy  againft  all  ruffling 
of  Spirit  under  Injuries  and  Troubles.  '  LofTes,  faith  he  (*), 
4  Wounds,  Fears  are  come  upon  you ;  thefe  Things  are  ufual.  That's 
e  little,  thefe  Things  are  needfull,  they  are  Decreed  and  don't  come 
*  by  Chance.  I  hope  then  in  all  this  Dotlrine  there  is  nothing 
either /k//e  or  pernicious,  much  lefs  any  Thing  that  is  Fundamen- 
tally fo. 

In   the    Second  Place,    Mr.    Rhind  infills  againft  the  Presbyteri- 
an  Doctrine  of  Gods  Irrefpeclive  Decrees  relating  to 
Mankind  contain'd  in   their  Confeffion  of  Faith    Of  the  Decree  of 
Chap.  III.  viz.  That  God  has ,  by  his  Eternal  and  im-     Predefination. 
:  mutable  PurpoJe&  the  fecretCounfel  and  geodPlea. 
Jure  of  his  own  Will,  chojen  fome  to  everlafting  Life,  without  any  Fore  fight 
:  of  Faith  or  good  Works  or  Per  fever  ence  in  either  of  them.     And  that  he 
hath,  by  the  fame  Eternal  and  unchangable  Councel  of  his  own  Will,  paf- 
fed  by  yand  ordain*  d  others  to  Wrath  for  their  Sin.     '  This  Doctrine,  he 
'*  argues,  contradicts  the  Holinefs,  juftice  and  Truth  ofGod,iscon- 
f  trary  to  the  Defign  of  all  Revelation,  and  to  exprefs  Teftimonies 
;*  of  Scripture,  and  is  pernicioufly  influential  uponChriftian  Life. 

p.  122. 135.    'Tis  againft  my  Will  that  I  engage  inthismyfte- 

rious  Controverfy,  in  which  every  Man  ought  to  be  Wife  to  Sobri- 
ety. But,  I  hope,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  fugged  as  much,  as  will 
take  off  Mr.  Khindh  Objections,  without  going  beyond  my  Line. 
For  anfwer  then 

I.  It  is  abundantly  Strange  that  this  Doctrine  fhou'd  beoppofed 
by  fuch  as  have  read  the  Scripture  and  the  Epiftles  of  Paul,  who 
has  infifted  on  it  at  large  in  the  Eight  and  Ninth  Chapters  of  the 
Epiftleto  thQ  Romans-,  and  betides  has  frequently  afferted  it  here 
and  therein  particular  Hints  which  Mx.Rhwd  p.  132.  very  man- 

C  c  nerly 

[c]  Damna,  Vulnera,  Metus  incidcrunc;  folec  fieri.    Hoc  parum  eft,debuic  fieri.    Decerauncur  ifta, 

accidunr,  Senec.  Ep.   96, 


202  Defence  of  the  Cbap.  777. 

nerly  calls  difmembred  Shreds  ,as  if the  Apoftlehad  loft  his  Connexion 
always  when  he  touched  on  that  Doctrine.  But  what  can  Mr. 
Rhind  fay  to  thofe  many  Places  ofScripture,  which  he  cannot  but 
know  are  infifted  on  by  the  Presbyterians  in  Defence  of  that  Do- 
ctrine? Why,  he  has  rid  his  Hands  of  'em  by  onefeailefs  Stroke, 
boldly  pronouncing,  in  the  place  juft  now  cited,  That  the fe  are  the 
PafTages  bard  to  be  underftood  pointed  at  by  the  Apoftle  Peter ,IL  Ep. 
III.  \6,  which  fome  wr ell  to  their  own  Deft rutl ion.  But  who  told  him 
that  Peter  pointed  at  thefe  PafTages?  Did  any  Spirit  reveal  it  to 
him?  Do  the  Church  of  England  Doctors  teach  himfo?  Nofurely. 
Drs  Hammond  and  Whitby7\\\z  two  moft  famous  Expofitors  that 
have  yet  appeared,  aflert,  that  it  is  the  Doctrine  of  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  that  Peter  there  points  at,  and  notthe  Doctrine  ofPredeftina- 
tion,  or  any  Thing  near  it.  And,  if  Mr.  Rhind  had  confulted  the 
Greek  Original,  he  had  feen  that  Peter  did  not  referr  to  Paul's  E- 
piftles,  but  to  the  Subjects  he  had  been  treating  of,  when  heufed 
thefe  Words  In  which  there  are  fome  Things  hard  to  be  underftood. 

II.  Tis  very  true  the  Presbyterians  teach,  that  by  the  Decree  of 
God,  for  the  Manifestation  of  his  Glory,  fome  Men  are  Predeftinared 
unto  Everlafting  Life,  and  others  foreordained  to  Everlafting  Death  : 
And  there  does  indeed  lye  a  fhrewd  Objection  againftit  viz.  That 
it  is  not  in  the  Power  of  Man  to  prevent  his  own  Damnation,  if  he  has  been 
foreordained  to  it  :     But  then  (which  might  have  difcouraged  Mr. 
Rhind  to  bring  it  into  the  Field  again  J  the  Apoftle  Paul  both  forefaw 
it.  &  iiienced  it  Rom. IX.  14.  &c.  What  full  we  fay  then  ?  7*  there  Vn- 
right  eoufnefs  with  God  ?  God  forbid.  For  he  faith  to  Mofes,  I  will  have 
Mercy  on  whom  1  will  have  Mercy,  and  I  will  have  Compaffion  on  whom 
I  will  have  Qomfajfton.     So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth}  nor  of 
him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  fjjeweth  Mercy  —-Therefore  hath  he 
Mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  Mercy,  and  whom  he  will,  he  hardenelh.  Thou  ; 
wilt,  fay  then  unto  Me,  Why  doth  he  yet  ft nd  fault  I  '  For  who  hath  re- 
filled his  Will?.    Nay  but,  0  Man,    who  art  thou  that,  replye ft  again  ft 
God  ?     Here  is  a  full  AiTertion  and  fair  Vindication  of  the  Presbyterian 
Doctrine;  and  whatever  Objections  our  Minds  may   raife  againft . 
ir,  yet  there  is  no  one  Doctrine  more  clearly  ex  pre  (led  or  ftrongly 
aflerred  in  all  the  Scripture  than  thiso  .  And/  which  confirms  all, ., 
Ms  .beyond  all  Controverfyy  by  ObfeLvations  fromProvidejnce?  that  i 

God.i 


Se&#  I;  Presbyterian  Faith  20j? 

God  a£ls  with  an  Abfolute    Soveraignty  even  in    the    Difpen- 
fations     of    the     Means    of    Grace    in     Time,     which    is    a 
certain  Document  that  he  acled  the  fame  Way  in  His  Eternal  De- 
crees.   The  World  was  for  many  Ages  delivered  up  to  Idolatry ; 
and  fince  the  Chriftian  Religion  has  appeared,  we  fee  vaft  Tracls 
of  Countries  which   have  continued  ever  fince  in  Idolatry:    O- 
thers  are  fallen  under  Mahomet anifm  \    And  the  State  of  Cbriften- 
dorn  is  in  the  Rafter n  Parts  of  it  under  fo  much  Ignorance,  and  the 
greateft  Part  of  the  Weft  is  under  fo  much  Corruption,  that  We 
rnuii  confefs  the  far  greateft  Part  of  Mankind  has  been  in  all  Ages 
left  deftitute  of  the  Means  of  Grace,  and  great  Numbers  of  Men 
are  born  in  fuch  Circumftances,  that  it  is  morally  Impoflible  that 
they  fhould  not  perifh  in  them.     If  God  thus  leaves  whole  Nations 
in  fuch  Darknefs  and  Corruption,  and  freely  chufes  others  to  com- 
municate the  Knowledge  of  Himfelf  to  them,  then  We  need  not 
Wonder  that  he  holds  the  fame  Method  with  Individuals,  that  he 
doth  with  whole  Bodies :    For,  the  rejefting  of  whole  Nations  by 
the  Lump  for  fo  many  Ages,  is  more  hard  to  be  accounted  for  by 
us  than  the  fele£Hng  of  a  few,  and  the  leaving  others  in  that  State 
of  Ignorance  and  Brutality  *.  But  it  becomes  no  Man  to  quarrel 
with  God,  and  impeach  Him  on  His  other  Attributes,  becaufe  He 
will  exercife  His  Soveraignty,  when  we  are  both  affured  by  the 
facred     Oracles,    and   fee    it    with   our  Eyes  in  the  Courfe  of 
His  Providence,  that  His  Judgments  are  unfearchable  and  His  Ways 
gaft  finding   out. 

III.  There  lyes  no  Juft  Objection  from  this  Doctrine  againft  the 
Holinefs,  Juftice  or  Sincerity  of  God.  Fir  ft,  not  againft  His  Holi- 
nefs.  He  has  given  Men  Holy  Laws,  he  forces  none  to  tranfgrefs 
them.  'Tis  true  they  cannot  keep  them  without  his  Grace,  but 
is  God  a  Debtor  of  that  to  any  Man  ?  Who  has  fir  ft  given  unto 
Him,  and  it  (hall  be  recompenced  ?  Secondly,  Not  again  ft  his  Juftice: 
For  he  damns  no  Man  but  for  Sin,  nor  does  he  damn  one  repent- 
ing Sinner  and  fave  another ;  but  he  damns  all  Impenitents  and 
faves  all  Penitents  without  RefpeS  of  Perfons.  'Tis  true  he  gives 
Repentance  to  fome  which  he  denys  to  others ;  but  that  is  an  A& 
of  his  Grace,  upon  which  his  Juftice  can  no  more  be  quarrelled, 

C  c  2  than 


*  See  Bp.  Burnet  on  the  XXXIX.  Art.  p.  1/4. 


204  Defence  of  the  Chap.  1IL 

than  for  his  giving  the  Means  of  Grace  to  Chtitthns,  which  he  has 
denyed  to  Pagans.  Plainly,  he  created  our  firft  Parents  Perfect 
and  Upright,  he  gave  them  a  Power  to  (rand,  he  did  not  force  them 
to  fall ;  yet  he  permitted  them  to  do  fo  through  the  Freedom  of 
their  own  Will  to  which  they  were  left.  By  their  Fall  their  whole 
Pofterity  became  at  once  Guilty  and  Corrupt,  juft  as  a  Leprous 
Parent  begets  a  Leprous  Child,  and  a  Rebel  Father  forfeits  the  E- 
ftate,  not  only  for  bimfelf,  but  for  all  his  Pofterity  that  are,  by 
the  meer  Strength  of  Nature,  to  defcend  from  him,  unlefstheybe 
reftored  by  the  Prince's  Grace.  If  when  God  found  all  Mankind 
in  this  Condition,  and  from  all  Eternity  forefaw  that,  by  his  Per- 
midion,  they  would  throw  themfelves  into  it ;  Where  is  the  In- 
juftice  in  chufing  fome  of  them  as  Veffels  of  Mercy  ;  and  pafling 
by  others,  leaving  them  to  inherit  the  Choice  which  their  Firft 
Parents  or  themfelves  or  Both  had  made  for  them,  and  then  repro- 
bating them  to  Damnation  for  their  Sins  ?  Where  is  there  any 
Thing  of  Injuftice  in  all  this  ?  Nay,  Is  there  not  here  a  mod  Glo- 
rious Scene  opened,  wherein  at  once  Juftice  is  magnified,  and  Mer- 
cy gratified;  and  both  Love  and  Reverence  fecured  to  the  Divine 
Majefty  ?  And  it  is  upon  this  Confideration  that  We  find  the  A  po- 
lite fatisfftn^  the  Objection  which  formerly  we  heard  him  filence- 
in.g.  What  if  Gody  willing  to  fiew  bis  Wrath,  and  to  make  bis  Power 
known \  endured  with  much  Long- fuffering  the  Veffels  of  Wrath  fitted  to 
~Deflruffi~on\  And  that  he  might  make  known  the  Riches  of  his  Glory 
@n  the  Veffels  of  Mercy ,  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  Glory.  Rom. 
IX.  22.  23..  Thirdly,  Not  againft  his  Sincerity.  For^  why  may  not 
God  require  Obedience  from  the  Eleft,  when  his  very  Requiring 
it  is  one  of  the  Means  by  which  he  determines  them  to  it.  Why 
may  not  hz  threaten  them  with  Damnation  in  Cafe  of  Difobedience,- 
when  the  Tbreatningis  the  Mean  appointed  for  fcarring  them  from 
it.  .  Is  there  any  Thing  here  but  the  Ufe  of  a  moft  Rational  Mean 
for  com  pa  (Ting  a  moft;  Holy  End?  Is  it  any  Obje&ion  againft  Pro- 
vidence that  the  Sun  is  f offered  to  fhine  and  the  Rain  to  fall  orr 
the  Tares  as  well  as  the  Wheat  growing  togetherin  the  fame  Com- 
mon Field,  tho'  the  firft  are  to  be  burned,  the  latter  to  be  gathered 
into  the  Barn?  As  little  Objection  is  it  in  this  Cafe,  that -while  the 
Eleft  and  Reprobate  live  mixed  together  in  the  vifible  Church, 
tile, ,Ex Imtations  of -the  GofpeJ  are  directed?  and  the   Offers  of 

*  Life 


Se#  J;  Presbyterian  Faith.  b  o  5 

Life  and  Salvation  made  in  a  general  Stile.  And,  to  call  this 
Difftmulation  and  a  Cruel and  Difmgenuous  Procedure,  as  Mr.  Rhind 
does  p.  129,  when  it  is  fo  eafie  to  be  accounted  for  by  Reafon 
even  upon  the  Presbyterian  Hjpothefis%  was  the  moft  Prefumptu- 
ous  Blafphemy; 

IV.  The  faid  Presbyterian  Doctrine  is  no  way  contrary  to  the 
Defign  of  Revelation,  nor  to  any  one  Teftimony  of  Scripture. 
Firft,  it  is  no  way  contrary  to  the  Defign  of  Revelation  :  And 
Mr.  Rhind\  Medium,  for  proving  that  it  is,  difcovers  either  a 
moft  virions  Mind,  or  a  moft  Prodigious  Ignorance  of  the  Con- 
troverfy.  '  According  to  this  Doctrine,/^/?  He^  p,  1 30,  our  Faith 
4  and  Obedience  cannot  make  our  cafe  better  nor  Woife;  it  be- 
*  iog  unalterably  fixed  by  a  Prior  Wi\\,lYithout  Regard  to  either. 
Was  it.  Malice  or  Miftake  made  him  talk  at  this  Rate?  Does 
not  the  Apoftle  teach "■*  that  God  has  chofen  us  to  Salvation  through 
SancJification  of  the  Spirit  and  Belief  of  the  Truth  f  ■  Did  ever  any 
Presbyterian  teach  otherwife?  Do  they  ever  feparate  'twixt  the 
End  and  the  Means?  Don't  they  constantly  affirm  that  Holinefs 
and  Happinefs,  Sin  and  Mifery  are  linked  together,  as  in  the  Na- 
ture of  the  Thing,  fo  alfo  in  the  Decree  of  God  ?  To'affert  then, 
that  the  Do^rine  of  the  Decrees  fuppofeth  God  to  admit  to  Hea- 
ven, and  difpatch  to  Hell  without  Rvfpcl  either  to  Faith  and  O- 
bedience  on  the  one  Hand,  or  Infidelity  and  Impenitence  on  the 
other,  was  to  bid  a  Defiance  both  to  Modefty  and  Truth.  Se~ 
condlj,  It  is  not  contrary  to  any  Teftimony  of  Scripture.  Mr. 
Rhind  inftances  two;  The  -fir ft  is  1  Tim.  II.  4.  That  God  wou'd 
have  ail  Men  to  be  faved.  But,  were  that  to  be  underftood  of 
God's  Secret  Will,  pray  how  cou'd  any  Man  be  loft  ;  For  who  hath 
refijhd  his  Will  ?  The  Councel  of  the  Lord  fiandtth  fafy  and  the  Thoughts 
of  his  Heart  to  all  Generations  f.'The  meaning  of  the  Pkce  then  is  ob= 
vipus  viz.  That  we  (hould  pray  for  Kings  and  all  that  are  in  Au- 
thority as  well  zs  for  others,  becaufe  there  is  no  rank  or  Order  of 
Men  whofe  Faith  and  Obedience  he  will  not  accept  of,  and  upon  it 
favethem  at  the  laft ;  In  Token  whereof  he  has  given  them  his  re*' 
sealed  Will  which  commands  all 'Man  every  where  to  repent1;  And  'tis 
With  refpeft  to  this,  that  he  is  faid  to  will  that  they  .fhould  beftved, 

and 


*  ft  Theli;  II.  13.'  y      i  RomMX. \$.  -Pi". ■XXXIII.  ■«. 


2o6  Defence  of  the  Chap,  7/7 

and  not  with  refpeft  to  any  uncertain  hovering  Purpofe  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  Creature,  which  is  a  Thing  inconfiftent  with  the 
Perfection  of  his  Nature.  The  other  Scripture  is  Mark  XVI.  16. 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  (ball  be  faved,  but  be  that  believeth 
not  fiallbe  damned.  l  Which,  faith  he,  plainly  fuppofeth,  that  a  Man 
c  may  or  may  not  believe.  But  this  is  manifeftly  falfe.  The  De- 
fign  of  the  Text  is  not  to  Chew  what  Man  may  or  may  not  do,  but 
toexprefsthe  Connexion  there  is  'twixt  Faith  and  Salvation,  Infide- 
lity and  Damnation.  Faith  is  not  of  the  Growth  of  our  own  Na- 
ture or  WilljbmistheEfFeclofthe  Operation  of  the  Sprit  ofGod;and 
to  deny  this,  as  Mr.  Rhind  does  all  along,  is  quite  tofubvert  the  Gof- 
pel.  Tothefe  two  Sciptures  he  adds  p.  131  an  Argument  which 
is  this.  '  All  to  whom  the  Gofpel  is  preached  are  obliged  to  be- 
'  lieve  that  Chrift  is  their  Saviour  and  died  for  them.     But  none 

*  can  be  bound  to  believe  a  Lie,  therefore  Chrift  moft  certainly 
1  died  for  all  to  whom  the  Gofpel  is  revealed*,  and  if  fo,  then  the 
'  Doclrine,  which  aflerts  the  Salvability  only  of  a  (elect  Few,isdemon- 

*  ftrativly  falfe.  But  this  Argument  ftands  on  a  lame  Foot.  Afl, 
to  whom  the  Gofpel  is  preached,  are  indeed  obliged  to  believe  in 
the  general,  that  Chrift  died  for,  and  is  the  Saviour  of  all  that  be- 
lieve; and  from  thence,  if  they  ('with  the  joint  Teftimony  of  God's 
Spirit  )  are  confcious  to  themfelves,  that  they  do  believe  with  fuch 
a  Faith  as  is  necefTary  to  Salvation  ;  They  may  confidently  inferr 
that  Chrift  died  for  them  and  is  their  Saviour ;  but  to  believe  that 
Chrift  died  for  me  in  particular,  while  I  make  no  Confcience  of 
anfwering  the  Terms  of  the  Gofpel,  is  to  believe  without  both 
Warrant  and  Evidence.  The  Foundation  then  of  his  Argument 
being  falfe,  the  whole  Frame  of  it  muft  needs  fall  to  the  Ground. 

V.  I  add  that  this  Doctrine  has  no  pernicious  Influence  on  the 
Chriftian  Life,  when  it  is  improved  as  it  ought  to  be.  Mr.  Rhind 
exprefly  aliens,  p.  132,  that  it  has,  as  running  People  into  the  moft 
■finfull  Security,  or  into  the  height  of  De/pair,  beyond  the  Capacity 
of  a  Calvin ijl  Cafuift  to  give  Check  to  either.  But,  in  Opposition 
to  Mr.  Rhind,  J  affirm  with  the  Church  of  England,  in  her  XVII. 
Article,  '  That  tho'  for  Curious  and  Carnal  Perfons,  lacking  the 
c  Spirit  of  Chrift,  to  have  continually  before  their  Eyes  the  Sentence 
I  of  God's  Predeftination,  is  a  moft  Dangerous  Dounfall,  whereby 

the 


L  Presbyterian  Faith.  207" 

*  the  Devil  doth  thru  ft  them  either  into  Defperation,  or  into  wretch-  * 

*  lefnefs  of  moft  unclean  Living,  no  lefs  perillous  than  Defperation. 
i  Yet  the  Godly  confideration  of  Predeftination  and  our  Election  in 

*  Chrift  is  full  of  Sweet,  Pleafant,  and  unfpeakable  Comfort  to  God- 

*  ly  Perfons,and  fuch  as  feel  iathemfelves  the  Working  of  the 
c  Spirit  of  Chrift, mortifying  the  Works  of  the  Flefh,  and  their  Earth- - 
fi  ly  Members,  and  drawing  up  their  Mind 'to  High  and  Heavenly 
*'  Things, as  well,  becaufe  it  doth  greatly  eftablifh  and  confirm  their 
''Faith' of  Eternal  Salvation  to  be  enjoyed  through  Chrift,  as  be- 

'  caufe  it  doth  fervently  kindle   their  Love  towards  God,     Thus 
far  the  Church  of  England.    Befides,  'tis  plain  from  the  Nature  of 
the  Thing,  that  the  faid  Doctrine  teaches  one  to   think  meanly  of 
himfelf,  and  to  afcribe  the  Honour  of  all  to  God : ;  Which  lays  in 
him  a  deep  Foundation  for  Humility ;  and  that  it  inclines  tofecret 
Prayer,  and  to  a  fixed  Dependance  on  God ;  -which  naturally  both 
brings  his  Mind  to  a  good  State,  and  fixes  it  in  it  (  v  J.     And, which 
confirms  all, -we  fee  in  ¥0.  that  thefe  that  believe  that  Doctrine, 
are  generally  ferious  and  concerned  about  their  Soul,  fo  that  the 
Goodnefs  of  their  Heart  is  an  Argument  of  the  Rightnefs  of  their' 
Head,    I  don't  know  if  as  much  can  be  faid  of  fuch  as  go  on  the  : 
contrary  Syftem.    Sure  I  am,  they  are  under  flirewd  Tentations  to  » 
procraftinate  the  Work  of  their  Souls:  For  when  the  Scripture  tells 
one,  that  all  that  believe  and  repent  (at  what  Time  foe  ver  it  be) 
ilia  1 1  befaved  ;  And  Mr.  Rhind  tells  him,  that  he  may  repent  and  ■ 
believe  when  he  will,  that  he  has  it  in  his  own  Power  to  do  fo, . 
without  the  Adiftance  or"  any  uncommon  Grace  •  if  the  Man  believe  ' 
both  thefe  : ;  I  ■  mean,  both  the  Scriptures  and  Mr.  RtoiVDo&rine; ; 
I  referrit  to  any  one  to  fay,  whether  in  that  Cafe,  Curruption  will ; 
not  incline  him  to  take  his  Swing  in  Sin,  in  hopesthat  he  may  have 
a  quiet  Hour  at  Death  to  difpatch  all  his  Buikefs.  •  But  enough  ; 
of  this., 

In    the  Third    Place,   the  -  next  Presbyterian   DoSrine  which » 
Mr.  Rbiud  attaques  is  that  concerning  the  Efficacy' 
of  Grace.  .  They  leach,  faith  he  p.   i  <>  $,  that  God,  to     Of  thG-Efficacy  t 
attain  >his ; Eternal rurfoje,  does  by_an  irrefiftible -Force     of  Graces- 
work  ■ 


L  T  -1  ,B£-  Buraec  .ubi  fupig.  p. ,  16C, « . 


208  Defence  of  the  Chap,  III. 

work     Grace     in      the     Elect,     and     at     the     fame     Time      denys 
it    to   the  Reprobate.     This  is   horridly  Falfe  :    For  they  exprefly 
difown  all  Force  Refiftible  or  Irrefiliible  in  the  Operation  ot Grace; 
and  teach  (.v),  that  tho'  the  Elecl  are  effectually  drawn  toChrifr, 
yet  itisfo,as  that  they  come  mod  freely,   being  made  willing  by  his 
Grace.     And  is  it  not  very  eafy  to  conceive  how  there  may  be  £/- 
ficacy,  yea  and  infuperable  Efficacy  too    (  which  the  Presbyterians 
own  in  this  Cafe)  without  the  leaft  Force  ?    Is  it  not  plain,that  the 
greater  Evidence  there  is  for  any  Truth,  and  the  ftronger  Motives 
there  are  to  any  Duty,  the  more  Pleafurethe  Soul  feels,  and  confe- 
quently  the  greater  Freedom  it  exercifes,  in  aflenting  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/w,  the  Native 
Evidenceof  the  Propofition  commands  my  Affent.  But  is  there  there- 
fore any  Force  ofTeredto  my  Underftanding?  Is  it  not  very  pojjible  for 
the  Spirit  of  God  to  fet  Home  the  fenfe  of  my  Danger  through  fin  u- 
pon  My  Confcience  fo  powerfully,  that  I  fhall  be  neceffarly,  tho' 
without  the  leaft  Force,  determin'd  to  fall  in  with  the  Overtures  of  the 
Gofpel  in  order  to  my  Salvation?     And  is  it  not  neeAfulltYnx.  the  Spirit 
of  God  do  aft  thus;  confidering  how  deeply  we  areimrnerfed  in  Cor- 
ruption, blind  to  Duty,  dead  in  Trefpaps  and  Sins,  who  cannot  of  our 
J elves  fo  much  as  think  on  good  Thought  i     And  does  not  the  fcripture  a- 
iTure  us  that  the  Spirit  of  God  does  act  thus;  that  He  works  in  us  both  to 
•will  and  to  do\  that  His  People  fhall  be  willing  in  the  Day  of  His  Power; 
that  He  puts  His  Spirit  within  us,  and  caufes  us  to  walk  in  His  Statutes? 
But  Mr.  Rhind  cannot  away  with  this  Do&rine,  it  is  with  him  oppofite 
to  Truth,  and  Dejlruffive  ofChrifiian  Life. 

Firfi,  faith  He  p.  135.  f  it  is  oppofite  to  Truth.  For  how  can  I  be 
1  reafonably  commanded  to  believe  and  repent,  who  am  fuppofed  to 
*  have  no  ftrength  to  do  either?  How  cou'd  Chrift  reafonably  bid  La* 
zarus,  Come  forth-,  or  the  Lame  Man,X^  up  thy  bed  and  walk,  when 
the  one  was  Dead,  t'other  an  abfolute  Criple  ?  Has  Mr.  Rhind 
with  Presbytry  renounced  the  Gofpel  too  ?  Does  he  believe  there 
is  never  any  fecret  Efficay  attends  the  Difpenfation  thereof?  But, 
2dds  he,  '  How  can  that  in  Propriety  of  Speech  be  called  my  Act, 
I  which  was  never  elicited  by  rae?  Very  Strong  1  Becaufe  another 

raifed 


l*  2  ConfefT.  of  FaichChap.  X.  Sefl.  i, 


Se&  /.  Presbyterian  Faith.  209 

raifed  me  up,  therefore  my  (landing  or  walking  is  not  my  Act! 
Becaufe,  when  I  was  lying  Dead  in  Sin,  the  Spirit  of  God  quicken- 
ed me  to  repent  and  believe;  therefore,  repenting  and  believing, 
when  lam  quickened,  is  not  my  Aft/  Becaufe  Chrift  draws  me, 
therefore  it  is  not  /that  run,  notwithstanding  he  has  made  me  wil- 
ling to  it/  Was  this  to  Argue? 

Secondly.  '  It  is,  faith  hep.  136,  deftruftiveof  Chriftian  Life, in 
*  that  it  excufes  the  greater!;  Villanies  under  Pretence  of  exalting 
*.  the  free  Grace  of  God,  and  difcourages  all  the  good  Endeavours 
c  thatfhould  be  ufed.  To  make  this  go@d,  he  introduces  a  Cahi- 
niH  Teacher  endeavouring  (  but  without  Poffibility  of  Succefs  ) 
to  reclaim  a  Debauch}  of  the  Party.  Mr.  Rhind  has  a£ted  the  De- 
^^furnifhing  him  with  Arguments, formed,as  he  imagines, upon 
the  Presbyterian  Hypothefis.  I  fhall  crave  leave  to  aft  the  Calvinitt 
Teacher  ;  and  dare  promife,  tho'  not  aclually  to  convert  the  Debau- 
che,  that  is  God's  Work,  yet  to  fatisfie  his  Objeclions  even  by  the 
^Presbyterian  Scheme  of  Principles.    The  Dialogue  then  (lands  thus. 


Dialogue  between  a  Calvinift  Teacher,  and  a  De- 
bauche  of  the  Party. 

CAlv,  Sir,  I  find  you  ftill  going  on  in  a  Courfe  of  Debauchery ; 
I  have  often  told  you  before,  and  now  tell  you  once  more, 
that  unlefs  you  reform  you'll  go  to  Hell. 

Deb.  Alas,Sir,you  know,  that!  cannot  effe&ually  reform  without 
irrefiftible  Grace,  and  I  am  not  to  blame  that  I  am  not  yet  Pafiive 
of  it.  p.  136. 

Calv.  What,  Sir !  cannot  you  give  over  your  Debaucheries,  your 
Drinking,  Curfing,  Swearing,  Whoreing,  Gameing,  without  irre- 
fiftible Grace?  Did  I  ever  teach  you  fo?  Have  not  I  alwaystold 
you,  that  a  Man  may  reform  thefe  Vices  without  Special  Grace  ? 
How  can  you  fay,  that  you  are  not  to  blame  that  you  have  not  yet 
been  Pafiive  of  Grace  ?  Have  you  ufed  the  Means,  cultivate  your 
Natural  Faculties,  improved  your  Reafon :f    When  you  have  not 

D  d  been 


2io  Defence  of  the  Chap,  113 

been  faithfull  in  that  which  islefs,  why  fhould  God  commit  to  vcur 
Truft  that  which  is  more?  Are  not  you  then  to  blame?  That 
which  God  has  already  givenyou  was  fufficient  whereupon  to  have 
either  prevented  or  broken  off  a  Courfe  of  Debauchery,  nay,  as  I 
have  often  toM  you  before,  you  might  have  gone,  upon  the  meer 
Strength  of  Nature,  as  far  as  ever  a  Plato  or  Seneca  went. 

Dtb.  True,  Sir.  But  even  then  my.beft  Actions,  without  this 
Grace,  wou'd  be  but  (a  many  Splendid  Sins.  p.  137. 

Calv.  Right.  But  is  it  not  better  that  you  fhould  be  guilty  on- 
ly of  thefe  Splendid  Sins;  that  is,  Actions  which,  tho'  not  fully 
acceptable  with  God  through  want  of  a  right  Principle  and  Chri- 
flian  Motive  ;  yet  have  not  only  the  Colour,  but  Matter  too,  of 
Virtus;  and  make  one  that  he  is  not  far  from  the  KJngdom  of  God\ 
were  not  this  better,  I  fay,  than  that  you  fhould  f will  (as  you  do) 
in  Vice  and  Senfuality ;  and  make  your  felf  the  Reproach  of  Hu- 
mane Nature,  and  the  Scandal  of  the  Town? 

Deb.  But,  Sir,  the  Reformation  which  you  preach  can  he  of  no 
Advantage  to  my  Soul  without  Grace ;  and  ieeing  this  Grace  is  nor 
in  my  Power,  I  hope  you  will,  and  it  is  but  renfonable  you  fhou'd,. 
allow  me  to  gratife  the  Body,  feeing  the  contrary  cannot  in  theleaft 
advance  the  Incereft  of  my  SouL    ibid. 

Calv.  What  do  I  hear.'  Wou'd  fuch  a  Reformation  be  of  no 
'Advantage  to  your  Soufi  Not  in  the  leafl  advance  the  Intereft  there- 
of? Where  did  you  learn  fuch  Divinity  ?  Are  there  no  Degrees 
in  Guilt?  And  is  it  not  a  huge  Advantage  to  want  the  leaft  De- 
gree thereof;  feeing  your  Punifbment  in  Hell  muft  rife  in  Propor- 
tion thereto,  in  Cafe  you  repent  not ;  Or  the  Stingings  and  Remorfe 
of  your  Confcience  here,  even  fuppofe  you  do  ?  And  is  the  unfin- 
cere  and  tranOtory  Pleafure  of  Sin  to  be  laid  in  the  Ballance  with 
either  of  thefe,  even  in  Point  of  plain  Reafon  ?  But,  abftracling 
from  the  Advantage  fuch  a  Reformation  wou'd  be  of  to  the  Soul, , 
is  it  reafonable  I  fhou'd  allow  you  to  gratife  the  Body  with  Vice? 
Vice  I  fay,  whofe  Pleafures  are  hojlow  in  the  prelent  Enjoyment,  . 
and  willat  long  run  ruin  your  IW;,and  all  your  temporal  Intereft.* 
When  even  that  Virtue^  which  you  may  attaint©  by  Strength  of 
Reafon,  carries  its  own  Reward  in  its  Bofom  ;  and  recommends  -. 
it  felf  both. by  the  much  more  manly  Pleafures  which  attend  its  Ex- 

ercifoe 


■Setit.Ii  Presbyterian  Faith:  aii 

ercife,  and  the  folid  Advantages  that  follow  upon  it  even  in  this  Life. 
Don't  you  fee  the  Dr  unkard  fox  thzmoft.  part  reduced  to  Poverty, 
while  the  Sober  Man  by  good  Manadgmerit  and  induftrious  Frugali- 
ty enjoys  a  comfortable  Competency  ?  Have  not  you  obferved  the 
firft  feized  with  burning  Fevers?  or  furprized  with  afudden  Death, 
drowning  in  his  own  Vomit;  while  the  other  has  enjoyed  a  health- 
full  and  vigorous  Age?  Did  you  never  fee  the  Ruins  oSLuft  in 
the  old  Adulterer^  his  weak  Limbs,  and  meagre  Carcafe,  and  his 
Body  as  loathfome  as  his  Name?  Have  you  not  obferved  what 
Confufion,  Jealoufies,  Difcords  and  Mifunderftandings  inch  leud 
Perfons  have  begot  both  in  their  own  and  their  Neighbour's 
Family  ?  Has  not  this  one  Sin  ruined  fome  of  the  greatsft 
Families,  and  left  the  faireft  Eftates  without  Heirs  f  While  on  the 
other  Hand  the  chaft  and  continent  Perfon  has  retained  a  healthfull 
Body,  afavoury  Name,  and  left  a  numerous  Pofterity  behind  him. 
So  that,  upon  the  whole,  your  reforming  from  your  open  Debauch- 
eriesls  in  your  Power  by  the  Strength  of  Nature  :  And  is  the  moft 
preferable  Courfe  in  Point  of  Reafon. 

Deb.  But  I  am  uncertain  whether  I  be  one  of  the  Elect  or  Re- 
probate. Ibid. 

Cah.  No  wonder  truly ;  feeing  you  ftill  continue  in  your  De- 
baucheries: FoVitheSanffificationofthe  Spirited  the  Belief  of  the  Truth 
are  both  the  Fruits  and  Evidences  of  Election*,  of  which  no  Man 
can  poffibly  be  certain  without  them ;  nor,  in  an  ordinary  Way, 
but  by  them. 

Deb.  But  my  Practice  depends  upon  my  Knowledge  of  this.  For 
if  I  be  one  of  the  EletJy  I  will  fometime,  were  it  only  at  the  Hour 
of  Death,be  determined  by  this  Grace,  and  fo  will  certainly  be  faved, 
notwithstanding  the  Leudnefs  of  my  bygone  Life;  and  if  I  be  not, 
why  fhould  I  abftain  from  Sin,  when  an  Abftinence,  without  Grace, 
can  be  of  no  ufe  to  me?  And  this^Grace  I  cannot  command:  And  if 
I  be  none  of  the  Elect,  I  am  not  to  expect  it:  Therefore,  feeing  I 
am  to  forfeit  the  Joys  of  Heaven,  which  is  my  Miffortune  not  my 
Fault,  you  muft  excufe  me  if  I  do  not  lofe  the  Pleafures  of  Sin, 
which  I  may  fo  freely  enjoy  ?  Ibid. 

Calv.  Pray  Sir,  does  either  Reafon  or  Scripture  dictate  fuch  a 
Conduct  to  you?  Or  are  thefe  rational  Inferences  from  the  Do- 

D  d  2  ctrines 


212  Defence  of  the  Gbap.  ///• 

Orines  of  Election  and  Grace  which  you  have  been  taught?  Is  it  not 
neceffary  in  all  Sciences  to  begin  at  what  is  moft  eafie  and  obvious, 
and  thence  to  come  to  the  Knowledgand  Certainty  of  what  is  more 
difficult  ?    Are  you  not  fenfible  that     (  befides  all  the  other  Flaws 
in  your  Reafoning,  fuchas,  the  njelifjnefs  of  an  Abftinence  from  Sin, 
which  I  have  already  difcourfed  )  you  begin  at  the  wrong  End? 
Whether  you  are  of  the  Elect  or  not  is  a  fecret  with  God;  not  o* 
therwife  K)  be  difcovered  by  you,  but  by  the  Fruit  of  it,  I  mean, 
Holinefs  in  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  againft  you:  And  if  you 
attain  to  it,  you  may  then  moft  certainly  inferr  from  it  both  your 
Election  and  Salvation.  But  you  will  needs  invert  God's  Order,  you 
muft  needs  fir  (I  know  his  J  ecret  Will,  before  you  apply  your  felf 
to  obey  his  revealed  Will;     whereas  he   has  enjoined  you   to  o- 
bey  his  revealed  Will ;  and  thence  to  gather  his  /ecret  Will  concer- 
ning your  felf.     For  fhame,  Sir,  make  better  ufe  of  your'R'eafon. 
Apply  your  felf  to  your  Duty  which°you  are  fure  you  ought  todo; 
and  don'c  expecl  to  be  faved  in  the  Neglect  of  it  upon  the  Account 
of  your  Eleclion;  when  God  has  exprefly  faid  that  he-has  chofen  us 
that  wefuouldbe  Holji     Neither  be<iifcouragedfrom  it  with  the  A- 
prehenfion  of  your  Reprobation ;  feeing  you  own  your  felf  to  be  un- 
certain  of  it:     For  who   would   baulk  certain  Duty  for  uncertain 
Danger?  No. rational  Man. would  reafon  fo  weakly  about  histenr- 
porai  Affairs.  . 

"  Deb.  But,  Sir,  whether  I  be  of  the  Elect  or  Reprobate,  there  is 
no  doing  of  my  Duty,  fhould  I  never  fo  much  endeavour  it  with- 
out Grace;  and  therefore  whether  I  will  or  not,  I  muft  continue  as 
1  am  untill  it-  fhali  pleafe  God  to  determine  me  by  his  irrefiltible 
Fovver.     Ibid. .. 

Gah.  How  Sir!  May  not  ye  do  more  than  ye  do?  Have  not  I 
fhewn  you  how  far  you  may  go  upon  Strength  of  Nature  or  com- 
mon Grace?  What  necellity  then  are  you  under  to  continue  as pn 
are  ?  Befides,  if  together  with  other  Means  you  wou'd  pray  to  God 
lor  effectual  Grace,  you  fhou'd  certainly  obtain  it ;  if  you  do  not,  you 
are  mexculablei 

Dtki  Oh,  Sir,  what  an  idle  Exhortation  is  that?  For,  tell  mc  I 

befeech : 


Sed;  I  Presbyterian  Faith  213 

befeech  you,  is  it  not  the  Prayer  of  Faith  which  only  prevaileth 
with  God  ?     Ibid. 

Calv.  Right.     It  is  fo. 

Deb.  And  is  not  Faith  the  Effect  of  his  irrefi/lible  Grace?    Ibid. 

Calv,  True.  Of  his  infuprable  Grace  it]  is:  For,  as  for  thefe 
Terms  of  Refiftible  and  Inejiftible,  they  were  firll  contrived  or  oc- 
cafioned  by  the  At 'mini ans  in  this  Controverfy. 

Deb.  Well  then,  if  my  Prayer  be  acceptable,  I  have  this  Grace,and 
it  is  needlefs  to  pray  for  what  I  have  already,  p.  138. 

Calv.  That's  a falfe  Inference:  For  Faith  arid  every  other  Grace 
is  both  prefer  ved  and  increafed  by  Prayer  and  other  Means  to  be  ufed 
by  us;  tho'  it  is  indeed  needlefs  to  pray  for  t\\$  firH  Gift  of  Faith, 
after  I  am  fare  that  I  have  it,  which,  I  fuppofe  you  are  not. 

Deb.  Well  then,  if  my  Prayer  be  not  acceptable,  why  fhould 
I  pray  for  what  I  am  not  to  obtain?     Ibid: 

Calv.  Poor  Sophiliry.  God  'commands'  you  to  pray,  arid  that 
'Command  makes  it  your  Duty:  And  it  is  while  People  are  in  the 
way  of  their  Duty  that  God  ordinarly  comes  with  his/^  Grace ; 
whereas  the  Neglect  of  it  renders  them  certainly  inexcufable.  Up 
'then  and  be  doing!  Break  off  your  Courfe  of  Debauchery  which 
you  are  under  no  other  Neceflity  of  continuing  in,  but  what  the 
Habit  of  u  has  brought  upoti  you ;  and  ply  Prayer  with  all  your 
Might,  which  you  fee  you  are  obliged  to  do  by  virtue  of  God's 
Authority.  And  affure  your  felf  that  God  will  not  condemn  you 
for  what  you  cannot,  but  for  what  you  will  not  do.  Obferve  thefe 
Things. I  fay,  and  I  hope  fhortly  to  have  a  good  Account  of  you. 
AfldT  heartily  pray  God  it  may  be  fo.     Adieu ' 

Thus  I  have  allowed  the  Debauche  to  argue  with 'all  the  Strength 
Mr.  Rhind  cou'd  furnifh  him  with  from  the  Presbyterian  Scheme.  And 
.  upon  the  fame  Scheme  I  have  anfvvered  him  :  And  I  refer'r  it  to 
the  Reader  whether,  if  Corruption  don'c  prevail  over  Principle, 
the  Debauch?  is  not  obliged  even  by  the  Presbyterian  Principles  to 
mend  his  former  Ieud  Life,  and  in  a  hopefull  Way  to  make  a 
good  Chriftian  ( if  he  will  be  true  to  his  principles)  in  Spite  of 
ail -his  -.Objections.- ■<■■  Therefore,' which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved, 

the 


2 14  Defence  of  the  Chap.  177 

the  Presbyterian  Do&rine  concerning  the  Efficacy  of  Grace  is  not 
Deftruclive  of  Chriftian  Life.  And  I  have  taken  this  Pains,  and 
been  fo  large  on  this  Subject ;  that  I  might  convince  all  Debauches 
on  the  Presbyterian  Side,  who  yet  I  hope  are  not  more  numerous 
than  thefe  on  the  other,  that  their  Leudnefs  is  not  owing  to  their 
Principles,  but  to  their  own  vitious  Inclinations:  And  I  pray  God 
may  blefs  what  I  have  advanced  for  the  reclaiming  them. 

In  the  fourth  Place.    The  laft  Presbyterian  DoQrine  which  Mr. 

Rhind  impugns  is  that  of  Per  fever  awe,  that  the 

Of  the  Doclrine    Saints  cannot  fall  away  totally  nor  finally  from 

of    P  erf  ever  ance.     the  Eftate  of  Grace,  but  (hall  certainly  perfevere 

therein  to  the  End,  and  will  be  Eternally  faved. 

Now,  too  fad  Experience  teaches,  that  even  the  faints  may 
through  the  Temptations  of  Satan,  and  the  World,  the  Frevalency 
of  Corruption  remaining  in  them,  and  the  Neglect  of  the  Means 
of  their  Prefer  vation,  fall  into  grievous  Sins:  And  for  a  Time  con- 
tinue therein ;  whereby  they  incur  God's  Difpleafure,  and  grieve 
his  Holy  Spirit,  come  to  be  deprived  of  iome  Meafure  of  their 
Graces  and  Comforts,  have  their  hearts  hardened,  and  their  Con- 
fciences  wounded,  hurt  and  fcandalize  others,  and  bring  temporal 
Judgments  upon  themfelves.  All  this  the  Presbyterians  acknow- 
ledg  (jy).  But  that  they  fhou'd  totally  and  finally  fall  away,  the 
Immutability  of  the  Decree  of  Election  flowing  from  the  free  and 
Unchangeable  Love  of  God  the  Father  ;  the  Efficacy  of  ther[ Merit 
and  Interceflion  of  Jefus  Chrift ;  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit  and  of 
the  Seed  of  God  within  them  ;  and  the  Nature  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  will  not  fuffer  us  to  believe. 

But  Mr.  Rhind  is  of  a  contrary  Mind,  and  endeavours  to  dif- 
prove  this  Do&rine  from  four  Arguments.     P.  1 38-— 148. 

I.  The  Exhortations  to  Perfeverance,  faith  he,  the  Encouragments 
fromifed  upon  ity  and  the  fevere  Threatnings  in  cafe  of  Jpofiacy  do  e- 
vidently  Juppofe  the  Poffibility  of  a  Fall.  I  deny  it,  they  are  only 
Means  appointed  by  God  for  their  Perfeverance ;  and  do  in  their 
own  Nature  contribute  to  that  End.  That  cannot  be,  faith  Mr. 
Rhind :    For  that  were  to  contradict  the  Confeflion  of  Faith  which  faies 

That 


r  y  2  ConfelT.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XVII.  Sc&.  3. 


Se&  IV  Presbyterian  Faith;  5i5 

That  the  Per  fever  ance  of  the  Saints  does  not  depend  upon  their  own- 
Free  Will.  Strongly  argued  /Their  Perfeverance  does  not  depend 
upon  their  own  Free  Will,  Ergo  Exhortations,  Encoutagments  and 
Threatnings  cannot  contribute  to  determine  and  fix  their  Will! 
Our  daily  Bread  comes  from  God,  Ergo  He  cannot  require  our 
daily  Labour  for  gaining  it  1  God  has  infallibly  promifed  that  the 
Saints  ffial]  perfevere  ;  Ergo  he  muft  not  ufe  rational  Means  to  make 
them  do  fo/  Mr*  Rhtnd  it  feems  muft  be  incurably  gone  in  the 
Logicks. 

II.  He  argues  from  a  Text  of  Scripture  viz.  Heb.  VI.  5.  6.    It 
is  impoffible  for  thofe  who  were  once  enlightned,  and  hiXve  tafied  of  the 
Heavenly  Gift,  and  were  made  Partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghofi,    and  of 
the  Powers  of  the  World  to  come,  if  they  fh all  fall  away,  to  renew  them 
again  unto  Repentance.     Q  Thefe,  He  alledges   p.  140,  are  Epithets s 
s  fo  peculiar  to  the  truly  Faithfull,   that  he  challenges  us  to  {hew 
'  where  any  of  them,  much  tefs  all  together,  are  applyed  to  any 
6  other  in  the  Scriptures,  and  yet  fuch  might  fall  away.    A  fair  * 
Challenge.    But  then  very  unhappily,  there  is  noione  of  thefe  E- 
pithets  peculiar  to  the  truly  Faithfull.     Not  one  of  them  but  what  * 
is  found  to  be  applyed  to  Wicked  Men  or  Hypocrites ;  yeafome-- 
limes  they  are  all  applyed  together  to  fuch.    Plainly  the  Meaning 
of  the  Text  is,  that  fuch  as  have  been  convinced  of  the  Truth  of 
the  Chriftian  Religion,  and  have  made  publick  Profeflion  thereof 
by  Baptifm;  both  which  are  included  in  the  Term  Enlightened*  ; 
and  thereupon  have  tafied  of ^  the Heavenly  Gift,  that  is,  have  no£t 
only  been  affe&ed  with  a  temporary  Joy,  as  People  naturally  are 
upon  Changes;  but  alfo,  which  was  very  frequent  in  the  Apo- 
ftolick  Times,  have  been  blelled  with  the  extraordinary  Charifma-- 
ta,  Miracles,  Tongues,  Gifts  of  Healing  and  the  like,  exprefied  in « 
the  Text  by  being  made  Partakers  of  the  Hoi)  Ghott,  and  of  the  Powd- 
ers of  the  World  to  come  ;  if,  faith  the  Apoftle,  fuch  Perfons  tht-spri-* 
viiedged  (hall  afterwards  apoftatize  to  Pagamfm,  their  Apoftacy  fo  ' 
hardens  them,  and  lays  waft  their  Confcience  in  fo  dreadfulla  Man-  * 
ner,  that  it  is  impoffible  for  them  to  return  again  by  Repentance; ; 
nor  ought  they,  as  fame  fay, »  be  readmitted   to  the  Peace  of  the- 
Church.    This  is  the  Senfe  of  the  Text;  but  where  is'  there  any 
Tiling  here  feculiantojthb  truly  faithfully  any:Thing^which!  notori-  - 
'-—--  oafly/ 


q  1 6  Defence  of  the  Chap!  III. 

oufly  wicked  Men  or  Hypocrites  have  not  been  priviledged  with? 
Balaam  was  enlightned,  be  was  the  man  whrfe  Eyes  were  open,  and  who 
had  a  Vifion  of  the  Almighty.  Numb.  XXIV.  3.  4.  Simon  Magus 
believed  and  was  Baptized  Acls  VIII.  13.  The  ftony-ground-Hear- 
ers  received  the  Word  with  Joy,  and  yet  they  had  no  Root  in  themfelves, 
and  therefore  dared  bat  for  a  while  Matth.  XIII.  20.21.  And  many 
will  fay  to  our  Lord  at  the  Laft  Day,  Have  we  not  prophefied  in 
thy  Name  ?  And  in  thy  Name  cajl  oat  Devils  ?  And  in  thy  Name  done 
many  wonder  fa  II  Works?  to  whom  our  Lord  notwithstanding  will  pro- 
fefs,not  only  that  He  does  not  know  them ;  but  that  He  never  knew  them. 

III.  He  argues  from  Examples  viz.  the  Glorious  Angels  who  be- 
came incorrigible  Devils,  the  Innocent  Adam  who  became  a  Child 
of  Wrath,  David  who  was  deliberatly  guilty  of  Adultery  and  Mur- 
der, Solomon  who  was  guilty  of  repeated  Adultery  and  Idolatry, 
Hymeneas  and  Alexander  who  were  Guilty  of  Apoftacy  and  Blaf- 
phemy. 

As  for  the  two  firfl:  Examples,  the  Angels  and  Adam,  they  are 
impertinent.  It  is  the  Perfeverance  of  the  Saints  under  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  which  the  Presbyterians  affirm,  and  not  of  any  Creature 
in  its  natural  State.  'Tis  true  the  belt  Saints  cannot  prerend  to  equal 
either  the  Angtls  or  Adam  in  Holinefs ;  but  it  is  not  upon  the  Mea- 
fure  of  Holinefs;  but  the  Immutability  of  God's  Decree,  and  fuch 
other  Grounds  as  I  have  already  mentioned,  that  the  Perfeverance 
ef  the  Saints  depends. 

As  for  David  and  Solomon,  Mr,  Rhind  does  not  affirm  that  they 
fell  fnally  away  and  were  damned ;  and  therefore  I  need  not  ftay 
to  difprove  that  they  were.  The  Presbyterians  grant  that  their 
Grace  was  not  only  impaired,  but  laid  afleep  for  a  Time  like  live 
Embers  raked  up  under  the  thick  Afhes  choaking  both  the  Light 
and  the  Heat.  But  Mr.  Rhind  averrs  it  was  totally  loft.  Let  us 
confider  on  what  Grounds  he  averrs  this. 

.Fir ft,  As  to  David.  And  here  Mr.  Rhind  falls  into  a  Couple  of 
the  mod  prodigious  Blunders  I  have  readily  heard.  Take  his 
Words.  *  If,  faith  he  p.  142,  this  Commination,  viz.  that  Mur- 
e  derers  and  Adulterers  cannot  enter  into  the  KJngdom  of  Heaven,  be 
'  pot.  falfe  and  delufory,  David  was  upon  the  Commifllon  of  thefe 
'  Sins  liable  to  Damnation;  and  if  fo,  he  had  certainly  fallen  from 

the 


Sed  11/  Presbyterian  Faith.  217 

6  the  State  of  Grace ;  feeing,  according  to  our  Adtferfaries,  none 

*  who  are  in  that  State  can  be  thus  liable.  Thus  he.  Now,  Firfi, 
did  ever  the  Presbyterians  teach,  that  none  who  are  in  a  State  of 
Grace  can  be  liable  to  Damnation?  So  far  from  it,  that  they  teach, 
that  there  is  not  one  Man  even  in  a  State  of  Grace,  who  is  not 
liable  to  Damnation.  Secondly,  Is  every  one  who  is  liable  to  Dam* 
nation  fallen  from  a  State  of  Grace  ?  Why  then  the  moft  Righteous 
Man  on  Earth  falls  from  a  State  of  Grace  every  Day  :  For  he  finneth 
every  Day,*and  the  lead  Sin  makes  him  liable  to  Damnation,  unlefs 
Mr.  Rbind  will  diftinguifh  Sins  into  Fenialand  Mortal.  He  has  another 
Proof  zgamft  David  viz.  6  That  having  by  his  Adultery  become  one 
1  with  an  Harlot,he  mod:  at  that  Time  have  been  disjoined  from  Chritl 
€  according  to  the  Apoftle's  DoBrine  i  Cor.  VI.  15.  Kjiowye  not  that 

*  your  Bodies  are  the  Members  of  Chrift But  God  is  represented  in 

Scripture  as  bearing  the  Bowels  of  a  Father  towards  his  People. 
Now  a  Father  may  have  oftimes  Caufe  to  be  Angry  with  his  Son, 
and  not  only  to  frown  upon  him,  but  to  chaffen  him.  But  to  re- 
nounce the  Relation  of  a  Father  and  difinherit  him  is  the  lad 
Thing  he  will  do.  So  in  this  Cafe,  the  thing  that  David  had  done 
difpleafed  the  Lord,  yet  as  God  had  a  Referve  of  Kindnefs  for  him9 
as  appeared  in  the  IiTue;  So  it  is  plain  that  David  did  not  to- 
tally renounce  God:  And  therefore,  in  his  Penitential  Pfalm  on 
that  Occalion,  tho7  he  prayed  indeed  that  God  would  rejlore  unto 
him  the  Joy  of  his  Salvation,  which  intimates  that  he  was  under  the 
Frownings  of  his  Countenance,  and  Tokens  of  his  Wrath:  Yet 
he  does  not  pray  that  God  wou'd  rejlore  his  Holy  Spirit  unto  himy 
but  that  he  would  not  take  it  from  him,  which  is  at  once  an  Ac- 
knowledgment of  his  Juftice,  that  he  might  do  it;  and  yet  of  his 
Goodnefs,  that  he  had  not  done  it. 

As  for  Solomon,  Mr.  Rhind  aggravates  his  Crimes  at  a  mighty 
Rate  and  in  the  borlefque  Mile ;  and  indeed  they  were  very  great ; 
yet  it  does  not  become  him  nor  any  Man  elfe  to  be  harder  upon 
him  than  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Scriptures  has  been.  The  Scri- 
pture indeed  fays,  *  That  his  Heart  was  not  Perfect  with  the  Lord 
his  God,  and  that  he  went  not  fully  after  the  Lord :  But  no  where 
does  it  infinuate  that  ever  he  fell  quite  off  from  Him.  Mr.  Rhind 
Urges  that  the  plainest  Philofophy  teacheth  that  two  contrary  Habits  can- 

E  e  .  not 

*  I  Kings  XI.  4.  6. 


bi8  Defence  of  the  Se&  J, 

not  ledge  nt  once  in  the  fame  Subject-,  And  'tis  very  true,  that  in  the  mofl 
intenfe  Degree  they  cannot:  But  all  the  Philofophy  that  ever  was 
beard  of  teacheth,  and  Experience  convinceth,  that  in  more  remifs 
Degrees  they  may  ;  and  that  this  vf  as  Solomons  Cafe,  the  forecited 
foft  Expreftions  of  the  Scripture  allow  us  to  believe. 

As  for  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  the  Apoftle  indeed  faies  I  Tim. 
I.  19.  20.  that  they  had  made  Shipwrack  concerning  the  Faith,  that  is, 
they  had  thrown  off  the  Chriftian  ProfeiTion  :  But  he  does  not 
fay  that  they  had  made  Shipwrack  o/the  Faith;  for  indeed  he 
never  fo  much  as  infinuates  that  ever  they  had  been  endued  with 
the  genuine  Grace  of  Faith.  But,  faies  Mr.  Rhind,  \H,  How 
cou7d  it  offend  God,  or  harm  them  to  lofe  that  which  was  not  the  true  and 
faving  Ft'jh?  It  feems  then  that  when  a  Wicked  man  openly 
renounces  Chrift,  it  does  not,  by  Mr  Rhindcs  Account,  either  offend 
God  or  harm  Himfelf.  This  is  pretty  ftrange  Dotlrine.  idly,  faith 
He,  why  fhouldthey  be  delivered  unto  Sat  an  for  renouncing  the  Faith,  if  it 
was  not  that  genuine  Grace,  when  without  this  (  according  to  our  Advtrfa- 
ries)  they  were  already  in  his  Clutches?  Strong  Senfe/  A  fcandaloufly 
wicked  Man  is  in  the  Clutches  of  Satan,  why  then  fhould  the  Church, 
in  Cafe  of  his  Obftinacy,by  Excommunication  declare  Him  to  be  fo  ? 
Is  not  this  mighty  judicious  Reafoning?  -$dlj,  faith  he.  it  was  the  fame 
Faith  which  Timothy  is  advifedtoholdin  the  igver/e.  Right.  It  was 
the  Chriftian  Faith,  the  Profeflion  whereof  they  had  caff  off,  but 
how  does  it  appear  that  ever  they  had  beenfubjectively  poffeffed  of  it .? 
4ly  he  excepts  upon  the  $  and  6ver,  where  itisfaid,  Now  the  End 
of  the  Commandment  is  Charity,  out  of  a  pure  Heart,  and  of  a  good  Coftfci- 
ence,  and  of  Faith  unfeigned:  from  which  forne  having  fwerved,  have 
turned  afide  unto  vain  ^jangling.  But  the  Original  Word  -W^^m?. 
which  is  rendered  fwerved  from  properly  fignifies  not  to  aim  at-,  and 
foit  cannot  import  that  thefe  Perfons  had  ever  been  poflefTedofthe 
genuine  Grace  of  Faith.  Plainly  the  Meaning  of  the  Text  is, 
that  forne  Preachers  aimed  not  at  the  great  Defign  of  the  Gofpel, 
but  went  out  of  the  Way  to  a  Divinity  made  up  of  empty  Words. 
Thus  even  Dr.  Hammond  expounds  it.  But  what  Relation  hath 
this  either  to  falling  or  not  falling  from  Grace. 

IV.  He  argues  from  the  Nature  of  the  Thing.  If,  faith  he  p. 
146,  the  truly  Gracious  not  only  may  be7  but  actually  are  guilty  of  very 

we 


Ghap*  III  Presbyterian  Faitbl  a  1 9 

humous  Sins,   which  cannot  be  denyed ;  then  either  thefe  fins  are  Ojfen» 
five  to  God  or  they  are  not,    I  anfwer  they  are  OfTenfive,  and  there- 
by GodV  Difpleafure  is  incurred,  and  his  Holy  Spirit  grieved,  as 
we  have  already  heard  from  the  Confeffion  of  Faith-,  and  therefore 
Mr,  Rhind  fbews  what  a  wretchedly  abandoned  Creature  he  is, 
when  he  reprefents  us  as  teaching,  that  the  mof  horrid  Impieties  are 
not  fuch  when  committed  by  the  Saints.    But  what  would  he  infer  from 
this,  that  the  Sins  of  the  Saints  are offensive  to  God}  Why,  faith  He,  if 
He:be  angry  with  Men  bee  aufe  of  them  y   they  cannot  at  the  fame  Time  be  in 
His  favour  ;  and  if  they  have  loft  his  Favour^  .  they  have  fallen  from  his 
Grace.    Monftrous  Nonfenfe  /     A  Father  cannot  frown  upon  or  cor- 
red  His  Son  out  of  Love  !  He  cannot  be  Angry  with  HimunlefsHe  : 
difown  Him  /  A  Prince  cannot  bedifpleafed  with  HisSubje&s,  but 
He  muftinftantly  denounce  them  Rebellsi  This  isfuch  weak  StufT 
that  I  doubt  if  it  can  be  paralleled. 

Thus  now  I  have  gone  through  the  DoBrine  of  the  Decrees  with 
its  Dependencies  impugned  by  Mr.  Rhind.     And  tho',   I  acknow- 
ledg,  thefe  Oodrines  are  fuch  as  that  one  cannot  have  full  and  ade-  - 
quate  Notions  of  tbem,the  largeft  Mind  being  too  narrow  to  com-  - 
prebend  them,  the  mod  penetrating  Wit  to  found  all  their  Depths,  > 
and  the  moll  indefatigable  Study  to  conquer  all  the  Difficulties  that 
may  be  charged  upon  them,  any  other  Way  than  by  fubmitting  our 
Judgments  to  the  Revelation  of  God;-tyetI  hope  I  have  made  it 
evident  that  they  are  io  far  from  being  falfe ;  that  they  are  indeed  the 
very  Doctrines  of  the  Gofpel,and  moflconfiftent  with  a  Christian  Life,  - 
But  the  Writers  of  Mr.  Rhind\  Stamp  form  to  themfelves  an  ima-  - 
ginary  Scheme  of  Chimerical  Notions,  and  having  Chriftned  them  : 
Presbyterian  if m,  the?  fall  a  difputing  againitthem  ;  and  when  they 
have  demolifhedthe  Brat  of  their  own  Brains,  they  crow  over  the 
cenqueft  as  if  they  had  confuted  the  Presbyterian  DocTrines.     That 
no  Body  may  be  impofed  upon  by  their  Mifreprefentations ;  as  the 
Presbyterian's  Do£trine  may  be  eafily  known  by  their  publick  For. 
mulis,  fo  I  fhall  givea  juil  Reprefemation  of  the  Conduct  of  their  >' 
Minifters  relating  to  thefe  Do^rines,  which  is  this,  - 

We  never  teach  our  People  to  take  it  at'fifft  Hand  for  granted;  * 
ekher  that  they. are  of  the  Elett ,  or  that  they  are  of  the  Reprobate  9  , 
But  we  teach  them  frit- to  examine,  and  then'  to  conclude.    And  in  ■ 

the- 


220  Defence  of  the  Chap.  Iffl 

the  Exercife  of  this  Examination,  we  never  teach  them  to  begin  at 
that  Queftion,  Am  I  elected  ?  but  at  thefe,  Do  I  believe  ?  Do  I  re- 
pent ?  Have  I  a  Converfation  faitable  to  the  Gofpefi.  If  their  Confer- 
ences, when  throughly  examined,  give  a  fatisfying  Anfwer  to  thefe; 
we  bid  them  from  thence  conclude  their  Election,  and  exhort  them 
to  go  on  in  working  oat  their  Salvation  with  Fear  and  Trembling.  But 
if  their  Confciences  bring  in  a  negative  Anfwer  upon  thefe  Que- 
ft  ions,  we  tell  them  they  are  in  a  moft  dangerous  State;  yet  we 
forbid  them  to  conclude  themfelves  Reprobate:  For  we  do  not  think, 
that  in  the  militant  Church  the  Words  Elect  and  Believer  areofthe 
fame  Extent:  All  Believers  are  Eletf,  but  all  the  £/<?#are  not  as  yet 
Believers,  tho'  they  certainly  fhall  be  fo.  Upon  this  Principle  we 
exhort  them  to  ufe  the  Means  Reading,  Hearing,  Meditation, 
Prayer  and  the  like.  And  tho'  wTe  dare  not  teach  them  the  Do- 
ftrine  of  Merit,  either  de  Congruo  or  Condigno;  yet  we  allure  them 
upon  God's  Promife,  that,  in  the  Ufe  of  Means,  he  will  not  be 
wanting  to  them  with  his  Grace.  But  if  they  fhall  continue  to  ne- 
glect the  Means,  we  allure  them  that  final  Impenitency  is  an  Infal- 
lible Mark  of  Reprobation,  and  theCaufe  of  Damnation  :  And  that  it 
is  preemption  to  conclude  themfelves  elected  when  they  feel  not 
the  Gofpel  Evidences  thereof;  telling  them  in  the  Words  of  the 
Apoftle,  that  God  hath  chofen  us  to  Salvation  through  Sanciif cation 
ef the  Spirit  and  Belief  of  the  Truth.  And  to  bring  home  the  Title 
of  Elect  to  themfelves,  otherwife  than  upon  thefe  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  Holinef.  Here  then  I  might  put 
an  End  to  this  Subject:  But  there  is  fomething  further  to  be  done  for 
humbling  the  Pride  of  thefe  Gentlemen  who  are  fo  full  of  themfelves 
upon  Mr*  RhincCs  Scheme, 


Sed 


Se<3  ■  J7;  Presbyterian  Faiths  a 1  i 

T.    II.. 


Wherein  if  proved,  that  the  Presbyterian  Articles 

of  Faith,    impugned   by  Mr.  R  hind,   are  the 

fame  with  thoje  of  the  whole  Chrijiian  Church* 


OR  making  this  good  I  afTert  I.  That  thefe  Doctrines  are  the 
Doctrines  of  the  whohformgn  Churches  that  go  by  the  Name  of 
REFORMED :  And  that,  in  the  Judgment  of  the  higheft:  and  moft 
learned  Epifcopalians ^neither  in  thcfe,nor  indeed  in  any  Thing  elfe  Re- 
Sating  to  Doctrine,  do  they  maintain  any  Thing  that  is  fundamentally 
Falfe.  II.  That  thefe  Doctrines  are  the  Doctrines  ofthofeofthe  Epifcopd 
Cbmmuniorfin  Scotland.  III.  That  they  are  the  Doctrines  of  the 
Church  'of -England.  IV.Tocompleat  all, That  the  CATHOLICK 
Church  of  Chrift  hath  declared  thefe  Doctrines  to  be  the  Orthodox 
Faith ;  and  that  fuch  as  oppofe  them  are  worthy  of  an  ANATHEMA. 
Ifl  fhali  prove  all  thefe  Things,  and  that  from  uncontested  Docu- 
ments, which  I  am  tolerably  fure  of  doing  ;  I  hope  it  will  follow, 
that  thefe  Doctrines  can  be  no  juft  Ground  of  Separation  from  the 
Presbyterians  •  and  that  fuch  as  do  feparate  on  the  Account  of  them 
cannot  claim  Communion  with  any  Church  in  the  World.  Let  us 
try  it  then. 

1. 1  fay  that  thefe  Doctrines  are  the  Doctrines  of  the  whole.  For  reign 
Chinches  which  go  by  the  Name  of  Reformed.  For  proving  this  I 
need  not  appeal  to  this  or  the  other  particular  Divine.  No.  Ireferr 
the  Reader  to  the  Syntagma  Confefltonum,  where  he  may  have  the 
Conflfions  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches  under  his  View  at  once. 
And  that  they  all afTert  thefe  Doctrines'  is  io  evident  that  no  Man 
ever  to  this  Day  denyed  it  ;  fothatl  need  not  infill.  But  then, to 
make  this  Argument  complear,  I  add,  that  in  the  Judgment  of  the 
higheft  and  raoft  learned  Epi/copalians,  neither  in  thefe,  nor  indeed 
in  any  Thing  elfe  relating  to  Doctrine,  do  they  maintain  any  Thing 
that  is  fundamentally  falfe.  For  this,  the  Teftimony  of  Mr.  Dodrve/l 
will-be  fu£Rcientf    He,  in  His  Book  which  1  have  fo  often  before 

cited, 


2.22  Defence  of  the  Chap   7I1V 

cited,  I  me?  n  the  Par^nefs  ad  Exnros,  in  order  to  recommend  Epfco- 
pacy  to  the  Forreign  Churches,  by  fhewing  how  much  it  wou'd  con- 
duce to  the  Good  of  the  Reiormation  if  Bifhops  were  reftored,  writes 
thus,'  Were  this  dor.efaithht  (z)  I  do  not  indeed  fee  why  Communi- 
'  on  might  not  beheld  with  at  Feaftafl  the  Ri formed  Churches  :  For5 
'  2&iat.8ociniins9  and  Socinianizing  Armnuns,  I  don't  think  them 
'  worthy  the  Name  of  Reformed.  But  asto  thereff,  Ifee no  funda- 
i  mental  Doctrines  in  which  they  differ,  I  mean,  whirh  are  clearly 

*  delivered  in  the  Scripture.     And  that  fuch  only  can  be  called/**- 

*  damental  Do&rines,  the  Reformed  at  leaft  are  agreed,  norought  any 
'  Doctrines,  which  are  not  fundamental,  obftrucl  Communion  with 
'  other  Churches.  ThusfarMr  Dodwell.  ;Tis  then  a  plain  Cafe,  by 
His  Judgment,  that  thefe  Doctrines  which  Mr  Rhind  has  quarrelled 
are  not  fundament ally  fatfe,  and  that  none  ought  to  feparate  from  any 
Communion  on  the  Account  of  them  ;  and  aslittlefromthePresby- 
tesiansin^tf/^asany.  For,  Ifuppofe,  every  Man  will  own  that 
there  is  no  Society  under  the  Cope  of  Heaven  more  free  o^Socinianifm9 
or  that  favours  Socinianizing  Jtminianskk  than  they.  I  hope  then 
the  firjl  Point  is  fairly  gained. 

II.  Thefe  Doctrines  which  Mr  Rhind  has  quarrelled  are  the  Do- 
ctrines of  thofe  of  t he  Epifcopal Communion  in  Scotland.  In  all  ths 
Revolutions  fince  the  Reformation  wherein  ever  Epifcofacy  got  the 
Attendant,  we  hear  but  of  one  Confefsion  of  Faith  formed  by  them,and 
that  was  in  the  Affembly  at  Aberdeen  Anno  1616  in  which  Archbilhop 
SpetfwoodjpfQ&ded-    Now  hear  fome  Articles  of  it. 

This  Glorious  God ,  from  all  Eternity,  out  of  his  Wifdom  and  Infinite 
Knowledge  decreed  all  things  that  were  after  to  be  done. 

This  God,  before  the  Foundation  of  the  World  was  laid,  according 
to  the  gcod  Pleafure  of  His  Will  for  the  Praifeof  the  Glory  of  His 
Graee  did preckflinate  snd  elect  in  Chrift  fome  Men  and  Angels  unto 
eternal  Felicity,  and  others  He  did  appoint  for  eternal  Condemnation, 
according  to  the  Council  of  His  molt  Free,  moft  Juft  and  moil 
Holy  W  ill.  and  that  to  the  Praife and  Glory  ol  his  Juftice. 

By 

[  z  ]  Nee  fane  video  cur,  id  fi  Hem,  cuuv  omnibus,  faltem  Refbrmatis;  Ecclefijs,  Comme.rcium  illud 
hahcri  r.dii  pofiiti.  Ncc  enim  dignos  eo  nomine  pmo Socinian.s,  r.ee  qui  Socinianls  favenc  oi>  minianos*  I* 
rcliquis  fundament  aii-a  dogmata  nulla  vit'eOsin  quibusdifcrepent,  qustquidem  peifpicuetradaniur  in  fcripturis. 
H  see  aim  lblz  fi.nd^tt.entalia  appc-liari  polle,  conveniunc  fakem  Rerarmati.  Nee  debent  alia  dogmata  ob» 
Aaie  quo  minus  cum  Ecciefijs  alij*  Comiuumo  fery.etur,  precerquam  tundamectalia.  Parxncs.  Se&j.}.,  pi+r. 


&e&  I.         Presbyterian  Faith.  223 

By  the  Fall  of  i^*w  all  His  Fofterity  are  fo  corrupted  from  their 
Conception  and  Nativity,  that  none  of  them  can  do  or  will  any  Thing 
fr#/y  acceptable  unto  God,  till  they  be  renewed  by  the  Will  and  Spi- 
rit of  God,  and  by  Faith  ingrafted  in  Chrift  Jefus. 

Albeit  all  Mankind  be  fallen  in  Adam,  yet  only  thefe  who  are 
ele&ed  before  all  Time,  are  in  Time  redeemed,  reftored,  raifed 
and  quickened  again  ;  not  of  themfelves  or  of  their  Works;  left 
any  Man  fliould  glory,     but  only  of  the  Mercy  ofGod. 

Wre  believe,  that  albeit  the  Elecl  of  God,  through  Infirmity  and 
through  the  Enticements  thereof,  fin  grievoufly  to  the  Offence  of 
God,  yet  they  cannot  altogether  fall  from  Grace,  but  are  raifed  a- 
gain  through  the  Mercy  of  God  and  keeped  to  Salvation.  Thus  the 
Scotch  Epifcopal  Confefsion  of  Faith. 

All  this  they  fubfcribed  with  their  Hands,  confeffed  with  their 
Mouths,  and  profeffed  to  believe  with  their  Heart,  and  at  the  fame 
Time  declared  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  be  one  of  the  moU  pure  Kjrks 
under  Heaven,  What  an  unaccountable  Thing  then  is  it  in  our  Epifco* 
palians  to  object  againft  the  Do£trines  of  their  own  Confejjion  of  Faith  as 
fundamentally  f alfe  and  pernicious  ?  Have  they  quite  forefworn  all  Mo- 
deft  y  ?  Will  they  fay  that  they  have  altered  their  Faith  ?  If  fo,  let 
m  know  when  they  did  it.  Let  us  know  where  we  may  find  their  new 
Confefsion  of  it  ?  If  thefe  DoBrines  art  fundament  ally  falfe  and  Pernici- 
ous, I  can  never  come  over  to  the  Epifcopal  Side,  nor  indeed  any  Man 
that  regards  his  Soul:  For  how  well  pleafed  foever  I  may  be  with 
their  Government,  yet  their  Doclrines  are  damnable.  So  much  for 
the  Second  Point,  which  I  hope  is  fairly  enough  cleared. 

III.  Thefe  Doftrines  are  the  exprefs  Doclrines  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  Her  XXXIX  Articles.  I  before  produced  the  XIII 
Article  declaring  Works  done  before  the  Grace  of  Chrift  to  have  the 
Nature  of  Sin.  Two  Articles  more  will  be  fuffkient  for  my 
fe. 

E  e2 

AEUV 


224  Defence  of  the  Chap.  Ill 

ARTICLE     I 

Of  FreeWill, 

THe  Condition  of  Man  after  the  Fall  of  Adam  is  fuch  that  He 
cannot  turn  and  Prepare  Himfelfby  his  own  Natural  Strength 
and  good  Works  to  Faith  and  calling  upon  God.  Wherefore  we 
have  no  power  to  do  good  works  pleafant  and  acceptable  to  God, with- 
out the  Grace  of  God  by  Chrift  Preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a 
good  will,  and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will. 

ARTICLE     XVII. 

O  F 

Predefiination  and  Ele&ion, 

PRedeftination  to  Life  is  the  everlafting  purpofe  of  God,  whereby 
(  before  the  Foundations  of  the  World  were  laid  )  He  hath  con- 
ftantly  decreed  by  his  Counfel,  Secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from  Curfe 
and  Damnation  thofe  whom  He  hath  chofen  in  Chrift  out  of  Man* 
kind,  and  to  bring  them  by  Chrift  unto  everlafting  Salvation  as 
VeiTels  made  to  Honour.  Wherefore  they  which  be  endued  with 
fo  excellent  a  Benefit  of  God,  be  called  according  to  God's  Pur- 
pofe, by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  Seafon.  They  through  Grace 
obey  the  calling,  they  be  juftified  freely,  they  be  made  Sons  of 
God  by  Adoption,  they  be  made  like  the  Image  of  His  only  be- 
gotten Son  Jefus  Chrift  :    They  walk  religioufly  in  good  Works, 

and  at  length  by  God's  Mercy  they  attain  to  everlafting  Felicity 

Thefe  Articles  were  agreed  to  in  the  Year  1562,  and  are  the 
only  authorized  Standard  to  this  Day.  There  are  but  two  Things 
can  be  offered  to  take  of?  the  Weight  of  this  heavy  Objection  viz. 
ift  That  the  Clergy  don't  receive  them  as  Articles  of  Faith,  but  as 
Vinculo,  Pads ;  or  to  ufe  Mr  Rhinos  Words  p.  1 19  where  hefeems 
to  have  defigned  to  anticipate  this  Objection,  that  it  is  only  an  AcquU 

efcence 


Sed.  1L  Presbyterian  Faith.  225 

ifcence  n©t  an  inward  Affent  that  is  required.  I  crave  Leave  to  confider 
this  Defence:  And  if  any  Man  can  t«ike  offwhatlam  to  offer  againfl 
if,  I  (ball  yield  that  He  has  anfwered  my  whole  Book. 

In  the  fir  ft  Place,  admitting  the  Articles  were  defigned  not  for 
■Articles  of  Faith,  but  to  be  Vine \u la  Pacts,  and  that  it  were  only  an 
acquiefcenfe  in,  not  an  inward  Afient  that  were  required  to  them  ; 
yet  how  is  it    confident  with  common  Honefty  in  any   Clergy- 
Man  of  that  Communion  to  Preach,  Print,   Difpute  againfl  and 
ridicule  the  Doclrine  contained  in  them  ?     Is\\ikit6acquiefce\ri  them? 
2dly,  If  the  DoQrineseontainM  in  thefe  Art ides  are fundament ally  falfe 
and  PerniciouSjhow  can  any  Clergy-Man  with  a  good  Confciencepro- 
mifeto  acquiefcein  them?  Ifthey  are  of  fuch  a  damning  Nature,  is  he 
not  obliged  under  Pain  of  Damnation  to  himfelf  to  warn  People 
againft  them?     Thefe  two  Things  I  have  fuggefted  upon  Suppo- 
fition  that  no  more  but  an  Acquie/cenceia  them  were  required.     But 
then  I  add   $dly9  That  that  Alledgance  is  even  impudently  falfe. 
For  fir  ft,  the  very  Title  of  the  Articles  bears,  that  they  were  agre* 
ed  upon,  not  only  for  the  avoiding  of  the  Diver  fit  ies  of  Opinions,  but 
for  the  (lablifbing  of  Confent  touching  true  Religion.     Secondly,  By 
the  XXXVI.  Canon  1603  all  Bifhops  are  difcharged  to  Ordain,  ad- 
mit or  Licenfe  any  fo  much  as  to  Preach,  till  fuch  Perfon  acknow- 
ledge all  and  every  the  Thirty  Nine  Articles  to  be  agreeable  to  the 
Word  of  God,  and  fubferibe  the  fame  willingly  and  ex  Animo.    Is 
it  Poflible  that  Articles  can  be  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  yet 
at  the  fame  Time  fundamentally  falfe  and  pernicious  ?     Is  it  Poflible 
one  can  fubferibe  them  as  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  ex  Animo 
without  inward  Afient.     Thirdly,  By  the  Statute  1 3  Eliz.  1 2.    It  is 
ordain'd  that  every  Perfon,  to  be  admitted  to  a  Benefice  with  Cure, 
fhall,  within  two  Months  after  his  InduQion,  publickly  read  the 
faid  Articles  in  the  Church  whereof  he  hath  the  Cure  in  Common- 
Prayer  Time,  with   Declaration  of  his   Affent  thereunto;    and  if 
afterward  he  fhall  maintain  any  Doctrine   repugnant  to  the  faid 
Articles,   and  fhall  perfift  therein,  it  fhall  be  lawfull  for  the  Bifhop 
to  deprive  him.    So  much  for  the  firft  Defence. 
«     The  Second  is,  <  That  thefe  Articles  being  conceived  in  fuch  ge- 
*  neral  Words,  that  they  may  admit  of  different  literal  and  gram- 
i  matical  Senfes,  even  when  the  Senfes  given  are  plainly  contrary 

Ff  to 


176  Defence  of  the  Chap  TIL 

c  to  one  another;  the  Armipians  may  fubfcribe  them  with  a  good 
<:  Conscience  and  without  any  Bqmvccation  {a  ».  But  this  De- 
fence is  yet  worfe  than  the  former,  if  worie  cou'd  be.  For  jfip 
Can  there  be  a  greater  Scandal  upon  a  Church  than  to  reprefent 
h'er  Articles  of  Religion  as  a  Nofe  of  Wax,  that  may  he  twifted  ei- 
ther to  this  or  the  quite  contrary  Side?  Is  it  PoiTible  to  elicite 
Sound  and  Orthodox  Do&rine,  and  Doclrine  fundament  ally  falfe 
and  pernicious  out  of  the  fame  Words?  Doth  the  fame  Fountain 
fend  forth  fweet  Waters  and  bitter  ?  idly,  Dr.  Sacheverell  molt  jufily 
reckons  them  (£)  Falfe  Brethren  who  expound  any  of  thefe  Articles 
of  Faith  in  fuch  aloofe  and  vagrant  Way  as  may  lute  them  as  well 
to  a  Mahometans  as  a  ChrisiiarPs  Creed,  idly,  The  Calviniftick  Senfe 
fas  it  is  commonly  called )  was  the  only  Senfe  defigned  in  thefe 
Articles :  For,  the  Framers  of  them  were  Calvinifts  themfelves  *  ; 
and  therefore  'tis  never  to  be  thought  they  wou'd  frame  them  fo 
as  to  be  Capable  of  any  other  Meaning.  For  pray  what  cou'd  be 
the  Ufe  or  Effect  of  an  Acknowledgment  of,  or  Subfcription  to 
them  on  that  Suppofition.  tfhly,  The  Church  of  England  has  loud- 
ly proclaimed  to  the  World,  that  She  owns  thefe  Articles  only  m 
the  Cafoimttkk  Senfe:  And  till  L^the  Brittifh  HeroftratusbQgzn  • 
to  fet  the  Nations  on  Fire,  the  Church  of  England  ft\\\  profecutecT 
thofe  that  impugned  that  Senfe  of  them  ;  And  the  Noble  Lord 
Falkland  in  his  forecited  Speech  tells  us,  that  the  contrary  Doctrines 
had  not  been  oftner  preached  than  Recanted.  Plainly,  the  Engltjlj . 
'Vniverfuies,  rhe  Supreme  Ecchfiaflic&l  Govemours  of  the  Church, 
the  Court,  and  the  Delegates  to  Forreign  Synods  have  all  declared 
for  thefe  Calvinifltck  Doctrines,  and  afferted  them  to  be  the  Do- 
ctrines of  the  Church  of  England. 

Firfi  I  fay  the  Englijfj  Vniverfities  have  done  fo.  In  the  year  j  595  . 
one  Mr  Barret  of  Caius  College  ia  Cambridge  preaching  in  the  Uni- 
verfity  Church  called  St  Maries  adventured  on  an  Inveclive  againli 
the  Doclrines  of  Predeliination  and  P  erf  ever  ance3  This  Sermon,  thoc 
preached  in  Latine,  and  which  therefore  cou'd  not  much  affed  the 
Vulgar,  yet  inftantly    gave  the  Alarm  to  the    Urnver/ny.      The 

heads 


f a  J  Sec  Burnett  Expof.  P.  S.       f  bl  Sermon  on  Falfe  Brethren,    p.    .fmihi  7  n.  in 
*  Burnet  Ubi  Supra  p.  iji.  i;z.      L     J    "  *     L  '       J 


Sed.  II.  Presbyterian  Faith,  227 


is  of  the  Several  Houfes  viz.  Dr.  Some,  Dr.  Duport,  Dr.  Goad 
T>r.Twd<iRt  Dr. Whitakers,  Dr.  Harwell,  Di\.  Jegom,  Dr  Prefton,  Mv. 
Chadderton,  and  Mr.  C7#y/0#prefently  met  upon  it,  and  upon  Mature 
Deliberation  and  Advice,'  by  their  unanimous  Vote  adjudged  Mr.  7J.w- 
r#  to  recant  his  Aflertions  %sfalfe,  erroneous  and  mani'feftly  repugnant 
■to  the  Religion  received  and  -eftablifhed  in  the  Church  of  England  by 
publick  and  lawful  Authority.  This  was  a  very  bitter  Fill  to  Mr 
Banet ,  yet  either  his  Stomach  or  His  Confcience  prevailed  with  Hira 
to  give  it  Throat.  Accordingly,  upon  the  iotrrofMz/inthefaid 
Year,  He  appeared  in  the  Vmverfity  Church  where  he  had  offended, 
and  made  a  fair  Recantation.  The  Sermon  is  (till  extant  in  Print, 
and  I  fhall  beg  Leave  to  give  one  Note  of  it.  ■  Thefe  Words,  faith 
s  He,  efcaped  Me,  viz.      As  for    thofe  that  are  notjaved,  I  domofi 

*  ftrongly  believe,  and  do  freely  proteft  that  I  amfoperfvadedagainflCal- 
&  vin,  Peter  Martyr ,  and  the  reft,  that  Sin  is  the  true ,  proper,  and  fir  ft  Q  an fe 
*]of  Reprobation.  But  now  being  better  initrueted  ;  I  fay,  that  the 
4  Reprobation  of  the  Wicked  is  from  everlafling,  and  that  that  Say- 
'  irig  of  Augusiine  to  Simplician  is  moft  true  viz.  If  Sin  were  the  Cauje 
€  of  Reprobation,  then  no  Manjhould  be  elected,  becaufe  God  doth foreknow 
L  all  Men  to  be  defiled  with  it*     And    (  that  I  may  fpeak  freely  )  I  am 

*  of  the  fame  Mind ,  and  do  believe  concerning  the  Doftrine  of  E- 
Me&ion  and  Reprobation,  as  the  Church  of  £#g/W  belie  veth  and 

*  teacheth  in  the  Book  of  the  Articles  of  Faith,  in  the  Article  of  Pre- 
€  deftination.—    And  I  acknowledg,thatby  the  Vertueof  the  Prayer 

*  of  Chrift,  every  true  Believer  is  fo  flayed  up,  that  his  Faith  cannot 
&  fail—  So  that  He  which  once  hath  this  Faith  {hall  ever  have  it.  Thus 
Mv  Barret.  The  whole  Sermon  is  worthy  Mr  Rhind\  perufal :  Fori 
have  the  Charity  to  wiih  that  He  may  one  Day  have  Ufe  for  it. 

Secondly,  The  Supream  Ecclefioftical  Governpurs  of  the  Church  have 
declared  yet  more  pofitively  for  thefe  DoQrines.  Upon  the  20th  of 
November  in  the  faid  Year  1595  they  met  at  Lambeth  aai  framed  the 
famous  Nine  Lambeth  Articles,  which  are  as  follows 


F  I  3  THE 


'228  Defence  of  the  Cb  j  p   III. 

The  Nine  Aflcr-jtipjis  or  Articles  of  Lajnbbeih^ 
compofed  and  agreed  upon  at  Lambbetb 
Houfe  on  the  20  Day  of  November^  in  the 
yeere  of  our  Lord  1595  by  fiibn  Arch- 
bifliop  of  Canterbury,  Kir  bard  Bifliop 
of  London  liicbarddcd  Bifliop  of  Ban*- 
gor,  and  fundiy  other  \everend  and 
Learned  Divines  there  prefent. 

i.  pOD  from  Eternity  hath  Prede(tina:ed  certain  Men  unto 
V  T     Life  ;  certain  Men  he  hath  Reprobated   onto  Death. 

2.  The  moving  or  efficient  Caule  of  Predeftmarion  unto  Life,  is, 
not  the  Forefight  of  Faith,  or  of  Perfe  vera  nee,  or  of  good  Works, 
or  of  any  Thing  that  is  in  the  Perfons  Predeftinated ,  but  only  i&. 
the  Will  of  the  well  pleafed  God. 

g.  There  is  a  definite  and  certain  Number  of  the  Predeftinate  which 
can  neither  be  Augmented  nor  diminfhed. 

4.  Thofe  who  are  not  Predefhnated  to  Salvation  fhall  be  neceffarfy 
Damned  for  their  fins. 

5.  A  true,  living  and  justifying  Faith  and  the  Spirit  of  God  juftU 
fying  is  not  extinguifhed,  it  falleth  not  away,  it  vanifheth  not. 
away  in  the  Elect  either  finally  or  totally, 

6.  A  Man  truly  faithfull,  that  is,  fuch  a  one  who  is  endued  with- 
a  juilifying  Faith,  is  certain  with  the  full  Aflurance  of  Faith,  6£ 
the  Remiffion  cf  liis  Sins,  and  of  his  Everlafting  Salvation  by 
Chrift. 

7.  Saving  Grace  is  not  given,  is  not  communicated,  is  not  granted 
to*// Men  by  which  they  may  befaved  if  they  will. 

©.  No  Man  can  come  unto  Chi  ift,  unlefs  it  fhall  be  given  unto 
Him-,  and  unlefs  the  Father  flia  11  draw  him :  And  all  Men  arenoc 
drawn  by  the  Father,  that  they  may  come  to  the  Son. 

9.  It  is  not  in  the  Will  or  Power  otevery  one  to  befaved. 
Thus  far  the  Lambeth  Articles.  And   this  was  as  plain  going  to 

Work  as  one  cou'd  wifh. 

Thirdly 


Seft.  IT.         Presbyterian  Faith:  ssft 

Thirdly,  The  Cw?  was  not  behind  with  the  Church.  When  af- 
terwards Arminumpn  prevailed  in  the  United  Provinces,  and  had  cau- 
fed  terrible  Convulsions,  K.  James  VI  was  aware  of  the  Danger  the 
Brit iff)  Dominions  were  in.  He  was  a  Prince  very  well  feen  in  the 
Raman  Cladicks,  and  nodoubthad  read  the 

Jamproximas  ardet 

Vcalego.n.~—> 
And  therefore  thought  it  reafonable  to  beftirr  Hirofelf  to  prevent  the 
fpreadifvg  ot  the  Flame.  For  this  Purpofe  He  fent  over  his  Ambafla- 
dour  Sir  Dudly  Carlton  to  perfwade  the  States  to  provide  fome  Remedy 
and  tofmorher  the  Sparks  which  mightfet  Him  on  Fire.  Sir  Dudly 
upon  the  6  of  October  1 617  attended  their  'High- Might  inejfes  ahem- 
bled  at  the  Havue^nd  delivered  Himfelf  in  a  moft  elaborate  Speech, 
wherein  He  declares  the  DoOrine  impugned  by  A/minius  to  bethem^ 
and  ancient  Doctrine,  and  to  have  been  received  and  authorized  by 
the  common  Confent  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches;  and  that  the 
Schifm  which  prevail'd  within  the  Church,  and  the  Faction  in  the  State 
were  both  owing  to  Arminius.  Ihope  none  will  deny  that  Sir  Dudly 
had  His  Great  Mailer's  Allowance  for  faying  all  this  (*).  And  upon 
the  whole  He  folicits  them  to  calla  Synod  for  determining  the  contro- 
verted Points. 

Fourthly,  The  Englifb  Delegates  to  forreign  Synods,  have  declared 
the  fame  Way.  Upon  the  forefaid  Solicitation  the  Synod  of  Dort 
met,  and  was  a  (lifted  by  Divines  from  theChurch  of  England:  And 
in  the faid  Synod  foch  Conclusions  were  made  upon  the  fve  Ar- 
ticles, as  I  need  nottell  any  Body,  arethevery  fame  with  the  Do- 
ctrines contained  vhth&'W'ejtmmfter  Confeffion,  maintained  by  the 
Scots  Presbyterians,  and  now  impugned  by  Mr  Rhind  and  the  iMen 
of  his  Kidney  (d).  Somewhile  after  the  Return  of  thefe  Delegates 
from  the  Synod,  they  were  attaqued  by  a  certain  Scribler  on  their 
Conduct  and  the  Doctrinal  Conclusions  they  had  gone  in  to.  They 
thought  it  necelfary  to  defend  themfelves,  and  accordingly  wrote 
A  JOINT,  ATTESTATION  (<?),-■  whereof  take  the  laft  Words. 
'VVhiffoever  there  was  affented  unto  andfubferibed  by  us  concer- 
l  ping  the  five  Articles  either  in  the  Joint  Sy nodical  Judgmem>or  in  our 

particular  • 


[c]  See  the  Speech  it  felf  fat  forth  by  'Authority,    Londoa  printed  by  William  Jopes.  i£i 3.  [dj  Viit 
A&a  Synod.  Dofdrac.     (ej  Londoa  printed  by  M,  Flether. 


b  3  6  Defence  of  the  Chap ;  ZII; 

particular  Collegiate  Suffrage  (  ft  y  led  in  the  A&s  of  the  Synod  Theo. 
logorum  Magna  Britannia  Sententia,  and  at  large  extant  there  )  is  not 
only  warrantable  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  alfo  conformable  to  the 
received  Doctrine  of  our  faid  venerable  Mother.  Which  we  are  rea- 
dy tomaintain,  andjuftifie  a  gain  ft  all  Gainfayers,  whenfoever  we 
fhall  be  thereunto  called  by  lawfull  Authority,     ha  attejlamur. 

GEORGIUS  Cicejlrietsfi  Epifcopus 

JOHANNES  Sarisburienfis  Epifcopus. 

GualterusBalcanquall  Decan.Roff. 

Samuel  Ward  Pub.  Profefs.  TheoL  in  Acad.  Cam.  &  Coll.  Sid.Prafetf. 

Thomas  Goad  SacrdFheol.  Doctor. 
I  hope  all  this  is  more  than  fufficient  to  prove  that  the  Doctrines 
impugned  by  Mr.  Rhind^  as  fundament ally falfe  and  pernicious ,  are  the 
Doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England 3and  that  they  are  jgot  only  Articles 
.of  Petcejaux.  Articles  of  Faith  too.  Think  then  what  a  wife  Part  He  has 
acted  in  feparating  from  the  Presbyterians  upon  the  Account  of  thefe 
Articles,  and  joining  the  Church  of  England,  which  has  exprefly 
declared  fuch  as  affirm  them  to  be  in  any  Part  erroneous  to  be  Ex- 
communicated ipfo  Facto  (  f  ).  So  much  for  the  Church  of  England. 
IV.  Thefe  Doctrines  are  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catbolick  Church  of 
Chrift,  which  has  alfo  declared,  that  fuch  as  oppofe  them  are  wor- 
thy of  an  Anathema,  What  Method  fhall  I  take  to  prove  this?  Shall 
I  go  through  the  feveral  Authors  in  the  feveral  Ages  ?  That  were,too 
tedious.  But,  which  will  be  equally  fufficient,  I  fhall  prove  it  from 
the  Account  of  one  who  was  Epifcopaltan  Himfelf,  a  Scots  Man  too 
and  who  was  inferiour  to  none  in  Theological  Abilities,  and  is 
held  in  the  greateft  Veneration  by  all  of  the  Epfcopal  Communion. 
The  Perfon  I  mean,  is  Dr  John  Forbes  a  Corje  Divinity  Profeffor  at 
Aberdeen,  I  fhall  prove  it  from  His  Insiruffiones  Hislorico  Theologies, 
a  Work,  which,  to  give  Bifhop  Burnet's  Character  of  it  (g)  t  If 
.c  He  had  been  fuffered  to  enjoy  the  Privacies  of  His  Retirement  and 
1  Study  to  give  us  the  Second  Volume,  had  been  the  greateft  Treafure 
*  of  Theological  Learning  that  perhaps  the  World  has  yet  feen.  The 
whole  Eight  Book  of  the  forefaid  Work  is  written  on  Purpofe,to  fhew 
that  thele  Doftrines,  which  Mr.  Rhind  has  impugned,  were  the 

Doctrines 


[  f  J  Cmon  V.    ,i6oy    [    gj    Preface  to  His  Life  of  Di  Bedddl. 


Se&,  HL-s  Presbyterian  Faith.  231 

Doclrines  of  the  Catholkk  Church  of  Chrift,  and  to  anfwer  the 
Obje&ionsofthe  Palagians  and  Semi- Pelagians  againft  them ;  which 
Objections  are  the  very  fame  with  thofe  Mr.  Rhind  has  advanced. 
He  has  comprehended  the  Sum  of  the  Controverfy  in  the  XII  Chap* 
te-r  of  his  fa  id VIII  Book  mfeven  Queftions,  in  which  he  runs  the 
Difference  betwixt  the  Faith  of  the  Catbolick  Church  and  the  O- 
pinions  of  the  forefaid  Hereticks,  Thefe  Queftions  will  fet  the 
whole  Matter  in  a  true  Light?  and  they  are  as  follows 

;  1.  QurJ'i*  Whether  are  the  forefeen  good  Things  of  thofe  who 
are  Ele£kd?  their  Will  and  Faith  and  good  Works  and  Perfetfe- 
rance  in  them,  or  any  of  thefe  Things  the  Caa/e  for  which  they 
are  Elected  J  or  a  C«W/>w»'.prereqiiifite  in  thofe  that  were  to  be  E- 
leQed?  Or  whether  all  thofe  Things  in  the  Ele£t  are  the  Effects 
of  Ele£lion  and  Predeftination?  The  Semi-Pelagians  affirmed  the 
Firft;  and  deny  ed  the  Latter.  But  the  CATHOLIC  KS  denyed 
the  firft  "and:  affirmed  the  latter. 

2-  ,0....   Whether  Ms'  not  the'  Number  of  the  Ele£t  and  of  Men' 
Predeftinated  by  God  to  Grace  and  Glory  from  Eternity,  definite 
and  determined'.     So  that  of  them  none  fhall  perifh,  and  befides  thern  : 
none  fliall  be  faved  ?     The  Semi-Pelagians  denyed  it.     The  CA- 
T'HOLICKS  affirmed  it. 

p  Q:  Whether  hath  God  from  Eternity  Predeftinated  fome  to 
Evil?     The  Semi  Pelagians  utterly  deny  that  any   Man  was  Pre- 
deftinated either  to  Sin  orto  DeftrucHon.  The  CATHOLICKS  di« - 
ft'ihguifhed,  and  denyed  that  any  Man  was  Predeftinated  to  Sw9  • 
but  affirmed  that  they  were  Predeftinated  to  Puni/bment. 

4.  ^  Whether  of  the  Reprobate  did  God  find  the  Demerits  mos 
and  worfe  than  of  thofe  whom  he  Elected,  and  therefore  Repro-- 
bated  the  former  and  Predeftinated  them  to  Deftruction,  and  E- 
lected  the  latter  and  Predeftinated  them  to  Life  Eternal?  Or  whe- 
ther he  did  hot  find  them  both  'equal  in  their  Demerits  and  worthy ; 
of  eternal  Death  ?  ?  The  Semi- Pelagians  affirmed  the  firft.  The 
CATHOLICKS  affirmed  the  latter. 

5  •  S:-  Whether,  of  this  Difference  or  Difcrimination  whereby 
fome  are  Predeftinated  !to  Life  Eternal,  there  be  any  other  Caufe  • 
affigned  in  the  Scripture,  befides  the  moft  free  Will  of  God,  who  ' 
hath  Mir c^  upon  whom \Me^  will  have;  Mercy  >  and  hardmth'  whom  He  ' 


will 


■2  3  i  Defence  of  the  Chap,  I  17. 

will ;  and  if  it  be  LatrfuUfot  us  to  fearch  for  any  other* Caufe  ?  The 
SemiPehgians  affirmed  it.  The  CATHO  LICKS  denyed  it. 
\  6.  Q  WhetherdoesthisDoarineoftheCATHOLICKSattribute 
either  lr/juflice  ox  Cruelty  to  God,  or  render  Exhortations,  Prayers 
and  the  Siudy  of  Piety  ufelefsto  Men  ?  The  Semi-Pelagians  affirmed 
if.    The  CATHOLICKS  denyed  it. 

7.  £,  Whether,  fuppofing  this  DoQrine  of  the  CATHOLICKS 
true,  is  it  expedient  to  Preach  it  openly  and  in  earneft  to  the  peo- 
ple? The  Semi  Pelagians  denyed  it.  But  the  CATHOLICKS  af- 
firmed that  it  was  to  be  preached  openly  and  in  earneft,  yet  pru- 
dently and  feafonably  as  all  Divine  Myfteries  ought  to  be,  and 
with  a  right  dividing  of  the  Word  of  Truth. 

Thus  far  that  great  Man.  And  in  confirming  thefe  Catholick 
Do&rines  He  employs  the  reft  of  the  faidBook:  And  does  it  main- 
ly from  the  Teftimonies  of  the  Fathers,  in  which  no  Man  was 
better  feen.  And,  to  crown  all,  in  the  IV  Chapter  ofthefaid  VIII 
Book  He  declares,  that  the  contrary  Do£trines  were,  by  Maxentiusy 
Vetrus  Diaconus and  the  whole  eajhru  Churches  with  him:  By  Fulgen- 
tius  and  the  African  Bifhops:  And  by  the  European  Wtjiern  Church- 
es, Judged  HERETICAL,  deftmaivly  alien  from  the  CATHO- 
LICK Senfe,  and  worthy  of  an  ANATHEMA  in  cafe  of  Obftinacy 
in  them. 

And  now  what  melancholy  Reflections  muft  Mr  R/tfWmake, 
when  he  confiders  that,  as  by  the  fotmer  Part  of  his  Book  he 
made  Himfelf  a  Schijmatick  fo  by  this  part  of  it,  he  has  made 
bimfelf  a  moft  grofs  Her et icP.  W hen  he  confiders  that  Mr  Dod- 
well  himfelf  has  given  him  the  Lye,  and  that  the  whole  Forreign 
Reformed  Churches,our  <$«?/<;/?  Epiicopalians,  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  Catholick  Church  of  Chrift  have  all  of  'em  declared  for  thefe 
Dodrines  which  he  has  fe')Q3.Qd  as  fundamentally  falfe  and  pernicious  : 
And  when  he  finds  himfelf,  by  the  Judgment  of  the  Catholick  Church 
through  the  world,  enrolled  amongft  the  worft  of  Hereticks,  pro- 
nounced worthy  of  an  ANATHEMA,  and  ftanding  de  fatfo 
excommunicated   bythe  Church  of  EngUndl 

That  I  may  conclude.  I  have  heard  indeed  (tho'Ithinkit  but  a 
Table)  ofaProteftant  Church fome where  on  this  fide  Nova  Zambia  ; 
though  I  cannot  now  name  the  precife  Bearing  of  the  Place,    where 

Nothing 


Se&Ii  Presbyterian  Worjhifi  233 

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  believe  that,  and  tho'  He  publickly  impugn  all  the  other 
Articles  of  Chriitianity,  it  is  Nothing.  I  grant  Mr  Rbind  might 
(ervefora  Prieft  under  fuch  a  Constitution  \  But  how  He  can  be 
capable  to  ferve  as  fuch  in  Britain  is  more  than  I  underftand.  But 
let  thofe  who  put  Him  into  Orders  look  to  that.    I  proceed. 


C    fit    A    P.     IV. 


erein  Mr.  R hind's  Third  Reafon  for  Se- 
parating from  the  Presbyterians'  vi^.  that  their 
Worflhjp  is  chargeable  with  fundamental 
Corruptions  and  Defe&s  as  to  the  Matter, 
and  that  it  is  very  imperfed  as  to  the  Mail* 
nery     is  examined,     From  P,  148,  to  P.  185. 


HIS  Mr^/Waffertspi49.  And  if  it  appear  he  has  pro- 
ved ir,  I  fball  own  his  Serration  was  Juft.  Imperfections 
we  acknowledge,  as  I  think  all  Mankind  ought  to  do,even 
in  our  beft  Performances.  But  fundamental  Corruptions  &  Defects  we 
refufe,&:  want  to  find  them  proved  againft  us.  In  the  mean  Time,  to  fe- 

G  g  parate 


2:34  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IP \ 

parate  from  the  ScotsWov(h\p,  becaufe  of  its  Corruption ;  and  to  go 
over  to  the  Englijb  Wor  (hip  as  purer,  looks  fo  very  like  a  Jeff,  that 
for  my  Heart  I  cannot  butfmileat  it,  aslamfurefive  hundred  others 
have  done  before  Me,  and  twice  as  many,  'tis  likely,  will  do  after 
Me. 

Mr  Rhind  effays  the  Proof  of  His  Charge  in  two  Particulars  viz  Pray* 
mand  Sacraments.    I  fhall  diftinctly  confider  what  He  has  advanced  ■ 
on  each. 


SECT,    I 

Wherein  Mr  RMnd'3 Exceptions  again f  the  Prei- 
shyteriaris  Prayers  are  examined*     From  P. 
149  ft?  P.  177. 

1 

AGAINST  thefe  he  excepts  two  Things  I.  That  the  Matter  of 
them  is  Corrupt  and  Defective.  II.  That  the  Manner  of  them 
islofar  from  being  the  heft,  that  it  is  very  Imperfect.  His  Proof 
of  thefe  Exceptions  I  fhall  confider  info  many  Articles. 

ARTICLE     I. 

Wherein  Mr  Rhindcx  Proofs  9  That  the  Matter 
of  the  Presbyterians  Prayers  is  Corrupt  and 
Defe&ive,  are  Confedered.     From  P.  149  to  < 

FO  R  making  good  this  Charge.  Fir  ft  y  He  argues,  that  it  muH  be 
fo,  Secondly,  He  makes  an  Indu&ion  of  the  Particulars  wherein 


Se£^  L  Presbyterian  Worjhif;  235 

Firfi,  He  argues  that  it  muft  be  fo.  *  If,  faith  He  p.  149,  their 
c  Dohrine  be  Corrupt,  fo  muft  their  Worship  be  too ;  becaufe  the  Do- 
e  ctrines,  which  are  the  common  Subjects  of  their  Sermons,  do  like- 
"'  wifeconftitute  the  Subftance  of  their  Prayers.  The  Anfwer  is 
eafie.  I  have  proved  in  the  preceeding  Chapter,  that  thefe  Do- 
ctrines, which  he  charges  as  Corrupt,  are  the  Doctrines  ofthe  C<*- 
tholick  Church  of  Chrift,  believed  by  every  Chriftian,  long  before 
the  Upftart  Se&  of  the  High  Flyers  was  heard  of  in  the  World.  There- 
fore the  Prayers  which  are  formed  agreeably  to  thefe  Doctrines  cm 
not  be  Corrupt.  Suppofe  now  I  had  been  Preaching  the  Doctrine 
of  Abjolute  Election :  After  Sermon  I  break  out  into  a  Prayer  to 
this  Purpofe. 

O  GO  D  We  rhank  thee  that  Thou  haft  Predeftinated  Us  unto  the  A- 
doption  of  Children  by  JefusChrift  to  thy  Self,  according  to  the  Good 
pleafureof  thy  Will?tothe  Praife  and  Glory  of  thy  Grace,  whereby 
Thou  haft  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved;  &  haft  from  the  Beginning 
chofen  us  to  Salvation  through  Sanclification  ofthe  Spirit  and  belief  of 
the  Truth.  Thou  mighteft  havedefigned  Usfor  Yeffels  of  Wrath, 
as  Thou  didft  the  fallen  Angels,  and  then  we  had  been  eternally 
undone  without  all  poflible  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,  tochufe  us  from  the  Reft,  and  tofevereus 
from  thefe  many  Thoufands  in  the  World  who  fhall  perifhever- 
laftingly.  Give  us  Grace  we  befeecb  Thee,  that  we  may  give  all 
Diligence  to  make  our  Calling  and  Election  fure— •? 

This  Prayer  is  exaclly  formed  upon  the  Scheme  ofthe  Irrefpe- 
ffive  Decrees.  But  is  there  any  thing  in  it  which  any  Chriftian 
may  not  join  with  ?  Mr  Rhind  muft  needs  fay  there  is.  In  the 
mean  Time  I  muft  tell  him,  I  was  taught  it  by  Wilkins  Bifhop 
of  Chefter  (h)  who  (hou'd  have  known  what  was  Sound  what  Cor- 
rupt Doclrine,  at  leaft  as  well   as  Mr  Rhind. 

Secondly,  He  makes  an  Indu&ion  of  the  particulars  wherein 
the  Presbyterian's  Prayers  are  Corrupt  or  Defective,  Which  take 
as  follows  in  Ten  particulars. 

G22  I 


[  h  ]  Gift  of  Prayer  Chap.  XXVIII.  Eighth  Edic. 


2^6  Defence  of  the  Chap/  IV i 

i.  They  pray ,  faith  He  p.  1 50,  for  the  Continuance  of  Presbyterian 
Government^  and  blefs  God  for  the  Extirpation  of  and  befeech  him 
to  preferve  this  Nation  from  Prelacy.  But  I  have  already  proved 
that  Presbytry  is  of  Divine  Inftitution,  and  that  Prelacy  is  without 
all  Scripture  Warrant.  Therefore  fuch  Prayers  are  io  far  from 
being  a  Corruption,  that  they  are  a  Duty,  even  as  much  a  Duty 
as  it  is  to  pray,  that  every  Flant  which  our  Heavenly  Father  hath  not 
planted  may  be  rooted  up. 

2.  They  thank  God,  faith  he  Ibid,  for  continuing  th°.  Presbyterian 
Doclrine.  But  this  I  have  proved  to  be  the  DocTrine  of  the 
Gofpel,  and  believed  by  all  the  Chriftian  Church.  It  were  there- 
fore the  worft  Ingratitude  not  to  thank  God  for  the  Continuance 
of  iti 

3.  They  vever  omit,  faith  he  ibid,  in  their  Publick  Yrayers  to  ask  a 
BhJJlng  upon  the  Word  that  is  to  be,  or  has  been  Preached.  'Tis  true 
we  dofo,  and  let  him  make  his  worft  of  it.  And  when  he  gets 
a  new  Revelation  to  prove  the  Word  which  we  Preach  to  be  lm» 
pious  and  Falfe,  we  beg  he  may  let  us  hear  of  it. 

4.  They  blefs  God,  faith  he  ibid,  for,  and  entreat  him  to  continue  ths 
Purity  of  their  Worfhip.  .  Tis  true  we  do  fo;  and  I  hope  God 
fhall  hear  us;  But  it  was  toofoon  for  him  to  aftrt  it  to  be  Cor- 
rupt, before  he  had  proved  it  to  be  fo.  This  is  the  Thing  they  call 
Begging  the  Que  ft  ion,  or,  which  is  worfe,  proving  aThing  by  it  Self 
The  Presbyterian  Worfhip  is  Corrupt,  becaufe  it  is  Corrupt/  A 
very  handfome  Way  of  Difcourfing,and  no  doubt  very  convincing! 

5.  They  pray,  faith  he  p.  151,  that  God  may  flop  the  Progrejs  of  the 
Englifh  Liturgy.  Anf.  Amen,  even  fo  be  it.  But  why  cou'd  not 
Mr.  Rhind  join  in  fuch  a  Prayer?  Why,  he  cou'd  not  do  it  with- 
out  offending  God,  it  being  the  most  excellent  of  all  others.  I  fhall  not 
fay  what  it  may  be  in  its  Nature,  but  fure  I  am  it  has  not  proved 
fuch  in  its  Confequeaces:  .  For,  fince  ever  there  were  Liturgies  in 
the  World,  never  any  of  'em,  no  not  all  of 'em  together  have  oc- 
casioned lo  much  Strife  and  Divifion,  fo  much  War  and  Blood-fhed, 
as  that  has  done.  But  he  gives  another  Reafon  why  he  could  not 
ioin  in  fuch  a  Prayer,  which  is  indeed  a  very  notable  one.  I  could 
jiQt  do Jt,  faith  he,  without  Tie  of  on-  again  ft  the  -Queen,  it  being  that 

which,  i 


Sedc /.  Presbyterian  Worfhif.  237 

which  her  Majefiy  PraClifes,  and  has  authorized  (  tolerated  he  fhou'd 
have  faid )  the  Exercife  of  to  thofe  of  the  Epifcopal  Perfvafion  in 
Scotland.  Now  I  ask.  i#,  When  was  the  Law  made  which 
makes  it  Treafon  to  pray  againft  the  Progrefs  of  the  Englifh  Litur- 
gy. I"  don't  think  there  is  any  Thing  Treafon,  but  what  the  Law 
has  declared  to  be  fuch.  Pray,  Good  Mr.  Mind,  cite  the  Law  in 
your  next,  that  we  may  be  aware  of  our  Danger.  idly,  May  not 
one  with  a  very  good  Confcience  both  pray  againft  and  pra&ife 
contrary  to  what  the  Prince  praftifes.  I  fuppofe  the  Apoftle  Paul 
did  both  in  his  Time,  and  I  fuppofe  the  Church  of  England  Her 
felf  did  fo  in  the  Time  of  the  late  K.  James.  Mr.  Hobbes  indeed 
was  a  very  Learned  Man  who  made  the  King's  Confcience  the 
Standard  for  the  ■  Conferences  of  all  his  Subjects,  jutr.  as  the  great 
Clock  rules  all  the  lefTer  Clocks  in  Tov/n  ;  yet  that  Gentleman's 
Principles  have  not  been  always  wellfpokenof:  But  it  feems  Mr. 
Rhind  intends  to  revive  them.  3^/j,  Has  not  herMajefty  and  the 
Parliament  Authorized  thQ'Vresbyterian  Government  and  YVorfhip? 
And  yet  do  not  the  Epifcopa]l  Clergy  in  their  Conventicles  every 
Day  both  pray  and  preach  againft  the  fame,  and  that  without  any 
Fear  of  Treafon?  ^hly,  If  the  Scots  Epifcopal  Minifters  are  fo 
chary  of  Treafon  againft  the  Queen,  why  :don't  they  fo  much  as 
pray  for  her?  Why  do  they  skip  over  that  part  of  the  Liturgy 
which  is  defigned  for  Her?  Tis  notourly  known  that  the  Gene- 
rality of  'em  do  this. 

6.  They  pray,  faith  he  ibid,  for  a  BleJ/ing  upon  their  Kjrk  Judica* 
taries  in  the  Exercife  of  their  Difcifline,  which,  in  many  Inflames,  I 
knew  to  be  fcandalou fly  partial,  an  d  highly  Vnjuf.  Well.  Let  us  hear 
one  of  thefe  Inftances?  No.  He  may  perhaps  give  you  that  in  the 
next  Edition;  But  his  Bufinefs  in  this  was  to  Jfort.  •  Mr.  Rhind 
pretends  to  have  gone  over  to  the  Church  of  England.  What  is 
the  Character  0^  Her  Ecclefiaftical  Courts  f  It  wou'd  perhaps  be 
thought  111  Nature  in  Me  to  give  one;  but  let  us  hear  the  Noble 
Hiftorian  Clarendon  who  has  faved  my  Pains  to  purpofe.  -  '  I  never 

*  vet,  faith  tie  ( i ),  fpoke  with  00*  Clergy  Man,  who  hath  had  the 

*  Experience  of  both  Litigations,  that  hath  not  ingexiuoufly  con- 

*  l  feifed 


£  I  2  Y,»K  I.  B.  IV.  p.  44.2..-- 


238  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IV* 

'  fefTed,  he  had  rather,  in  refpetl  of  his  Trouble,  charge,  and  Sa- 
*  tisfaclion  to  his  Undeftanding,  have  three  Suits  depending  in  Weft* 
i  minfter  Hall,  than  one  in  the  Arches,  or  any  Ecclefiaftical  Court. 
Now  tho'  Mr.  Rhind  cou'd  not  pray  for  a  Blefiing  on  the  Kjrk 
Judicatories,  yet  may  he  not,  after  this,  with  great  Freedom  pray 
for  one  upon  the  Church  Judicatories?  I'm  lure  they  have  much 
need  of  Prayers. 

7.  They  do  not,  faies  he  p.  i^i^i^ty  fray  for  the  Forgivenefl  of  their 
Enemies.  And  he  is  fo  high  upon  this,  that  he  afferts,  During  the 
22  Tears  I  was  among  them,  I  don't  Remember  that  ever  I  heard  one 
of  them  (and  1  have  heard  Jome  Hundreds')  prej?  it  as  a  Duty,  or  once 
offer  it  a  Petition  to  Almighty  God.  I  wifh  Mr  Rhind  had  given 
us  fome  better  Teftimony  than  his  own;  But  feeing  he  has  con- 
tented himfelf  with  it,  I  think  it  may  be  enough  to  lay  Mine  in 
the  Balfance  againft  it:  But  then  I  fhallqualifie  it,  that  it  may  be 
enquired  into.  I  have  very  feldom  Occafion  to  hear  others 
preach .  I  am  now  writing  this  upon  the  Eleventh  day  of  November 
171$.  The  laft  Sermon  I  heard  preached  by  another  was  upon 
Thurfday  the  22  of  October  laft.  It  was  preached  by  Mr  Alexander 
Muir  Miiiifter  of  Ruthtrglen  in  the  High  Churcnof  Glafgow  in  that 
Part  of  it  commonly  called  the  Inner-Kjrk  before  a  Numerous  Audi- 
ence upon  Rev.  III.  15.  16.  Ideclare  I  never  conferred  with  him 
upon  the  Subject  of  For -givenefs  of :  Enemies,  either  before  or  fince; 
and  that  he  knows  Nothing  of  my  intending  to  publifh  this  Paffage. 
He  is  known  to  be  a  Zealous  Presbyterian,  and  always  was  fo.  And 
now  after  all  thefe  Circumftances  I  declare,  and  I  appeal  to  the  Ail* 
dience  for  the  Verity  ofit,  '  that  I  heard  him  after  Sermon  pray  in 
Terms  That  God  would  forgive  our  Enemies.  This  I  hope  is  fome  better 
than  Mr  Rhind's  Negative,  and  I  pitched  on  this  Inftance,  only 
becaufeitwas  at  the  laft  Sermon  I  heard.  Fortho' aslfaid,  Ihave 
rarely  Occafion  to  hear  Sermon  from  others,  yet  when  ever  I  chance 
to  beaffiftant  at  the  Communion  any  where,  I  always  hear  4//  Per- 
fons  having  Mi/i^folemnly  debarred  the  Lord's  Table,  andfolemn 
Prayer  put  up  to  God  for  the  Forgivenefs  of  Enemies.  But  enough  of 
this,     we  may  poffibly  hear  more  ofit  afterwards. 

8.  Theyprayfytih  he  p.  1  ^2ffor  the  Detraction  of their  Enemies.  How  ! 
Of  their  Perfonal  Enemies  ?    If  fo,    'tis  a  very  great  Crime  \    and  we 

want 


$e<9:,  £  Presbyterian  Worjhif.'  239 

want  to  have  the  Criminals  named,  and  the  Vouchers  adduced.  Has 
he  done  this  ?  No.  But,  faith  he,  I  am  ready  to  do  it.  Was  he  in 
fo  great  hafte  that  he  cou'd  notftay  to  give  fomuchas0»e  Inftance? 
Gentlemen  of  the  Epifcop4l?erfwaCion  who  have  adopted  and  cherifh- 
ed  this  Book 'of  Mr  Rhivd%  I  appeal  to  you  upon  your  Honour,  Senfe 
and  Confcience,  whether  this  was  a  rational  Way  of  Writing  ; 
and  whether  it  is  not  fcandalous  in  thelaft  Degree  to  approve  of  it. 
^T is  true y  faith  Mr  Rhind,  they  pretend  to  do  this,  bee aufe  the fe  again fl 
whom  they  pray ,  are  Enemies  toTruth,  and  Perfecutors  of  its  Vr  off  or  s  \ 
Very  well;  And  if  that  Pretence  bQtruQ,  are  they  not  juft  in  doing 
fo?  No,  faith  he,  no  Pretence  can  excufe  the  Impiety  of  it.  Strange  / 
Are  there  not  innumerable  Precedents  for  it  in  Scripture?  When  God 
haspromifed  to  cox-fume  the  Man  of  Sin  with  the  Spirit  of  his  Mouth,  and 
to  deBroy  him  with  the  Bright nefs  of  His  coming  XI  Thefs  II.  8.  Is  it  not 
lawful!,  nay  is  it  not  a  Duty  to  turn  this  Promife  into  a  Prayer  ?  To 
come  yet  a  little  nearer,  s  did  Mv  Rhind  never  hear  of  an  Addrefs 
made  by  the  Scots  Prelates  to  the  late  K.James,  wherein  they  prayed 
that  God  would  give  him  the  Hearts  of  his  Subjects,  and  the  Necks  of  his 
Enemies  (kj.  Was  not  this  to  pray  for  the  Deftruclion  of  Enemies 
in  good  Earneft?     And  can  any  Pretence  excufe  the  Impiety  of  it? 

But  Mr  Rhindhad  a  fecret  powerful  Reaion  for  infifting  on  this 
Topick,  as  will  appear  by  his  Enlargement  on  it.  He  alledges  that 
this  Pretence  and  Practice  of  the  Presbyterians  argues  themoft/^#- 
dalous  Partiality  and  vileH  Hjpocrify.^    Pray  how  ?    '  Why ,  faith  He, 

*  "at  the  fame- Time  that  they  pray  for  theDeftruEtion  of  feme,  upon 

*  Pretence  that  they  perfecute  the  Servants  of  God  ;  They  irame- 
i  "diately  offer  up  their  moil:  fervent  Addrefles  for  the  Profperity 
&  of  others  who  are  ;  no  lefs  Perfecutors,  and  neglecl  to  offer  up  one 
6  Petition  for  a  third  Sort  who  have  fignalized  themfelves  in  Behalf  of 
'  fuch  as  fuller  for  Righteoufnefs  Sake.  I  doubt  not  but  fsveral 
Readers  may  want  a  Key  to  this  fine  Harangue,  butT  believe  I 
can  fupply  them.  *  By  the  Jome,  whofe  Deftr  u&ion  the  Fvesby teri- 
ans  pray  for,  ,  upon  Pretence  that  they  perfecute  the  Servants  of  God, 
He  means  the  French  King.  By  the  others  no  lefs  Perfecutors: -whofe 
ptofperity;the>  Presbyterians  pray  for,  .  He  meaQStheKoufeof  A. 

siriay 


£  %  3    See  lohdoa Gazette    Numb.  235$.  An.  1688-,  -■• 


240  Defence  of  the  Chap  IV. 

firia,  the  Duke  of  Savoy  and  fuch  other  Po'pifh  Confederates  in  the 
late  War.  By  the  Third  bon  whom  the  Presbyterians  negleft  to 
pray  for,  notwithstanding  they  have  flgnalized  themfelves  in  Be- 
half of  fuch  as  differ  for  Righteoufnefs  Sake,  hemeans  the  King  of 
Sweden,  who  pioufly  gave  Diverfion  to  the  Allies  in  Behalf  of  the 
French  King :  And  no  doubt  the  Presbyterians  were  very  Guilty  in 
not  praying  to  God  for  Succefs  to  him  in  fo  laudable  a  Service.  And 
now,  Good  Reader,  you  have  Mr  Rhind's  heart,  and  an  account 
of  that  which,  beyond  peradventure,  hecou'd  leaft  of  all  others 
digeft  in  the  Presbyterian  Devotions.  His  Book  bears  Date  in  the  Pre. 
face.  6th  December  1712,  that  is  about  half  a  Year  e're  the  Peace 
was  concluded.  It  was  then  an  Unpardonable  Crime  in  the  Pre- 
sbyterians to  pray  for  the  Queen  and  her  Allies , whereas  they  fhou'd 
have  prayed  for  the  French  King  and  his  Affiftants.  I  believe  there 
is  no  Man  that  knows  any  thing  of  the  Hiftory  of  Lewis's  Reign, 
but  knows  too,  that.  Nero,  Domitian  and  Dioclefian  were  Merci- 
full  Princes  in  Comparifon  of  him;  and  therefore  fuch  as  wou'd 
alleviate  his  Tyranny  and  Perfecution  by  calling  the  Imputation  of 
it  a  Pretence  ought  no  otherwife  to  be  look'd  on  than  as  avowed  E- 
nemies  to  the  Reformed  Interelt.  Andtho'  many  in  Britain  and 
Ireland  are  now  bewitched  with  a  Spirit  of  Infatuation  in  Favours 
of  that  Tyrant,  yet  I  hope  they  may  one  Day  have  their  Eyes  open- 
ed to  fee  both  their  Wickednefs  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  Bufinefs  of  the  Prayers.  How  often 
did  Her  Majefty  declare  from  the  Throne,thatthe  reducing  the  French 
Power  was  neceffary  for  fecuring,  not  only  the  Protectant  Reli- 
gion, but  the  Liberties  oi Europe  too?  And  was  it  not  lawfullto 
pray  for  Succefs  to  thofe  who  joined  with  Her  Majefty  info  good 
a  Work?  Andmuft  not  every  good  Man  in  the  three  Nations 
have  been  fenfibleofthis?  Becaufe  the  People  of  Mr  Rhind's  Kid- 
ney are  content  to  barter  Religion,  Liberty,  and  all  the  moft  valuable 
IntereftsofMankind,  for  the  dear  Enjoyments  of  Slavery  and  Su- 
peritition  ;  was  it  needful  that  the  Reft  of  the  Nation  fhou'd  run 
mad  with  them?  Tis  true  the  Houfe  of  Auttria^Savoy  Sccperfecu- 
ted  the  Protectants  in  Hungary,  Bohemia,  Piemont  and  perhaps 
with  little  lefs  Fury  than  the  French  King  did  his  Subjefts.  But 
it  is  as  true  that  the  Presbyterians  prayed  for   the  Perfecuted 

in 


'SeS,  h  Presbyterian  Worfhif:  24? 

in  thefe  Places ,  and  againft  their  Perfecutors ,  fo  far  as  concerned 
the  Matter  of  Religion,  in  the  fame  Terms  that  they  prayed  for  the 
perfecuted  in  Frame  and  againft  the  FrenchlSmg.  And  'tis  true 
alfo  they  bleffed  God  for  any  Freedom  was  procured  to  the  Pro- 
teftants,  whether  by  the  King  of  Sueden  or  any  other.  But  ft'ill 
they  prayed  againft  the  French  King,and  fodid  the  Church  of  England. 
For  did  not  Her  Majefty  order  Forms  of  prayer  and  Thankfgiving, 
to  becompofedby  the  Bifhops  at  the  Opening  and  Ending  of  each 
Campaign,  for  Succefs  againft  him  ?  Nay  did  not  the  Clergy  by  Di- 
rection of  the  Liturgy  (Is)  pray  every  day  during  the  War  tfot 
God  wou'd  abate  the  pride  of  their  Enemies  ,  ajjwage  their  Malice,  and 
CONFOUND  their  Devices?  And  did  ever  the  Presbyterians  pray 
againft  the  French  King  or  any  Body  elfein  harfher  Terms?  And 
is  it  not  the  Duty  of  every  good  Chriftian  to  pray  for  the  Deftru- 
ction  of  the  Power  of  one  who,  befides  his  bloody  Enmity  to  the 
Reformed  Intereft,  is  notourly  known  to  be  an  OpprefTor  of  the 
Liberties  of  Mankind?  Add  to  all  this, that  to  my  certain  Know- 
ledg  the  Presbyterians  ufually  pray;  that,  if  it  be  .Poflible,  God 
wou'd  give  him  Repentance,  which  I  hope  is  a  kinder  Office  done 
to  him,  than  to  juftifie  his  unparalleled  Wickednefs,  as  fome  o- 
ihers  do. 

9.  He  ObjecTsp  154,  'That  they  offer  up  many  NonfenficalyetU 
1  tions  to  God,  commit  many  Blunders  and  Tautologies,Kxzn{gx&  the 
i*  moft  fundamental  Rules  of  Grammar,  Rhetorick  and  Logick.  Well, 
liow  does  he  prove  all  this  ?  You  are  not  to  ask  that ;  he  CAN  do  it, 
and  that  muft  ftand  for  as  good  as  if  he  had  done  it.  But  how  can 
he  doit?  Why,  *  theExpence  of  a  Shilling,  faithhe,  will  procure 
i  from  fome  Abort  Hand  Writer  a  Copy  of  one  of  their  Prayers  at 
*  fome  of  their  Weekly  Leftures  m  Edinburgh,  where  one  wou'd-fup- 
'  pofe  their  Men  of  beft  Senfe  did  officiate.  But  why  wou'd  he  ha- 
zard  his  being  branded,  as  a  Malicious  Slanderer,  rather  than  goto 
theExpence  of  a  Shilling?  However  nigardly  he  is  of  hisPurfe,  it 
feems  he  is  abundantly  prodigal  of  K*  Fame.  Befides,  when  he  has 
publifhed  one  fuch  Prayer,  I  hope  no  Man  in  his  Wits  wou'd  fuf- 
tainthatas  ajuft   Exception  againft  the  whole  Communion.    There 

H  h  •  are 


£,   1]    See  Prayer  in  the  Time  of  War  and  Tumults. 


242  Defence  of  the  Chap  IV. 

are  no  Doubt  weak  Men  among  the  Presbyterians.  But  does  not 
the  fame  ObjeSionly  againM:  every  other  Society,  tho'againft  none 
lb  much,  that  Ic^n  hear  of, 'througlnhe  broad  World,  as  againft  the 
Eftgfcfe In fefiour Clergy  ?   '  The  much  greater  Part  of  thofe  (as  the 

*  Bifhop  of  Suram  told  us  laft  Year  about  this  fame  Time)  (m)    who 

*  come  to  be  ordain'd  are  ignorant  to  a.  Degree,  not  to  be  apprehended 

*  by  thofe  who  are  not  obliged  to  know  it.  The  eafieft  Part  of 
'  Knowledg  is  that  to  which  they  are  the  greateft  Strangers ;  I  mean 
'  the  plained:  Parts  of  the  Scriptures,  which  they  fay,  in  Excufeol  their 

*  Ignorance  jhzt  their  Tutors  in  the  Univerfnies  never  mention  the  read- 
1  ing  of  to  them,  fo  that  they  can  give  no  Account,or  at  leaft  a  very  Im- 
t  perfect  one,  of  the  Contents  even  of  the  Go/pels.  Thofe  who  have 
c  read  fome  few  Books,  yet  never  feemtohave  read  the  Scriptures, 
'  Many  cannot  give  a  tolerable  Account  even  of  the  Catechijm  it  felf, 
e  how  fhort  and  plain  foever.    They  cry  and  think  it  a  fad  Difgrace 

*  to  be  denyed  Orders,  tho'  the  Ignorance  of  fome  isfuch,  that  in  a 

*  well  regulated  State  of  Things,  they  wou'd  appear  not  knowing 
'  enough  to  be^dmitted  to  the  Holy  Sacrament.    This  does  often  tear 

*  my  Heart.     The  Cafe    is  not  much  better  in  many^  who  having 

*  got  into  Orders  come  for  Inftitution,  and  cannot  make  it  appear 
6  that  they  have  read  the  Scriptures  or  any  one  good  Book  fmcethey 
(  were  ordained,  fo  that  the /w^//Meafure  of  Knowledg  upon  which 

*  They  got  into  Holy  Orders  not  being  improved,  is  in  a  Way  to  be 
'  quite  loft.  Thus  far  Bifhop  Burnet.  I  hope  this  is  fome  better 
Tert  imony  than  a  Copy  of  a  Prayer,  not  yet  delivered,  from  fome 
Short  Hand  W7riter. 

After  all  this,  to  make  Mr  RhM  eafie,  I  fhall  ingenuofly  confefs 
how  far  his  Charge  may  be  true  againft  the  Presbyterian  Ministers. 
NeitbenheleoPem  at  Edinburgh^  nor  any  of 'cm  elfe  where  are  fond 
of  that  which  Tillotfon  calls  Rumbling  Rbetorick  alias  Bowbaft :  Nor 
are  they  carefull  to  make  their  Sentences  run  like  Blank  Vet  fe,  or  fall 
into  a  Mufical  Cadence,  as  if  they  were  juft  come  from  reading  an 
Englifb  1  ragedy.  They  don't  affeft  the  Englijb  Accent  without  the 
Englijb  Phrafe  :  Nor  dotheyafpireto  have  their  Language  Soaring 
in  the  Clouds,  and  their  Thoughts  mean  while  creeping  on  the 
Flat.  No,  they  think  it  fufficient  to  deliver  themfelves  in  plain  Scotch, 

without 


[raj     Preface  to  the  Foiuth.  Edition  of  htj  Paftoral  Car& 


Se ft.  I.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  24 j 

without  Flights  of  Fancy  or  Points  and  Turns  of  Wit ;  being  fenfible 
1  thatfuch  Things  are  both  unfuitable  to  the  Simplicity  of  the  Gofpel; 
and  betides,  that  they  wouM  be  thrown  away  onthegreatefl:  Part  of 
their  Audience.  For,  They  don't  believe  that  every  one  that  wears 
afineHatorafafbionable  Head-Drefsisa  deepScholar.  They  know 
1  there  are  vulgar  Wits  under  long  Wigs  oftimes,  as  well  as  under  the 
Natural  Hair ;  and  within  Silk  Scarfs  as  well  ascoarfe  Plaids.  And 
therefore,  both  in  their  Prayers  and  P reachirfgs  they  adapt  their 
Difcourfe  to  Men  of  low  Degree ;  being  convinced  of  Mr  Dryder?% 
good  Sen fe  wbenhefaid 

That  the  fir  Ait  Gate  tvou'd  be  made  (Ir  alter  yet 
Were  none  admitted  there  but  Men  of  Wit. 

All  this  I  confefs,  the  Presbyterians  are  guilty  of;  and  let  Mr 
Rbind  improve  onitasfar  as  he  ever  can.  The  reft  of  the  Charge 
We  fhall acknowledge  after  hearing  Probation,  which  equal  Judges 
I  hope  willful/tain  as  a  Relevant  Dilator. 

10.  In  the  iafi  P  iace  Mr  Khind  objefts  the  Omiffion  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  He  does  Indeed  bring  in  this  Objection  in  his  Arguings  a- 
gainft  the  MANNER,  of  our  Prayers;  and  there  we  (bill  confider 
itasan  Argument  for  Forms.  But  he  infifts  upon  it  likewife  as 
a  fundamental  Defeti^  and  therefore  1  (hall  confider  it  here  while 
treating  ot  the  butter  of  our  Prayers.  Now  take  the  Objection 
in  his  own  Words  P.  164.      4  lijatih  he,  the  Lord's  Prater  be  a 

*  Form,  which  when  we  pray  we  aiecommanded  toufe;and  if  the 

*  Presbyterians  totally  neglect  to  ufe  it  as  fuch,  I  appeal  to  the  Read- 

*  er,  whether  th£y  are  not  chargeable  with  an  Imperii  and  fundi* 

*  mental  OTiitTion;  and  in  Conlequence  ,  whetherall  who  would  not 

*  be  involved  in  the  Guilt, or  run  the  hazard  of  offering  up  an  un- 
t    acceptable,  becaufe  an  Imperfect  Worfhip,  Jbould    not    leparate 

*  from  them  ,     Thus  He.  For  Anfwer 

The  Judgment  of  a  Church  is  to  be  gathered  from  her  publick 
Formula's.  \  Now  in  all  thefe  the  Presbyterians  own  itlawfull  to 
ufe  it  as  a  Prayer.  The  lejjer  Catechifm  calls  it  a  Form.  The 
larger  Catechifm  faies  it  may  be  ufed  as  a  Prayer .  The  Direclory  re- 
commends it  io  be  ufed  as  fuch.  The  General  Affembly  1705  recom- 
mends the  Oblervation  of  the  Diretto*y .  Accordingly  ma<y  Mi- 
miters  do  ufe  the  Lord's  Prayer.  I  my  felf  ufe  it  fometirr.es,  my 
next  Neighbour  Miniiter  does  the  fame.  His  next  Neighbour^  b,ih 

H  h  2  °* 


244  Defence  of  the  CBajp,  IV; 

of  'em  Genuine  Presbyterian*}  ufes  it  every  Lord's  Day.  The 
like  do  others  in  feveral  parts  of  the  Nation.  '  Tis  therefore  falfe 
what  Mr  Rbind  affirms,  that  the  Presbyterians  totally  neglect  toufe 
it  even  in  the  very  Words  thereof.  But  then,  to  make  the  O mi  (ft* 
on  of  it  an  Impious  and  Fundamental  Defeel:,  and  a  mceffary  Caufe 
of  Separation  is  an  uncommon  Stretch  which  hardly  any  Man 
wou'd  have  ventured  on,  who  has  Modefty  enough  to  flick  at  a- 
ny  Thing.  And  therefore  I  mult  crave  Leave  to  reafonthis  Mafr 
ter  fomevvhat  particularly  with  Mr  Rhind.     And 

In  the  Fir  ft  Place  I  ask.  Is  Mr  Rhind  or  any  of  his  party  fure  that 
the  Lord's  Prayer  was  not  mainly  intended  as  a  Pattern  rather  than 
a  Form.  Their  Confidence  wii]  indeed  bear  them  out  to  affert 
any  Thing:  Yet  Grotius,  one  of  the  moft  Judicious  Criricks  the 
World  has  yet  known,  has  exprefly  faid    upon  the  Place,     e  That 

*  Chrift  did  not  command  the  WORDS  to  be  recited.  But  that  we 
'  fhould  take  the  Materials  of  our  Prayers  thence:  And  He  gives 
this  Solid  Reafon  for  it,  '  That  tho4  it  maybe  ufedwith  great 
e  Profit  as  a  Form  or  in  the    very   Words,   yet  we  don't  read 

*  that  ever  the  Apoftles  ufed  it  fo.  Now  let  us  hear  what  Mi\ 
Rhind  has  advanced  to  prove  it  a  Form,  lft,  \  That  it  is  a  Form 
6  of  prayer,  faith  he,  is  hence  evident,  becaufe  it  is  conceived  in 
6  the  fame  Manner  as  other  prayers,  that  is,  with  Invocation,  Pe* 
'  titions,  Doxology  and  concluding  Amen,  lanfwer  it  has  all 
thefe  parts  in  Matthew  \  but  it  was  twice  prefcribed  upon  different 
Occafions,  and  fo  faith  Jofepb  Mede  himfelf  upon  the  Subject.  And 
when  it  was  prefcribed  in  -Matthew,  'tis  plain  in*  was  defigned  only 
for  a  Pattern:.  For  the  Precept  runs  thus,  After  this  Manner  there- 
fore pray  ye.  Therefore  the  Argument,  that  it  is  conceived  there 
in  the  fame  Manner  as  other  prayers,  is  Naught  j  feeing  it  was  not 
there  defigned  as  a  prayer  but  as  a  Pattern.     2^/;,  '  Weare^/az/A 

*  Mr.  .Rbind,  exprefly  commanded  to  SAY  Our  Father  &c.  But 
'it  is  Nonfenfe  to  command,  us  to  fay  a  Pattern,  Therefore  we 
'are  to  ufe  it  as  a.  Form.  Thus  he.  lanfwer,  Mr.  Rhmd\  form- 
er Argument  deflro}s  this:  For  it  is  in  Luh\  Gofpel  that  wo 
are  commanded  to  SAY  Our  Father  &c.  But  in  Lukeh  Gofpel 
there  is  neither  the  Doxology  nor  the  Amen.  Therefore  it  is  not 
conceived  in  the  fame  Manner  as  other  Prayers,  in  that  place  whera 

w« 


Seff.  L  Presbyterian  VPorflrif.  24^ 

we  are  bid  SAY  it.  Nay,  Grotius  is  of  the  Mind  that  thefe  Ciaufes 
Which  art  in  Heaven,  and  Thy  Will  be  done,  as  in  Heaven  foin  Earth 
and -Deliver  us  from  Evil,,  were  not  Originally  in  Luke's  Gofpei, 
but  crept  into  it  out  of  Matthew's.  And  he  gives  this  Reafon  for 
it,  That  the  firll  Claufe  Which  art  in  Heaven  is  not  extant  in  the 
old  Latine  Copies.  And  the  Second  Claufe,  Thy  Will  be  done  as 
in  Heaven  fo  in  Earth y  is  neither  extant  in  the  Old  Latine  Copies* 
nor  in  fome  of  the  Greek  Copies.  And  it  is  very  falfe  what  Mr. 
Rhind  alledges,  that  it  is  Nonfense  to  bid  us  fay  a  Pattern:  For  in 
every  Language,  that  I  know  any  Thing  of,  there  are  greater 
Eliffes  ufual  than  this  After  this  Manner  or  To  this  Purpofe.  And 
fo  Luke's  Way  of  Speaking  is  very  plain,  When  Te  fray,  Say  viz. 
After  this  Manner,  or  to  this  Purpofe.  Upon  the  whole,  feeing 
the  Lords  Prayer  was  at  leaft  mainly  intended  for  a  Pattern,  which 
I  hope,  is  now  tolerably  evident,  'tis  pretty  hard  to  conceive  how 
the  OmirBon  of  it  as  a  Form  can  be  a  fundamental  DefecV 

In  the  Second  Place  I  ask  Mr.  Rhind  and  his  Party,  if  they 
have  not  obferved,  that  the  Words  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the 
Original  are  not  the  fame  in  both  Gofpels.    In  Matthew's  we  read 

9is- ■  »[*Tr  si'[*tftu;Jn  Lake's  Ji'JV  >j^T»  r»  k#Q'  h\*>^to-     1°  Matthews  xtpts  nph  vklQHxkpotTto- 
ift&>i,    mi    kxi    ipas  kpiipli    rot?   oj>et\iTXl$  npait-     In   Luke's     ids   Kpttprisis     Yi^av^    »xt   y*f> 

*v™  ipupw  jr«m  i<p<kxow  z$t;<  'Yjs  true,  our  Saviour  probably  did  not 
fpeak  in  Greek-  But  when  the  EiTangelifts  have  varied  fo  in  their 
Wording  of  it,  'tis  plain  that  they  did  not  understand  our  Saviour  as 
meaning  to  bind  them  up  to  Words  and  Syllables.  The  like  Vari- 
ation of  phrafe,  which  I  take  Notice  of  for  the  Englifb  Reader's  Sake, 
is  obfervable  in  our  Tranflation-  In  Matthews  Gofpei  we  read  77;/ 
Will  be  done  in  Earth  as  it  is  in  Heaven.  In  Luke's  Thy  Will  be  done,  as1 
in  Heaven  fo  in  Earth.  In  Matthew's  Give  us  this  Dry  our  daily  Bread. 
Tri  Luke's  Give  us  Day  by  Day  our  daily  Bread,  and  on  the  Margin  For 
the  Day.  In  Matthew's  Forgive  us  our  Debts,  as  we  forgive  our  Debt- 
ors.  InljukQ's  Forgive  us  our  Sins,  for  tve  alfo  forgive  every  one  that  is- 
indebted  to  us.  And  which  is  ftrange  enough,  the  Englifh  Liturgy 
varies  from  both:  For  thus  it  has  it  Forgive  us  our  Trefpafles  as  we 
fgrgive  them  that  trefpafs  againft  us;,  and  in  it  generally,  the  Doxo- 
k)gy For -thine <  is  the  Kjngdom'&c  is  wanting.  Now  after  all  this  Va-*  ■ 
riety,  is  it  to  bethought  that  we  are  tyed  up  to  the  Form  of  Words, 
anthat  the  Omifsion  of  them  can  tea  fundamental  D$fe&>> 

2a  ; 


246  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IV; 

Tn  the  Third  Place.  IaskMr  Rbindznd  his  Party,  ifthey  are  fure, 
even  fuppofeing  it  were  a  »/#,  that  the  Precept  for  ufing  it  was 
intended  for  PUBLICK  Worfhip  ?  I  don't  now  ask  it  it  be  lawful  I 
there,  that  isgranted.  Rut  that  ir  was  not  originally  intended  for  ir, 
I  conceive  to  be  fome what  more  than  probable.  iy?,  Becaufe  mail 
thenublick  Miniftrations  related  in  the  New  Teftament  we  never 
finditufed.  2dly,  Becaufe  our  Saviour  took  Occafion  from  difccur- 
fing  onftcret  Prayer  to  pretcnbe  and  give  the  Command  fbrir.  And 
|Aj;Y?he  Difciplesdid  not  then  look  upon  themfelvtsas  Minifters,  nor 
expected  ever  to  be  employed  as  Officers  in  the  Church  .-  Seeing,  not 
only  now,  but  even  a  long  Time  aiterthis,  yea  af>er  Chnft'sRe- 
furredion,  they  ftill  imagined  that  the  Jew/Jb  Polity  was  to  continue, 
in  which  thofe  of  the  Family  of  Levi  alone  were  by  Divine  Right 
Church  Officers.  Now  if  it  was  not  originally  intended  for  Publtik 
Worfhip,  how  can  the  Omiflion  of  it  i n  Yubttik  Worfhip  bt  zfunda- 
mental  jJefecf  ?  Efpecially,  when  we  are  fure,  thatthis,  whichl 
have  given,  was  theSenfe  which  the  primitive  Church  had  of  this 
Matter.     For  thus  Augustine  exprelsiy  decia-es  fo)  '  Th  t  C  hriff, 

*  in  the  Delivery  of  thefe  Petitions,  di  '  notreaLh  his  Difciples  how 
c  they  fhou'd  /peak,  or  what  Words  tl  e>  fhou'd  ufe  in  Prayer  ;     but 

*  to  whomthey   were  to  pray,  and   what  Things  they  were  to  pray 
f  for,     when  they  were  in  the   Fxeicife  oiSeoe>or  Mental  Prayer ? 

In  the  Fourth  H/ace.  I  ask,  how  can  rhe  tptfcopal  Patty  account 
for  that  Senfe  which  they  have  given  ot  tie  Precept  And  how  can 
they  juffifie  that  horrid  Doctrine  which  they  have  founded  it  on  ?  la 
the  \(t  Place,  They  m^kerheSenfe  oi  the  Precept  Whenytp* ay,  $dj9 
to  be,  When  ye  have  done  wi' h  your  own  Prayers,  annex  this.  I  his  IS 
fuchanlnfipid  Glofs,  and  io  unheard  ot  among  the  Ancients,  that  I 
admire  they  are  not  afhamedot  it.  Wearefnre  that  trie  Ancients 
either  ufeditalone,  or  prefixed  it  to  their  Prayeis  when  they  uled 
it.     ThusTertuliian  (0  j  after  a  large  Commendation  ot  the  Lord's 

Prayer 


[  n  ]  lAuguflin.  de  Magiirro  Cap.  i.  .Aug.  Non  re  ergo  movet  Domintis  fummu?  Magifter,  cum  orare 
doceret  difcipulos,  verba  quajdam  docuit,  in  quo  nihil  aliud  videtur  leaffe,  quam  docuiffe  quomodo  n  orand» 
loqui  oporteret :  tAD-  Nihil  me  ommno  lttua  movet :'  con  enim  verba,  iedresiplas  eo?  verbis  docuit,  quibus 
et  ie  lpficommonei'acerent,  a  Quo,  Quid  eiTet  orandum,  cumin  penetralibus,  us  diSumeft,  mentis  oraieut. 
viiig-   Refle  intelligis. 

[oj  Fofle  nos  Taper  adjicere.  Quoniam  tamen  Dominus  profpe&or  humanarum  neceflitati.ni  feoriiw 
poll  tiacitam  orandi  difciplinam,  Petite,  inquir,  &  accipietis,  &  funt  qua;  petantur,  pro  Circumftanna  Cu- 
jufque,  prsctnijla  legjnma  &  ordmana  omuoue  quaii  tundamewo,  accktenuum  jus  eft  dekderieruin.  Jus  ell 
fuperftrueadi.—  DeOracione  p.  6/9. 


Sfe&;  L  Presbyterian  Worjhty.  247 

Prayer  adds,  '  We  may  add  thereunto;  Forfince  the  Lord  the  Pro- 
€.  vlder  for  all  Human  Neceffities,  has  in  another  Place,  after  He 
c  'had  delivered  this  Prayer,  faid,  'Ask  and  yejhall  receive :  And  every 
6  one  has  particular  Circumftances  to  beg  for,  therefore  having  pre* 
*  -mifed  the  lawfull  and  ordinary  Prayer,  there  is  place  for  accidental 
4  Requeds.  Thus  He.  But  whether  they  prefixed  it,  or  annexed  it  ; 
they  had  no  Opinion  of  the  fundamental  Nectffity  of  doing  fo ;  an  infal- 
lible Argument  of  which  is,  that  we  find  them  frequently  praying 
without  the  Lord's  Prayer,  either  a*  the  Beginning  or  Ending  of 
their  Prayers.  Thus,  as  Sir  Piter  Kjng  has  already  noted  (pj  In  the 
Heavenly  Prayer  ofPolyarpus  at  the  Stake,  The  Lord's  Prayer  is  nei- 
ther at  Beginning  nor  Ending.  •  Thus  Clemens  Alexandrinus  con- 
cludes his  laft  Book  of  Padagogy,  with  a  Prayer  which  neither  ends  nor 
begins  with  the  Lord  VPrayer;  and  Origen  (q)  preferring  a  Me- 
thod of  Prayer,  fpeaks not  a  Word  of  the  Lord's  Prayer ;  but  ad- 
vifes  both  to  begin  and  end  with  Doxology,  or  a  giving  Praife  to  God„ 
This  they  wouM  never  have  done,  had  they  believed  that  it  was 
fundamentally  necejfary  to  join  the  Lord's ''Prayer  with  their  own. 
With  what  Reafon  then  czn  our  Scots  Epifcopaiians  make  that  the 
Senfe  of  the  Precept  ?  But  then  2^/7,  The  Principle  upon  which 
they  found  this  Senfe  is  a  mo IV  horride  one :  For  they  aflert,  that  the 
joining  it  with  our  own  Impelled  Prayers  renders  them  acceptable 
before  God  ;  as,  on  the  other  Hand,  the  Want  of  it  makes  them  un- 
acceptable. This  is  plain  from  Mr  Rhlnd<s  Words  before  cited.  Now 
what  e'lle  is  this  but  to  turn  that  Excellent  Prayer  into  an  Idolatrous 
Charm,  and  to  make  the  Repetition  of  it  fupply  the  Place  of  the  Merit 
and  Interceffion  of  our  Saviour?  I  ask  now  whether  rhe  Presbyterians 
OmifTion  of  it,  or  the  EpifcopaliarPs  Ufage  of  it  upon  fuch  a  Principle 
be  the  more  accountable  ?  ■ 

To 'conclude -this' Matter.  'Tis  true  the  Lortfs  Prayer  was  early 
ufed  in  the  publick  ademblies  of  Christians .  But  it  was  not  ufed 
more  than  onee  at  one  Affembly:  Not  in  Prayers  before  or  after  Ser- 
mon, not  at  all  in  the  Catechumen's  OiHce,  but  in  the  EuchariJiicalOf. 
fioe,  and  even  there  they  did  not  apprehend  that  Chrift  enjoined 

them 


[  p"  ]•  Enquiry  inra  th'e '  Cecftitution  &c  of  the  Primitive  QkMi'-U  P<in  JI,  P.  ati 
£  2  X  ^e  Oracioae  Seft.  as.  p.  134-  13;,    r 


24§  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IV, 

them  toufethe  Words.  And  thus  many  others  (  r  )  both  of  th« 
Protefiant  and  Roman  Communion  have  underftood  it.  So  much 
for  the  Exceptions  again  ft  the  Matter  of  the  Prayers  of  the  Presby. 
terians .  Fart  of  which  Exceptions  are  manifeftly  falfe  in  F/<5?,arrd 
all  the  Reft  of  the  things  excepted  againft,  Juftifiable,  at  leaft  as 
Lawfully  and  for  the  moft  Fart  li-Dnty. 


ARTICLE       II 

Wherein  Mr  R  hind f s  Exception  againft  the  Man  - 
ner  of  the  Presby  teriancs  Prayers ^  if  conjidered* 
From  P. i ^6.  to  P.  177. 

MR  RhM  frequently  affirms  them  to  be  highly  Imperfetf  in 
this  Refpeft . The  only  Reafon  he  gives  is,  that  they  are 
performed  in  the  Extemporary  Way,  as  he  exprefles  it.  For  making 
this  a  high  Imperfeffion,  He  I.  Infiftsupon  the  huge  Difad van- 
tages of  it.  II.  Effays  by  Arguments  to  prove  the  Excellency,  if 
not  the  Neceflity,  of  the  Liturgick  Way. 

I.  He  infifts  upon  the  Difadvantages  of  the  Extemporary  Way  a- 
mong  the  Presbyterians,  which  he  lays  out  in  Three  particulars. 

The  Firft  Difad  vantage  is,  '  That  a  Man  is  difcharged  the  ufeoW 
'■  helps,  and  is  defired  to  depend  only  upon  the  Motion  of  the  Spirit 

*  p.  157.    The  Refult  of   which  is,  that  when  one  is  not  bleffed 
1  with  the  Gift  of  prayer,  he  is  tempted  to  neglect  it  altogether;  or  if 

*  he  eflay  it  once,  and  finds  that  he  cannot  perform  it  to  any  tole- 
J  rable  purpofe,  he  is  difcouraged  from  any  further  Attempt;  and  fo 

muft 

\_v~]  Maldonat.'w  Mattb.^.  9.  Non  his  neceflario  verbis,  fed  hac  aut  fimili  feocentia---  nam  non  Apoftolos 
erando  his  ipfis  verbis  ufos  fuiffe  legiraus,  aliis  legiinus.  Neque  voluit  Chriftus,  ut  quatiescunque  oramus, 
ifta  smnia,  qua;  hac^  oracione  continentur,  peteiemus,  fed  uc  omnia,  aut  aliqua,  aut  nihil  certe  his  contra- 
riumpeterem.  Caftuban.  Exercit.  135.  Chriftus  vero  non  de  predicatione  Dei  laudum  agit,  fed  lit  re£te  mo- 
aec  <Auguflinus,  de  rnodo  concipiendi  preces  privatas.  Janfen  inLuc.il.  Itaque  ut  dilceremus  in  oratione, 
non  tarn  de  verbis,  quam  de  rebus  efle  anxij,  ac  dc  fpiritu  oracionis,  diYerfis  verbis  ©ratio  neauradidit.  Tide 
§L% lyson on  Liturgies, 


Se<3:.  J.  Presbyterian  PVorJhip.  249 

'  muO:  continue  in  Ignorance  and  Irreligion;the  obtaining  of  which 

'among  the  Generality  of  people ,  faith  He ,  is  in  a  great  Meafure 

••.owing  to  the  Want  of  Forms.     Of  if  a  perfon  groily    Ignorant 

•  yet  adventure  to  pray,  his  performance  muft  be  crowded  with 
1  flat  Impertmencies  ,Subfianthl  Nonfenfe  and  horrid  Blafphemiet,  all 
c  which  is  unavoidable  in  the  Extemporary  Way.  To  this  purpofc 
he  p.  156,157.  Is.it  pofTibleMr  RUM  cou'd  be  22  Years  among  the 

,  Presbyterians,  and  not  know  that  what  he  has  laid  down  for  the  Foun- 
dation ofalhhis,  is  even  atranfparent  Falfhood.  Was  he  not  fenfible 
that  every  one,  that  cou'd  open  his  Eyesand  read  Englijjj,  was  in  a  Ca- 
pacity to  convince  him  of  the  grofleft  Calumny  and  Slander?  Do  the 
Presbyterians  DifchatgetheVfe  of  all  Helps  in  Prayer  either  to  Minifters 
or  Private  Chriftians  ?  Was  not  the  Directory  for  the  Publick  Worfliip 
of  God  compiled  on  purpofe  to  give  them  both  Help  and  Furniture  ? 
Q).  Is  not  every  Minifter  therein  exhorted  to  be  carefull  tofuwifh  both 
his  Heart  And,  Tongue  with  farther  and  other  Materials,  asfhallbe  need- 
fall  upon  all  Occajions?  Hath  not  the  General  AlTembly  given  Dire. 
&ions  ft),  and  fuggefxed  Materials  for  Private  Prayer  ?  Nay  do 
they  not  exprefly  recommend  Forms  of  prayer  to  the  Rude  and 
Weaker /v)  fWhat  meant  he  then  to  fay , that  they  are  difcharged 
the  ufe  of  all  helps;  and  de 'fired  to  depend  only  upon  the  Motion  of  the  Spi- 
rit? Did  he  prefume  that  his  party  were  given  up  to  believe  a  Lye} 
With  what  Confidence  cou'd  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  pre- 
vails among  the  Vulgar,  and  Impieties  reign,  yet,  I  hope,  unknown 
on  this  Side  Tweed.  Mr.  Rhind  has  taken  a  great  deal  of  Pains  to 
reprefent  the  Gift  of  Prayer  as  an  unatainable  Thing.  But  hear 
Bifhop  Wilkins  upon  it,  c  As  for  the  pretended  Difficulty  of  it 
1  faith  he  fjc),  I  fhall  in  this  Difcourfe  make  it  evident,  that  if  it 

•  be  Serioufly  attempted  (as  all  Religious  BufinefTes  ought  to  be) 

•  'tis  eafie  to  be  attained  by  any  one  that  has  but  common  Capaci- 
ty. And  I  fuppofe  every  Body  who  has  read  his  Difcourfe  is  con- 
vinced he  has  made  his  Word  good. 

I  i  Tht 


[  s  2  See  Preface  to  the  ©ire&ory.        T  t  ~\  See  them  annexed  to  the  Confeff.  of  Faith.     Edinburgh 
Printed  by  Jumes  Wntfon  1708.         [  v  ]  Ibid.  See*.  9.        [x  ]  Gift  of  Prayer  Chap.  II.  p.  i».  iz« 


250  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IV. 

The  Second  Difadvantage  of  Extemporary  Prayer  is  the  Danger, 
or  at  lead:  the  Uncertainty  of  the  Lawfullnefs  of  Joining  in  it.  Fcr 
Suppofe,  Jaith  be  p.  157,  a  Mun  who  is  Matter  of  a  tolerable  Ex- 
temporary Faculty,  is  the  Orator;  yet  even  in  that  Cafe,  before 
he  begin,  ye  are  under  an  Uncertainty  whether  what  he  fhall 
fay  be  Right  or  Wrong :  This  keeps  the  Spirit  in  Sufpence.  Per- 
haps the  third  or  fourth  Petition  is  dubious  or  unbound,  which  ye 
cannot  offer  up  to  God.  Perhaps  the  next  ye  hear  is  flat  or  Im- 
pertinent, and  therefore  grateing  to  a  Man  cf  Senfe.  To  this 
purpofe  he.  Is  not  this  a  pretty  Way  of  arguing  by  Perhaps  ?  I 
need  not  fpend  Time  upon  fuch  Chimerical  Stuff.  Take  the  An- 
fwer  from  Bifhop  Wilkins  in  the  place  laft  cited.  (  Whereas,  faith 
he,  'tis  commonly  objected  by  fome,  that  they  cannot  fo  well  join 
in  an  unknown  Form  with  which  they  are  not  before  Hand  ac- 
quainted. I  anfwer,  that's  an  Inconfiderable  Objection,  and  does 
oppofe  all  Kind  of  Forms  that  are  not  publickly  prefcribed.  As 
a  Man  may  in  his  Judgment  affent  unto  any  Divine  Truth  de- 
livered in  a  Sermon,  which  he  never  heard  before ;  fo  may  he 
join  in  his  Affections  unto  any  Holy  dejire9  which  he  never  heard 
before.  If  he  who  is  the  Mouth  of  the  Reft,  fhall  through  Im- 
prudence deliver  that  which  we  cannot  approve  of,  God  does  not 
6  look  upon  it  as  our  prayer,  if  our  Defires  do  not  fay  Amen  to  ir. 
Thus  he.  And  Nothing  cou'd  have  been  laid  more  patly  to  the 
prefent  Objection. 

The  Third  Difadvantage  attending  Extemporary  prayer  is,  '  That 
1  even  where  there  is  Nothing  amifs  in  the  Matter  of  the  prayer, 
'  yet  the  Hearer  cannot  at  once  exercife  that  Serioufneis  and  In- 
'  tent  ion  with  Refpect  to  God,  and  that  Attention  which  is  Ne- 
*  cellar y  to  catch  what  drops  from  him  who  prays.  Thus  Mr. 
Rhind  p.  158.  But  this  is  an  Objection  of  the  fame  Nature 
with  the  former ;  an  Objection  to  which  His  own  whimficaj 
Imagination  is  both  Father  and  Mother.  Tho'  Mr  Rhind  pretends 
he  cannot  do  both  at  once.  Yet  I  believe  every  Man  elfe  in  the 
World  finds  it  not  only  poffible  but  eafie  to  do.  When  there  is 
Nothing  amifs  in  the  Matter  of  the  Prayer,  which  is  his  Supposition., 
a  Man  mull  be  very  Ghb  of  the  Tongue,  if  my  Thoughts  can- 
not held  Face  with  him: .  And  the  Intenfmfs  of  my  Afjetfiom  will 

be 


Seftl.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  251 

be  fo  far  from  being  a  Hinderance,  that  it  will  be  a  Help  to  the 

Attention  of  my  Thoughts. 

But  now  are  not  all  thefe  Imaginary  Difadvantages  as  frequent 
and  as  obvious  in  the  Liturgick  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  Cafes  that  moil  frequently  happen  ?  Muft 
fie  not  quite  neglect  Prayer  at  Home .?  And  is  knot  impoffible  for 
him  toexerciie  both  Attention  and  Intention  at  once  when  he  comes 
to  Church  ?  Is  not  the  looking  upon  the  Book  and  reading,  a  greater 
Diverfion  to  the  Affections  than  any  Thing  can  be  memion'd  in  the 
Extemporary  Way?  Befides,  does  not  Mr  Rhind,  who  is  fo  well 
acquaint  with  the  Animal  Oeconomy,  know,  that  when  one  is  accu- 
ftomed  to  a  Form,  there  is  the  greateft  Danger  of  falling  into  Lip- 
Service  and  Formality  ;  and  the  greater!  Difficulty  in  exercifing  ei- 
ther Attention  or  Intention  ?  'Tis  certainly  fo.  Every  Man  knows  it 
who  has  tryed  it ;  and  Bifhop  Wilkins  who  was  a  great  Philofopher 
as  well  as  a  great  Divine  has  obferved  it  (  y  ).  '  In  this  Cafe,  faith  he9 
€  it  fhould  be  fpecially  remembered,  that  in  the  Ufe  of  fuch  prefcript 

*  Forms,  to  which  a  Man  hath  been  accuftomed,  he  ought  to  be 
6  narrowly  watchfull  over  his  own  Heart,  for  fear  of  that  Lip- Service 
c  and  Formality,  which  in  fuch  Cafes  we  are  more  efpcially  expofed 

*  unto.  Thus  He.  Somuchfor  the  pretended  Difadvantages  that  attend 
Extemporary  Prayer, which  I  think  are  pretty  real  in  the  Liturgick  Way. 

II.  Mr.  Rhind  effays  by  Arguments  to  prove  the  Excellency  of 
the  Liturgick  Way.  And  he  argues  it  to  be  the  Belt.  Firjl,  from 
the  Nature  of  the  Thing.  Secondly,  From  Univerfal  pra&ice. 
Thirdly,  From  the  Approbation  of  Heaven  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Teftament.  Fourthly,  From  the  Ufage  of  the  Primitive  and 
Ancient  Church.  And  Laftly,  From  the  praQice  of  the  Reformed 
Churches.  And  then  he  concludes  all  with  anfweringthe  Objection, 
that  Forms  Stint  the  Spirit. 

Fir Ht  He  argues  for  the  Excellency  of  the  Liturgick  Way  from 
the  Nature  of  the  Thing  p.  159,  160.  God,  faith  he,  ought  to  be 
mrjbipped  in  the  beft  Manner  pofjible.  'Tis  granted.  A  Form  of 
Worfhip,  fubfumes  he,  which  always  prefuppofes  Fore-Thought  is  incom- 
parahly  better  than  the  Extemporary  Way,  which  requires  little  or  none 

I  i  2  *P 


£  7  ]  Ubi  Supra 'p.  s« 


252  Defence  of  the  Chap   IV. 

at  all.  Who  told  him  that  the  Extemporary  Way  requires  Utile 
or  no  Fore-Thought. ?  Did  ever  the  Presbyterians teachfo?  Have 
they  not  in  their  Dird'tory  enjoined  each  Miniller  4  to  ftirr  up  the 
4  Gifts  of  Chriit  in  bimfelf,  rind,  by  Meditation  as  well  as  by  ob- 
c  ferving  the  Ways  of  Divine  providence  and  other  Methods,  to 
4  furnifh  himfelf  with  Materials  of  prayer ?  Does  not  every  Pre- 
sbyterian who  treats  of  that  Subject  enjoin  the  lame?  Have  they 
ever  taught  other  wife  than  Bifhop  Wilkins  himfdf  has  taught  <n 
this  Cafe  ( z.)  viz.  4  That  generally  it  is  both  lawful]  a  d  Necef- 
4  fary  to  prepare  our  felves,  as  for  this  Gift  in  general,  fo  for  every 
4  particular  Acl:  of  it,  by  premeditating,  if  we  have  Leifure  for 
1  it,  both  Matter  and  Order  and  Words:  And  that  the' ir  be  a 
4  Gift  of  the  Spirit,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  expected,  that  it  fhou'd  ind- 
4  denly  he  infufed  into  us  without  any  precedent  Endeavours  of  our 
own.  Again  how  fhall  he  convince  us  that  the  Liturgick  Way  al- 
ways prefuppofes  Fore-Thought?  'Tis  true  it  did  fo  in  the  Com- 
pilers; bi.it  it  is  well  enough  known  that  it  does  not  fo  in  the 
Ufers.  How  often  is  it  feen  that  while  they  are  crying,  Be  Mer« 
c'tfull  to  us  Miferable  Sinxers,  they  are,  as  a  late  Excellent  Author  hath 
told  us,  ogleing  their  Sweet  Hearts  in  the  next  pew  ?  And  does 
not  every  Body  feel  it,  that  when  they  know  before  Hand  what  is 
to  be  faid,  they  are  very  rarely  attentive  to  it.  But  let  us  hear  him 
proceed.  4  If  it  be  Bed,  faith  He9  to  have  the  prayer  formed  be- 
1  fore  I  pronounce  it,  what  is  the  Harm  though  I  tranferibe  it  from 
4  my  Memory  ?  None  at  all  that  I  know  of.  Nay,  faith  He,  will! 
9301  be  fo  much  the  more  fur e  of  it,  if  J  do  this  ?  Certainly.  For  Li. 
tera  Script  a  Manet,  and  the  pocket  is  oftimes  a  Surer  Repofitory  than 
the  Memory.  And  if  I  may  f fly  write  it ',  adds  He,  why  not  READ 
it.  too?  I  know  no  Reaion  why  he  may  nor,  a  Hundred  Times 
over  if  he  pleafes.  And  yet 'tis  very  podible  he  may  all  this  while 
not  pray.it  once  over:  For  I  cannot  fee  why  reading  a  prayer, 
where  there  is  no  more,  fhould  be  called  praying,  any  more  than 
why  reading  a  prophefie  fhou'd  be  called  prophefying.  But  now  |o 
diicourle  this  Bufinefs  of  Reading  prayers  a  little. 

I 


[  z  j  U&i  Sujii  p.  11. 


Se&.  I*  Presbyterian  Worjhif,  253 

I  ask  Mr  Rhmd  where  does  he  find  In  the  Fkfi  place  tjiat  pray- 
ers were  Rm^  in  the  primitive  Church?  Is  there  the  lead  Veftige 
of  it  for  leveral  hundreds  of  years  after  Chtift?  Do  not  Tertulli- 
4#5  Clemens  idlex&ttdrinus,  Cyprian,  Amobius,  LaStantius ,  Dionjfius 
Alexandras,  all  tell  us  that  the  Ancient  Chriftians  in  prayer  lift- 
ed up  their  Eyes  to  Heaven  (^).  Does  not  Chry/ofiome  ohferve  from 
Chrift's  Pofturein  prayer  cxprefled  John  XVII.  1.  '  That  thereby 
4  we  are  taught  when  we  pray  to  lift  up  both  the  Eves  of  Body 

*  and  Mind  ?  Is  not  the  Emperor  Confiantine  reprefented  on  his  Coins 
and  Medals  in  a  Fraying  pofture,yet  not  reading  on  a  book,  but 
with  Eyes  lift  up  to  Heaven  (  b  J  ?  Does  not  Augufline  intimate 
as  much  when  he  tells  us  uponM#  XVII.  i.that  Chrififo  prayed, 
as  minding  to  teach  us  how  we  fhould  pray  r  Where  is  now  the 
Warrant  from  Antiquity  for  reading  prayers?  idly,  Is  there  any 
more  Warrant  for  it  from  Scripture  ?  Did  the  humble  Publican, 
tho4  in  the  Temple,  Read  his  prayers  ?  Or  did  the  Pharifee  pray 
by  a  Form?  Did  the  Difciples,  when  catched  in  the  Storm,  pull 
out  their  Common-prayer  Bock,  and  read  the  Forms  to  be  ujed  at 
Sea?  Did  Jonah  or  the  Mariners  doit?  Is  there  fo  much  as  a 
Whifper  of  this  in  the  Bible  ?  No  indeed  .  A  Senfe  of  prefent 
Danger  is  worth  Twenty  Common-prayer  Books ;  according  10 
that  known  Saying  Qui  nefcit  Or  me  difc&t  Navigare,  who  rvou'd 
learn  to  pray ,    let  him  go  to  Sea, 

And  'tis  a  plain  Cafe,  no  Man  wants  a  Prayer  book  who  is  in 
a  Frame  for  praying:  And  he  that  is  not  in  fuch  a  Frame  ,  may 
indeed  Read  Prayers,    bat  I  don't  think  he  can  be  faid  to  pray. 

But  let  us  go  on  with  Mr  Rbind's  Argument  .    '  If  that  pray- 

*  er,  faith  he  ,  which  1  form  before  hand  be  better  than  that  which 
'  I  utter  off  hand  ,  then  certainly  the  Form  prepared  by  the  joint 

*  Endeavours  of  Many  (  allowing  each  of  them  to  be  neither  better 
1  nor  wifer  than  my  felf;  is  by  great  Odds  preferable  to  my  fingle 
Endeavour.  Here  Mr  Rhmd  and  I  differ :  For  I  have  ftldom  yet  obfer- 
vedaCompofureby/k'mz/teMo  well  done,  as  that  wherein  only  one 
was  concerned.  And  the  Reafoa  is  evident  j .that,  which  is  done  by  qmy 

is 


£  a  ]   See  Sir   Peter  j{!ng  Ubi  Supra   Pare  II  Chap.  IL     Sett.  3.     &  Clarion  on  Liturgies,  p.  9.  &C 
£  b  J  Eufeb.  de  vita  Conitancini  Lib*  IV.  Cap.  ij. 


254  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IF. 

Is  ufually  all  of  a  piece;  whereas  that,  which  has  many  handsatthe 
doing  of  it,  generally  makes  but  a  linfy-woolfy  kind  of  Stuff.  Be- 
fides,  tllo'  a  prayer,  formed  before  hand  either  by  my  felf  t)r  others 
may  be  more  pointed  as  to  its  Wording,  and  have  more  of  a  Lo- 
gical Method  in  it ;  yet  'tis  very  poffihle  that  abrupt  and  inde- 
pendent Sentences,  breaking  from  a  Contrite  Heart,  and  a  Soul 
flaming  with  the  Love  of  Jefus,  may  be  more  acceptable  to  Ged 
and  more  profitable  to  my  felf. 

From  all  thisReafoning  Mr.  Rhind  concludes  that/to  Form  which 
the  Church  has  provided  (He  means  the  English  Liturgy)  has  tin. 
fpeakable  Advantages  above  any  one  MarPs  Performance  But  herein 
Mr.  Rkmfs  Tade  and  mine  differ  as  much  about  the  Preference  of 
Forms,  as  our  Judgments  do  about  the  Vfe  of  them.  For  I  am 
perfectly  convinced  that  the  Devotions  of  the  Author  of  the  whole 
Duty  of  Man,  or  Symon  Patricks  Devotions,  or  Jeremy  Taylors  De- 
votions, or  even  Dorington's  Devotions  are  incomparably  better 
than  thofe  of  the  Liturgy ;  and  I  wonder  how  any  Man  that  has 
read  both  can  make  the  leaft  doubt  of  it :  Pray  what  fhou'd 
make  the  Englijh  Liturgy  fo  preferable  ?  He  anfwers,  be- 
e  caufe  it  is  the  Refult  of  the  wifeft    Council  and  mofl   Mature 

*  Deliberatisn,  the  Effect  of  the  United  Endeavours  of  Men  Holy 
1  and  Wife,  who  no  doubt  implored  and  obtained  the  Afliftance  and 
'  Direction  of  the  Blefted  Spirit,  in  compileing  a  Form  which  they 

*  were  perfwaded  was  the  Beft  and  moft  acceptable  Manner  of 

*  worfhippingGod.  But  if,  Has  Mr.  Rhind  confidered  how  frnall 
the  Part  of  the  Compilers  was?  They  did  indeed  Tack  the  feveral 
Farts  together ;  but  the  Materials  were  formed  to  their  Hand.  The 
Leffons  out  of  the  Old  and  New  Teftament  and  Apocrypha,  the 
PJalms  to  be  read  Monthly,  the  Epijlles  and  Go/pels,  the  Paffages 
of  Scripture  at  the  Beginning  of  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer,  the 
Lord^s  Prayer  fo  often  repeated,  the  Venue  Exult  emu*,  the  Benedi- 
ffus,  the  Benedicite,  the  Jubilate  Deo,  the  Cantate  Domino,  the  Mag- 
vifcatx  the  Nunc  Demittis,  the  Deus  Mifereatur,  the  Litany,  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  three  Creeds,  the  Te  Deum  were  all  of 'em  form- 
ed long  ere  the  Compilers  of  the  Liturgy  were  born.  The  Collects 
are  generally  out  of  the  Breviary,  the  Prayers  in  the  Standing  Of- 
fices out  of  the  MiJJal  and  Ritual.  Abftraft  thele  Parts  from  the 
Liturgy,  and  I  iuppofethe  Compiler's  Work  will  appear  to  be  very 

eafie. 


Se&  J.  Presbyterian  Worjhif:  255 

eafie.  idly,  Why  did  Mr.  Rhindfoy  that  the  Authors  of  the  Liturgy 
compiled  a  Form  which  they  were  perfwaded  was  the  bed  andmofl  Acceptable 
Manner  of  worshipping  God,  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  all  Hidory  contra- 
dicts this  ?     They  did  not  fo  much  as  aim  at  that  which  was  in  it 
ftlf  befi,     but  at  what  the  Times  could  bed  bear,  with  any  Colour  of 
Reformation;    and  therefore  compofed  the  Liturgy  fo  as  was  mod 
likely  to  gain  the  Papifls,  and  to  draw  them  into  their  Church  Com- 
munion,   by  varying  as  little  as  well  they  could  from  the  Romijb 
Forms  before  in  Ufe.      This  K.  Edward     ingenuoufly  told    the 
Devon/hire  Rebells. '  Tho7  faith  He,  it  feemeth  to  you  a  New  Service, 
'  yQt  indeed  it  is  no  other  but  the  old,  the  felf  fame  Words  in  Ehg* 
e  lifh  that  were  in  Lathe :  For  nothing  is  altered  but  to  fpeak  with 

*  Koowkdg  that   which  was  fpoken   with  Ignorance,  only  a  few 
4  Things  taken  out,  fo  fond  thaeit  had  been  a  Shame  to  have  heard 

*  them  in  Engltfij.    Thus  He  ft).  And  indeed  the  Reformers  acled 
prudently,  according  to  the  then  Circumftances,  in  driving  what 
they  could  to  gain  the  Papifis :     But  to  go  on  in  the  fame  Method 
now  after  a  Hunder  and  Fifty  Years  Experience  of  its  Unftfccefsfulnefs, 
and  when  'tis  plain  that  the  altering  it  would  gain  the  Diffenters ;  this  • 
Conduct,  I  mud  needs  fay,  argues  a  better  Memory  than  a  Judg- 
ment ;  and  fbews  a  much  greater  Regard  to  the  Popijh  than  the/t?-- 
formed  Intereft.     $dlyy  What  Affidance  of  the  Spirit  was  it  which 
the  Compilers  implored  and  obtainM  ?  It  was  not  Affidance  as  to; 
the  Matter.    It  was  not  Affidance  as  to  the  form:    For  Mr  Rhwd- 
has  expreflyfaid  p.ijytbat  our  Prayers  are  not  ditfated  by  the  Spirit" 
either  as  to  Matter  or  Form, ,   'Tis  then  beyond  my  Comprehenfion  to  > 
underdand  wherein  they  were  affided  ;     For,  to  fay  that  they  were^ 
affided  in  tacking  the  fe vera!  Parts  together,  were  to  affign  too  low 
an  Office  to  the  Holy  Good. 

It  will- not  beunpleafant,  ere  I  leave  this  Argument,  toccnfider 
the  Motives  which,  Mr  R^/Walledges,  prevailed  with  the  fir  ft  Com- 
pilers and  Impofers  of  the  Liturgy,  to  redact  Miniders  and  'People- 
to  the  Ufe  thereof. 

[  They  were  fenfibJe,  faith  He%.  16 1,  of  the  Difadvantages  of  the- 

Extern-  - 


[  c  ]     Holinjhei's  Hift,  Vol.  III.  p.  locj*. 


256  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IP \ 

e  Extemporary  Way,  even  in  their  own  Experience:  Theyob- 
1  Served  moreover,  that  the  Ignorant,  that  is, the  Grofs  of  Mankind, 
*  could  norland  therefore  did  not  pray  at  all;  that  the  Gifted  Bre- 
e  thren  and  their  Hearers  too  often  miftook  the  Warmth  and  Quick- 
6  nefsofthe  Fancy,  and  the  Readinefsof  Expredion  for  the  Dilates  of 
'  the  Spirit,  which  (welled  the  former  with  a  High  Conceit  of  them- 
'  Selves  (a  Frame  of  Mind  of  all  others  the  mod  unsuitable  in  Devoti- 
S  on  j  and  made  the  latter  Lie  againft  the  Holy  Ghoft:  Befides,  they 
1  found  that  thisLiherty  which  Men  were  allowed,fometimes  tempted 
'  them  to  vent  their  New  and  dangerous  Notions,  as  the  Inspirations 
1  ofthe  Holy  Ghoft;  and  therefore  the  Church,  to  a  (lift  the  Weaknefs 
1  ofthe  one,  and  to  check  the  Vanity  and  PreSumption  of  the  other, 
c  reftrifted  both  to  the  USe  of  Forms.    Thus  He. 

A  very  pointed  Speech  this /But  is  there  the  lead:  Footftep  in 
Hiftory  to  Support  it  ?  Is  there  the  leaft  hint  given  that  the  Com- 
pilers and  ImpoSers  of  the  Liturgy  proceeded  upon  theSe  Motives? 
Nay, is  it  not  certain  that  they  had  not  theSe  Motives  to  Proceed 
on?  Were  the  Extemporizers  fo  early  ,  as  that  the  ill  Effects  of 
their  Extemporizing  appeared  even  before  the  compiling  ofthe  Li- 
turgy ?  Is  it  not  certain  that  till  the  compiling  of  the  Liturgy^ 
and  the  Primer  that  went  before  it ,  the  People  ftill  worfhiped  ac- 
cording to  the  old  Popifb  Forms?  Yes.  Every  body  that  knows 
any  thing  of  the  hiftory  of  the  Liturgy  knows  all  this  to  be  true. 
Is  it  not  ftrange  then  that  Mr  Rhfod  fhou'd  abuSe  his  Reader  with 
a  whole  String  ofFiclions  ?  I  cannot  but  heartily  wifh  that  our 
Scots  Prelatick  Writers  wou'd  confult  one  another  ere  they  pub- 
lish their  Productions :  For,  iS  Mr  Rhind  is  right,  he  has  quite 
defeat  Do&or  South,  Mr  C  alder ,  the  late  Vindicator  of  the  funda- 
mental Charter, and  I  know  not  how  many  more  of  'em,  who 
make  Frit hf all  Camming  and  Thomas  Heath  a  Iefuite  the  firft  Au- 
thors of  Extemporary  iPrayer  in  Q.  Elizabeth's  Reign,  fjepmtwen- 
ty  Years  after  the  compiling  of  the  Liturgy.  Plainly,  tne  other 
Writers  of  the  party  make  Extemporary  prayer  an  Invention  to 
put  the  Liturgy  out  of  Requeft  after  it  was  formed.  But  Mr. 
Rhind makes  Extemporary  Prayer  to  have  been  firft ,  and  the  Litur- 
gy to  have  been  compiled  and  impofed  on  purpoSe  to  Remeed 
the  illEffetis  of  it,  and  to  prevent  them  for  the  future.  Did  ever 
any  party  before  blow  thus  cold  and  hot  ?  Was  ever  parry  fo  doom'd, 

as 


Se&  I.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  a  5  7 

as  they  are, to  contract  one  another  ,01*  to  blurt  out  what  comes 
firft,  without  regarding  what  they  fay  or  whereof  they  affirm? 

Some  perhaps  may  alkdge  in  Excufe  of  Mr  Rhind  ,  that  he 
meant  all  this  of  the  Scots  Liturgy  fent  doun  by  K.  Charles!.  Anno 
.1657 .  No  .  Through  all  his  Book  he  does  not  fo  much  ascnco 
mention  that  Liturgy  ;  the  Englijh  Liturgy  he  "does  ,  and  fets  it 
in  oppofition  to  the  W effimin ft er  Directory  p  .  174.  Befides  ,  there 
was  no  need  of  the  A  ffifta  nee  of  the  Spirit  in  compofing  that: 
For ,  except  in  fome  things  wherein  it  comes  nearer  to  Popery  }and 
Tome  few  other  things  utterly  indifferent,  it  was  copied  'verbatim 
from  the  English  Liturgy  .  And  as  they  did  not  need  ,fo  the  Event 
plainly  (hewed,  that  they  had  not  the  Affiftance  of  the  Spirit  either 
in  compofmg  or  imfiofing  of  it.  It  was  impofed  without  Law  by  the 
Arbitrary  Will  ot  the  Prince ;  and  I'm  fure  the  Spirit  of  God 
never  afT.iis  Men  in  illegal  practices  .  And  for  the  Compofure  of 
it,  ctis  known  Archbiihop  Laud  was  the  Father  of  it,  with  thecon- 
fent  or  fome  others  no  whit  better  than  himfelf.  And  that  Com- 
mon Prayer  proved  indeed  the  Common  Fire  of  both  Nations.  '  We 
c  fhall  find  them  fthe  Bifhops)  faith  the  Excellent  Lord  Falkland  in 
c  his  forecited  Speech  ,  to  have  kindled   and  blown  the  Common 

*  Fire  of  both  Nations ,  to  have  both  fent  and  maintained  that 
c  Book  ;  of  which  the  Author,  no  doubt,  hath  long  fince  wifhed 
x  with  NerOjVttnamnefcifem  Liter as\  And  of  which,  more    than 

*  one  Kingdom  hath  Caufe  to  wifh,  that  when  he  wrote  that,  He 
e  had  rather  burned  a  Library ,  tho*  of  the  Value  of  Ptolemy's. 
Plainly  the  great  Intendment  of  that  Book  was  a  Conformity  with 
England 9by  which  we  were  never  much  Gainers  in  former  Times; 
tho<  no  doubt  we  fhall  be  fo ,  now  that  we  are  upon  the  Footing 
of  an  "Union  fa  legally  founded ,  and  whofe  Articles  have  hitherto 
feeen  fo  facredly  maintained.      But  enough  ofthis  Argument. 

Secondly, Mx  Rhind  argues  for  the  Excellency  of  the  Liturgick  Way 
from  Vniverfal  Practice.     '  It   has  been,  faith  he  p.  161,  undeniably 

*  the  practice  of  all  Men  in  all  Nations  and  Ages  (if  we  fhall  only 
e  except  thefe  who  truly  were,  or  falily  pietended  >obe  infpired) 

*  to  addrefs  the  true  God,  or   their   fuppofed  Deities,  by  certain 

*  Forms.  Mr  Rhind  is  too  pofitive.  For  as  he  cannot  but  know 
thac  this  has  been  denyed,  fo,  without  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy  I  can 

K  k    •  foretell, 


258  Defence  of  the  Chap   IV; 

foretell,  it  rr/7/be  denyed  to  the  End  of  the  World.  The  Practice  of 
all  Meny  faith  he,  in  all  Nations  and  Ages?  Why,  frfi^id  our  fir ft 
Parents  in  the  Eftate  of  Innocence  worfhip  bv  Forms?  No  Man 
ever  dreamed  it;  and  I  think  Mikon  wou'd  charm  any  Body 
from  the  belief  of  it  by  his  incomparably  be^uritull  Lines,  wherein  he 
defcribes  their  Morning  Devotions  which  they  payed  to  their  Mak- 
er at  the  Door  of  their  Bower  (  d  ). 

Lowly  they  bow*d  adoreing,  and  began 

Their  Or'ifons,  each  Morning  duly  pay*d 

In  various  Stile,  for  neither  various  Stile 

Nor  Hoi)  Rapture  wanted  they  to praife 

Their  Maker,  in  ft  Strains  pronounced  or  Sung 

Unmeditated,  fuch  prompt  Eloquence 

Flowed  from  their  Lips  in  Profe  or  Numerous  Verfe 

More  tuneable  than  needed  Lute  or  Harp 

To  add  more  Sweet  Kefs. ■— 

This  was  the  Original  P  raOice,  and  'tis  to  that  we  ought  to  afpire; 
idly,  Did- any  of  the  other  Antediluvian  Patriarchs  Worfhip  by 
Forms?  Not  a  Word  of  this  in  ihe  Scripture,  and  that  is  the  on- 
ly Book  which  gives  us  the  Hiftory  of  that  Time.  'Tis  indeed 
faid  Gen.  IV.  26.  Then  began  Men  to  call  upon  the  Name  of  the  Lord, 
But,  waving  other  Senfes  of  that  Text,  Bifhop  Patrick  tells  us, 
that  a  great  Number  of  the  Jewifh  Writers,  with  whom  M.  SeU 
den  joins  in  his  De  Dijs  Syris,  and  the  Arabick  Interpreter  expound 
it  thus  Then  was  there  Prophmation  by  invocking  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
viz,,  by  giving  it  impioufly  to  Creatures.  Whether  that  be  the 
exac)  right  Senfe  and  Tranilation  or  not,  is  not  to  our  prefent  Pur- 
pofe,  yet  thence  we  may  gather  that  'tis  impoffible  ever  to  ham- 
mer a  Liturgy  out  of  it.  idly,  Did  Abraham,  Ifaac,  Jacob,  or  any 
other  down  to  Mofes  ufe  a  Liturgy  or  worfhip  by  Forms?  No. 
There  is  not  the  leaft  Intimation  thereof  in  the  Scripture.  Here 
then  we  find  2000  Years,  that  is,  the  third  Part  of  the  World's 
Age  fully  fpent,  without  fo  much  as  a  Hint  of  Forms.  How  then 
cou'd  it  be  the  Practice  in  all  Ages  to.  worfhip  by  them?.  Yet 
further   4^/7,  Is.  there  any  Hint  of  Forms  for  the  Space  of  five 

Hundred 


[    i      J     ParadL'e  toft  Book  W  1 144.. 


£efit.  I.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  259 

Hundred  Years  after  viz.  from  Mofes  to  David?  'Tis  true  we  reid 
of  a  Form  of  Words  uied  upon  fome  Solemn  Occafions,  fuch  as 
the  Prieft's  bleffing  the  People  Numb.Vl,  and  the  Thankfgiving 
at  the  Offering  of  the  Firft  Fruits  Deut.  XXVI,  and  when  the  Ark 
went  forward  or  refted  Numb.  X.  But,  that  there  was  a  ftated 
Form  for  their  Daily  Service,  there  is  a  deep  Silence  in  the  Scri- 
pture;  which  is  a  certain  Argument  that  there  was  none,  feeing 
the  Scripture  is  fo- minute  in  obferving  Particulars  of  much  lets 
Moment.  'Tis  hardly  to  be  thought  that  the  Scripture,  which  no- 
ticed almoft  every  Pin  in  the  Tabernacle,  and  every  Fringe  and 
Plait  in  the  Prieft's  Veflments,  wou'd  have  omitted  the  Fo^m  of 
Words  to  be  ufed  in  the  daily  Service,  if  any  fuch  had  been  pre- 
scribed. 

As  there  is  no  Mention  of  any  Liturgy  among  God's  Peculiar 
for  fo  long  a  Time,  fo,  I  believe,  'tis  as  plain  that  there  was  none 
ufed  elfwhere.  Homer  in  his  Iliad  is  the  mod  Ancient,  Authentick 
and  Judicious  Witnefs  extant  of  the  Devotions  of  the  Pagans  both 
Greeks  and  Barbarians*  He  hardly  ever  brings  forth  his  Heroes  to 
fight,  or  leads  the  Armies  into  the  Field, but  he  fets  them  a  Praying ; 
and  indeed  he  makes  Them  pray  very  well  according  to  the  then 
Theology.  Yet  he  never  makes  the  particular  prayers  of  the  Heroes, 
nor  even  the  publick  Prayers  of  the  Army  fuch  as  any  Form  di- 
rected, but  fuch  as  Their  prefent  Circumftances  fuggefted  :  And 
Homer  knew  the  Rules  of  Decorum  better  than  to  have  made  Them 
pray  Extempore,  if  it  had  been  the  thenCuftom  to  pray  by  Form. 

Thirdly,  He  argues  for  the  Preference  of  the  Liturghk  Way 
from  Heaven's  Approbation  of  it  both  under  the  Old  and  New  Te- 
ftament  p.  162.  Well  where  is  this  Approbation  to  be  found.  c  Why, 
1  Jaith  he,  what  elfe  are  the  greateft  Part  of  the  Pfalms  but  Forms 
c  of  Prayer  and  Praifes,  which  were  compofed  for,  and  ufed  in  the 
*  Service  of  the  Temple?  Right.  And  the  Presbyterians  makeufeof 
them  to  this  Day  in  their  publick  Worfhip  as  much,  perhaps  more 
than  ever  the  Jews  did.  So  that  thus  far  we  are  for  Forms  as  much  as 
they.  And 'tis  a  moft  horrid  and  grofs  Calumny,  that  the  Presbyte- 
rians afert  the  VnUwfulmfs  of  Jet  Forms.*  Idefirethe  Reader  .  N  B 
to  advert  to  this,  becaufe,  not  only  Mr  Rhind,  but  his  whole 
Fellow  Writers  charge  them  with  it,,  without  fo  much  as  offering 

K  k  2  a 


260  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IV. 

at  Proof  of  it.  The  reftri&ing  either  Minifters  or  People  to  Forms, 
to  pray  fo  and  no  otherwife,  they  avow  to  be  impious  Tyranny  :  Bur, 
that  Forms  are  in  themfelvesunlawtulk  they  never  piTerted.  Befides, 
it  is  ridiculous  to  argue  from  infpired  Forms  to  Human  Compo- 
fures.  But,  adds  Mv  Rhind,  the  Jews  u/fd  Forms  of  their  own  Co  mpo- 
J  tire  in  the  Synagogue,  where  our  Lord  was fo  often  f >re fentA  and  yet  he 
never  declared againfl  them.  But  1/,  Why  did  not  Mr  Rhind  point 
us  to  where  thefe  Forms  might  be  found  .?  There  is  not  the  lead 
Mention  of  them  in  the  Four  Gofpels.  The  curious ,  faith  he,  may  con* 
fult  them  in  the  Original  Hebvew,  or  as  they  are  transited  into  the  more 
known  Languages.  But  why  did  he  not  name  the  Book?  Every  Bo- 
dy knows  that  many  of  their  pretended  ancient  Forms  of  Devotion 
are  meer  Forgeries.  And  their  Modern  Forms  are  ridiculous  in  the 
kft  Degree,  zdty,  Why  has  he  not  proved  that  thefe  Synagogue 
Forms  were  impofed,  and  that  fuch  as  officiate  were  refrictedio' 
them?  Without  this  his  Argument  flgnifies  nothing.  3^/j,  Was 
every  Thing  lawful!  which  our  Lord  did  not  declare  againlt?  By 
the  Law  of  God  the  High  Priefthood  wasfixedin  theeldeftofy/^o»'s 
Family.  In  Chrift-s  Time  it  was  fet  to  Sale  in  the  moft  mercenary 
Manner.  Cajaphas  was  both  Sacrilegiousand  an  Ufurper.  But  where' 
did  Chrifl:  declare  again!!  either  the  Perfonor  the  Practice?  But% 
urges  he,  Chrifl  him  felf  prefer  ibed  a  Form,  which  is  a  precedent ,  whereas* 
for  the  Extemporary  Way  there  is  neither  Precept  nor  warrantable  Example 
in  the  Scripture,  Is  not  this  MrangeConfidence  ?  Are  there  no  Ex- 
amples of  Prayer  in  the  new  Teftamentbut  the  Lord's  Prayer?  Is  there 
the  leaft  Hint  that  any  one  of  them  was  mjde  by  a  Form?  Isthere 
thejeaft  Hint  that  the  Lordls  Prayer  it  felf  was  ufed  as  a  Form  ? 
Does  he  think  none  of  the  Prayers  in  the  New  Teftament  were 
warrantable  ?  Let  him  find,  if  1  e  can,  from  the  Beginning 
of  Matthew  to  the  End  of  the  Revelation,  fo  much  as  any  one 
Prayer  made  by  a  Form,  and  I'll  quit  him  the  Caufe.?  Even  the 
Lord's  Prayer  it  felf  when  it  was  prefcribed  by  Chuff,  yet  was  not 
put  up  to  God  by  Him  ;  nay  indeed  He  could  not  put  it  up  to 
God,  He  could  not  fay  forgive  us  our  Sins,  becaufe  He  had  no  Sin 
to  he  forgiven.  And  as  for  His  Prayer  in  the  Garden,  will  any 
Man  fay  that  Chrift  followed  a  Form  in  it  ?  Nay  indeed  is  not 
an  Agony  incompatible  with  a  Form?  A  Form  is  too  cold,  a  Kind 

of 


Sedt'.  h  Presbyterian  Worfhip  161 

of  Service  for  fucha  violent  Exercife  of  the  Soul.  Befides,  it  is 
certain  that  Chrift  did  not  thrice  repeat  the  fame  Prayer  in  the 
fame  very  Words.  Nor  does  the  Scripture  alTert  any  fuch  Thing, 
as  has  been  lately  made  out  (J)  beyond  Poffibility  of  Reply.  And 
to  make  an  Argument  for  ftated  and  prefaibed  Forms,  as  Mr  Rhind 
does  p.  1 7  3,  and  his  Brethren  commonly  do,  from  the  Apoftles  ufing 
frequently  the  fame  Form  of  Bleiling,  is  below  even  Meanefs  itfelf. 
The  Apoftie  PWhimfelf  does  not  always  ufe  the  very  fame  Words, 
and  the  Apoftles  Peter  and  John  differ  in  their  Words  both  from  him 
and  from  one  another.  Suppofe  they  had  all  three  ufed  the  fame 
W'ords  always,  it  cou'd  not  have  fo much  as  the  Semblance  of  an 
Argument  for  a  Liturgy. 

Fourthly,  He  argues  for  the  Liturgick  Way  from  the  Ufage  of  it  in 
the  Primitive  and  Ancient  Church.  Certain  (rated  Forms,  faith  he  p. 
166;  being  then  uoiverfally  uj'ed in  the  mofifolemn  Administrations.  It 
were  fome  Comfort  to  have  to  do  with  an  Adverfary  whoatleaft 
pretended  to  Proof ;  but,  to  be  oblidged  ft  ill  to  difpute  againftmeer 
AfTertion,  is  the  moft  irkfome  Thing  in  the  World.  Our  Epfce- 
/tf/Liturgifts,  a  confiderable  while  ago,  gave  Advert  ifement  to  the 
Nation  (f)  that  they  were  to  reprint  a  Body  of  Liturgies,  to 
flew  (  I  keep  their  own  Words  )  that  in  all  Churches  and  Ages  of 
Christianity  Liturgies  have  been  ufed.  They  were  inftantly  taken  up 
on  t\m  (g)  and  defired  to  begin  at  the  Right  End,  and  to  publifh 
the  Liturgies  of  the  three  fa  ft  Centuries,  which  wou'd  be  a  more 
prevailing  Argument  with  the  Presbyterians,  then  the  Liturgies 
of  ten  Centuries  immediatly  back  from  our  felves  can  be.  But  No- 
thing of-this  have  they  done,  Andl  am  very  well  a  {fared  it  cannot 
be  done.  They  ate  fo  far  from  beingable  to  give  us  the  Liturgies 
of  ^//Churches,  that  I  here  defy  them  to  give  us  the  Liturgy  of 
any  one  Chutch  throughthe  Broad  Earth  during  that  Period.  But 
this  is  the  ordinary  Politick  ofthe  Writers  of  that  Side,  to  gull  their 
Lay  Friends  with  Promifes  of  what  every  Man  in  the  World,  who 
knows  any  Thing  of  thefe  Matters,  knows  to  be  impotfible  to  be 
performed.  Certainly  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  moft  Solemn  of  all 
the  Chriitian  Administrations  j  and  ifpre/mbed  Forms  had  been  ufed 

any 


[  e  ]     See  CaBer's  Aire. '" to  the  I  Dialogue   examin'd   p.   3^.  37,     [  f  ]    -Scots  Couranc  Numb,  Xd9f. 
I  g  J     See  Leaer  to  a  Friend  concerning  M.  Raider's  Reiarn.  p.  j  jr.  j* 


262  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IF. 

any  where,  they  wou'd  be  moft  likely  to  be  found  there.  The 
Liturgical  Party  then  is  defired,  as  they  value  the  Reputation  of 
their  Judgment  or  Learning,  and  as  they  wou'd  not  be  held  for 
ineer  Quacks  and  Mountebanks,  to  publifh  the  preferred  Forms  that 
were  ufed  in  the  Adminiftration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  for  the  fir  ft 
three  Centuries:  Nay,  to  make  their  Task  eafier,  to  prove  that 
there  were  prefer  ibed  Forms  ufed  in  the  Adminiftration  of  it.  In 
the  mean  Time  let  the  Reader  fay,  what  uoparallej  d  Confidence  it 
was  in  Mr  Rhind,  toboaftof ' univerfalVj age ,  and  yet  not  to  adduce 
fo  much  as  <we  fmalllnftancefortheProofofit.  But  there  is  a  People 
in  the  World  that  make  Lies  their  Refuge,  and  therefore  we  are  not 
to  wonder  at  it. 

Laftly,  He  argues  from  the  Practice  of  the  Reformed  Churches  p.  167. 
It  is  very  true  the  Reformed  Churches  have  their  Liturgies.  But  I 
have  already  *  proved,  that  the  Scots  were  not  reftricled  to  Kjwx's 
Liturgy,  but  allowed  to  ufe  their  own  Freedom.  The  Like  is  plainly 
obfervable  in  the  Belgickj  French,  Geneva  and  German  Liturgies. 
Nay  fomeoftheforreign  Liturgies  are  not  fo  much  Liturgies  as  Dire- 
ctories. Such  is  the  Liturgia  Tigurina  publifhed  by  Lavater .  The 
Reformers  found  it  neceifary  in  the  Beginning  of  the  Reformation, 
both  upon  the  Account  of  People's  Ignorance,  being  newly  come 
out  of  the  Popifh  Darknefs,  and  upon  the  Account  of  their  having 
been  accuftomed  to  Forms,  to  continue  on  in  the  fame  Method  of 
Worfhip;  and  Things  not  being  yercometo  abetlementin  England, 
and  the  Clergy  being  exceeding  weak,  Calvin  in  His  lertertothe 
Proteclor  advifed  a.  ftated  Form  of  Prayers:  But  that,  when  Things 
are  brought  into  a  regular  Channel,  and  the  Church  furnifhed  with 
die  Miniflcrs,  They  fhou'd  yet  be  bound  up  from  praying  to  God  as 
His  Spirit  fhould  direct  them,  and  as  the  emergent  Neceflities  of 
their  People  might  require,  the  Reformers  never  intended, Calvin 
never  advifed.  On  the  contrary,  immediatly  after  he  has  advifed 
the  Pr0/ftfor  to  fettle  a  dated  Form  of  Prayers ;  he  excites  him,  by 
all  Means  to  feek  out  for  able  Minifters,  that  fo  the  Native  Vi- 
gour of  the  Gofpel  might  not  languifh  through  Occafion  of  that 

Poli, 


*     See  before  P.  8. 


Se&L  Presbyterian  Worfbip.  263 

Political  Setlement  Ch).  So  much  for  Mr  RhintH  Arguments  for  the 
Liturgick  Way,  which  this  Nation,  I'm  fure,  hasnoReafon  to  be 
fond  of,  when  'tis  remembred  that  we  never  knew  in  earned,  from 
the  fir  ft  Dawning  of  the  Reformation,  what  War,  Confufion  and 
Bloodfhed  meant,  till  a  certain  Headftrong  Party  wou'd  needs  im- 
pofe  it  upon  us  in  an  Arbitrary  Manner,  and  reftricl  the  Nation 
to  it,  not  only  without  Reafon  or  Argument,  but  even  without 
Shadow  of  Law. 

He  proceeds  next  p.  1698a:  to  anfwer  the  Objection  againft  re- 
ftricling  People  to  Forms  viz;  that  they  Him  the  Spirit.  And  in  Anfwer 
to  this  heabfolutely  denys  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dictates  the  Sub  fiance 
and  Manner  of  Prayer.  A  Doctrine  hitherto,I  believe,  unheard  of  among 
Chriftians.  For,  it  is  one  of  the  peculiar  Titles  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  to  be 
ftiled  the  Spirit  of  Supplication,  becaufe  of  that  fpeciai  Influence  which 
He  hath  in  the  bellowing  of  this  Gift.  And  as  a  Spirit  of  Grace 
and  Supplication  He  is  promifed  Zjch.  XII.  10.  to  all  God's  People. 
An  J  Gal.  IV.  6.  it  is  given  as  the  Chara£ter  of  ail  true  Chriftians 
that  God  hath  fent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  their  hearts  crying 
Abba  Father.  But  Mr  Rhind  does  not  find  this  Gift  Viz.  the  Spi- 
rit- of  prayer  enumerated  I  Cor.  XII.  among  the  other  extraordinary 
Gifts  which  were  bellowed  upon  the  Church  at  fentecoft.  No 
Wonder  truly*  For  it  is  none  of  the  extraordinary  Gifts,  but  what 
every  good  Chriftian,  without  Exception,  is  endued  with.  Nor 
did  ever  any  Man  (  before  Mr  Rhind  )  that  worshipped  the  true 
God,  fince  the  Creation  of  the  World  deny,  that  ever  there  was 
any  good  Prayer  which  was  not  fuggefted  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
But  why  do  I  fpeakof  the  Worfhlppers  of  the  TRUE  GOD? 
Even  the  Pagan  Idolaters  had  a  better  Senfe  of  Religion  than  Mr 
Rhind.  Thus  Homer  in  his  ninth  Iliad  brings  in  old  Phoenix  Preach- 
ing to  Achilles. 

Prayers  are  the  Daughters  of  Almighty  Jove.  Upon  which  Madam 
Dacier  comments  thus.  •  For  6tis  God  infpires  Prayers,  and  teaches  Men 
to'  Pray.  .  Thev -Apoftle  Paul  afTerts   exprefly  Rom.  -VIII.  26.  That 

we 


[h]  Sic  igitur  {latum  effe  Catechifmum  oportRf,  ftatarn  fecramentorum  adminirtraciofiem,  publicam  item 
pr.ecum  formuiam.  Sed  rion  hoc  eo  pertinet  uc  iflius  poliuci  ordinis  in  Ecclefia  occafione,'  vigor  ille  nacivns  pra:- 
dicationn  Evangelij  ullo  modo  confenefcat.'  In  ill  ad  pouus  incumbendum  e-it ubi,  uc  idoaei  Si  fonori  Bucci- 
astores  concjuirancur.    « —  Ca.lv.  Ep.  ad  protect.  oin^li<a.: 


2^4  Defence  of  the  Chap  TV. 

we  knew  not  whit  we  fiould  pray  for  as  we  ought:  But  that  the  Spirit  helpeth 
our  Infirmities  and  maketh  Inter  cefjion  for  us  with  Groans  that  cannot  be 
uttered.  But  if,  according  to  Mr  Rhind's  Doctrine,  the  Spirit  di« 
elates  neither  Matter  nor  Words,  neither  Subfiance  nor  Manner  of 
Prayer,  how  can  he  be  faid  to  help  our  Infirmities?  Mr  Rhind  faw 
how  crofs  this  Text  lay  to  his  Doctrine,  but,  to  avoid  the  force  of 
it,  he  puts  fuch  a  Comment  upon  it  as  was  never  heard  of  before,  fuch 
a  Comment  as  is  heretical  in  the  higheft  Degree,nay  fuch  a  Comment 
asfubverts  the  very  Foundation  of  the  Gofpel.  Plainly,  he  affirms 
that  Men's  Fervency  and  Sincerity  in  prayer  is  the  fole  Effect  of  their 
own  Endeavours:  And  that  the  Office  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  not  to 
'excite  to,  or  affift  in  Prayer,  but  to  interceed  for  the  Acceptance  of  it. 
That  I  may  not  be  thought  to  aggravate  Matters,  take  his  oun 
Words  p.  170.  171. 

And  iUhe  Spirit  helpeth  our  Infirmities,  it  is  filPpofed  that  we  do 
fomething  our  Selves,  and  that  whatever  is  wanting  to  m^ke 
our  prayers  acceptable^  that,  and  that  ONLY  the  Spirit  fupphes. 
Now, that  the  Spirit  does//*?*  furnifli  the  Matter  or  Wo  Notour 
prayers,  appears  from  the  very  Text,  where  we  are  told,  that  the 
Affiftance  which  it  affords,  is  its  Interceffion,  which  is  not  made  in 
Words,  but  with  greanings  that  cannot  be  uttered.  Thus  You  fee 
this  Text  isfofar  from  ferving  their  purpofe,  that  it  rather  proves 
againft  them ;  feeing  it  plainly  fuppofeth  that  Men  ufe  their  Endea- 
vours.- Now  what  Endeavours  can  they  ufe,  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,  AND  THEN  THE 
HOLY  GHOST  DOES  IN  AN  INEFFABLE  MANNER 
INTERCEED  FOR  THE  ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  WHOLE, 
Thus  he. 

Here  is  Doctrine  for  Chriftians  with  a  Witnefs.  Firfi  an  ab- 
folute  Denial  of  all  Internal  Operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  us; 
not  only  in  Oppofition  to  the  Scripture,  which  he  appears  to  have 
no  Regard  to;  but  in  direct  Contradiction  to  the  Englijb  Liturgy 
which  teaches  *  that  all  Holy  Defires  proceed  fom  God.  Secondly, 
An  inverting  the  Office  of  the  Perfons  in  the  Sacred  Trinity,    by 

making 


•  Seco*dColk&ac  Evening  Prayer. 


Se&e  L  Presbyterian  Worjhip  265 

■making  the  Holy  Ghoft  our  Mediator  for  Acceptance  inftead  of  Chrift. 
HearDr  Whitby  on  the  forecited  Text.  '  The  Spirit  of  God,  faith 
€  He?  is  faid  to  interceed  for  us,  not  as  an  Advocate  or  Mediator  be- 
'  twixtG<?iand  us,  that  being  the  office  of  our  great  High  Prieft, 
'■  but  as  an  Exriter  or  Director  of  us  in  our  Addrefles  to  God,  to  ren- 
c  der  them  for  MATTER  according  to  the  Will  of  God,  and  foe 
''*  MANNER  fervent  and  effedual.  Thus  He  in  a  peremptor  Con- 
tradition  to  Mr  Rhind?s  Doctrine.  To  Dr  Whitby  let  us  join  Bi- 
fhop  Wtlkins  (z)  '  The  Spirit  of  God,  faith  he,  mud  be  our  Guide 
'  and  Affiftance  in  this  Duty.  He  muft  help  our  Infirmities  and 
c  make  Tnterceflion  for  us.     Not  that  the  Holy  Ghofi  is  our  Mediator 

*  of  Infawffion,  that  is  properly  the  Office  of  the  Son,  who  is  there- 
'*   fore  ftil'd  our  Advocate.     There  is  one  Mediator  betwixt  God  and 

e  Man  the  Man  Chrift  Jejus.  'Tis  Re  only  that  in  Refpeft  of  His 
<  Merits  and  Sufferings  does  make  Interceflion  for  us  Rom.  VIII.  34. 
c  But  now,  becaufe  the  Spirit  of  God  does  excite  our  Hearts  to  pray, 
4  and  infufe  in  us  Holy  Defires,  fining  us  up  /o,  and  in f  rutting 
c  us  in  this  Duty,  therefore  he  is  faid  to  interceed  for  us.  Thus  he, 
And  thus  all  the  Chriftian  World  ever  taught. 

And  thus  now  I  have  laid  out  this  Particular  with  all  Fairnefs. 
■-*■  Mr  Rhind's  Doclrine  is  evidently  Heretical  and  fubverfive  *  N  B 
of  the  Gofpeh  And  I  lay- it  before  the  Epfcofal  Clergy  for 
their  Cenfure.  If  they  fhall  in  a  publick  Manner  difown  it,  it  is 
not  to  be  imputed  to  them,  nor  any  more  Noife  to  be  made  about 
it.  But  if  not,  they  muftexcufe  us,  if  we  look  upon  them  as  Abet- 
tors of  the  avowed  Enemies  of  Chriftianity. 

Whatever  elfe  Mr  Rhind  has  advanced  on  this  Head  is  like  the  Talk 
of  a  Man  troubled  with  a  Delirium.    Such  asfrff,  i  that  Means  are 

*  ufelefs  if  our  Prayers  be  immediatly  infpired,  and  that  they  ought 
'  to  be  regiftrated  among  the  infallible  Diclatesof  the  Spirit  which  the 

*  Modern  Prophets  pretended  to,  p.  171,  172.  For,  thtYrisbjfertans 
neither  do,nor  ever  did  pretend  to  an  unerring  Dictament  of  the  Spirit 
in  their  Prayers,but  to  fuch  gracious  lnfufwns,  Excitations rand  Diretti- 
ons9  in  the  Ufe  of  Means,  both  as  to  the  Matter  and  Manner  of  our 
prayers,  as  we  have  juftnow  heard  Dr  Whitby  and  Bifhop  Wilkins 
pleading  for.  And  as  to  the  Modern  Fropbets,  he  ought,  out  of  Relpeft 

L  1  to 


£  i  ]    Ubi  fupra  p.  4,  /. 


266  Defence  of  the  Chap  JV. 

to  bisown  Party,  to  have  been  filers  about  them,  feeing;  all  their 
Profdy  ts  were  gain'd  from  the  Epifc^  it  .  :,  ccoiding  to  ihc  heft  In- 
formation I  can  have.  Of  the  fame  Hi  m  e  i  hat  he  fays.  zdfy,  «  That  - 
4  the  Presbyterians  can  have  no  Title  to  she  Influences  ot  the  Spirit, 
'  becaufe  they  have  departed  from  the  Communion4  of  the  Church  p. 
172.  I  hope  indeed  there  is  no  Presbyterian  within  the  Communion 
of  Mr  Rhtnd's  Church.  For,  to  deny  the  Afliftanctol  the  Spirit  as  to 
the  Matter  and  Manner  of  oar  Prayers,  making  them  the  Fruit  of 
our  own  Endeavours  allenaily ;  and  to  atfign  to  the  Spirit  the 
Office  (which  is  Chrt/Ps  peculiar )  of  pleading  with  God  for  his  Accept 
lanceofQUt  Prayers;  is,  IamVm,  fuch execrable  Uoclrine, asisincon- 
fiftent  with  the  Poflibility  of  Salvation,  if  continued  in.  To  as  good 
Purpofe  is  whatheadds.  l%%  c Thatthe  Presbyterians  prai/eQo^y 
'  certain  Forms,  without  Regard  to  the  {tinting  of  the  Spirit,  when 
'  'tis  undeniable  that  the  Spirit  can  as  freely  dictate  Praife>  as  Prayers, 
1  and  Metre  as  well  as  P^/?.  p.  173.  Right,  he  can  do  fo.  Andhashe 
not  dictated  the  Matter  of  the  Pfalms  ?  And  does  he  not  a  flirt  as  to 
the  Manner,  J  mean,  with  Fervency  and  Sincerity  in  finging'em  ?  And 
is  not  every  MiniQer  in  his  Congregation  left  at  Freedom  to  pitch 
upon  fuch  a  Portion  of 'em,  for  the  Spiritual  Solace  of  his  People,  as  the 
Spirit  of  God,  in  the  Ufeof  rational  Confideration,  fuggeftstohim 
to  be  moft  fuitable  to  their  Cafe  ?  Here  is  all  the  Freedom  was 
ever  pleaded  for  by  the  P  resbyttrians.  Whereas  by  the  Liturgy  Mini- 
fies are  obliged  to  fuch  particular  Pfalms  according  to  the  Day  of 
the  Month  appointed  by  the  Book,  how  unfuitable  foever  they  may 
be  to  the  prefrnt  Cafe  of  the  Congregation.  4^/7,  He  wou'd  know 
of  his  Adyerfaries  what  they  underftand  by  (lint ing  the Spirit,  p.  173. 
He  had  Reafon  indeed  to  ask  them,  becauie'tis  very  plain  he  himfelf 
knew  not.  I  can  impute  it  to  nothing  but  Vapours,  that  he  imagines 
they  conftitute  the  Spirit  of  Prayer  in  a  Freedom  oi  Changing  the 
Yhrafesy  and  tranfpojixg  the  Petitions.  But  I  fhall  explain  the  Mat- 
ter to  him  by  fome  few  In  fiances  which  may  make  it  eafily  under- 
flood.  A  Minifter,  I  fhall  fuppofe,  is  to  meet  with  his  Congregation 
for  worfhipping  God.  Before  he  comes  forth  to  them,\  he  has  taken 
Pains  to  get  his  Soul  impreffed  with  a  deep  Senfe  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  Free- 
dom ia -Prayer,  to  break  out  into  a  particular  Confeflion  of  their  Sins 

with 


:Se&'7.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  26 7 

with  thtit  pArthuUr  Aggravations;  and  tomakea  particular  Re  pre- 
fentation  of  their  Cafe  before  God,  and  toufe  fuch  pleadings  with 
him  for  them,  as  are  warranted  or  precedented  in  Scripture  in  the  like 
Cafe.  This  is  furely  the  moft  real 'or/able  Service, moft  accceptable  to  God, 
and  moil  likely  to  affect  &  edifle  both  the  Minifter  and  People.  But  on 
the  other  Band,  by  the  Liturgick  Way  a  Minifter  muft  not  fo  much  as 
venture  on  any  Thing  of  this,  but  is  obliged  to  content  himfelf  with 
that  dry  and  general  Confeflion  which  is  in  the  Book,  and  that  un- 
der all  the  Pains  of  Nonconformity  \  which,  how  heavy  they  are, 
many  Thoufands  have  felt,  in  the  Ruin  of  all  their  Worldly  Con^ 
cerns.     Is  noc  this  a  Stinting  of  the  Spirit  with  a  Witnefs. 

Cant  is  a  Term  of  Reproach,  which  the  Epijcopalians  (Mx  Rbind  too 
among  the  reft  p.  190, 197.  )  never  fail  to  twit  the  Presbyterians  with. 
This  they  improve  fo  mightily  upon,  that  iffome  Young  Fellow 
of  *em,  when  fettfog  out  into  the  World,  have  pick'd  up  that  word 
any  where  at  a  Converfation  over  a  Bottle,  the  empty  Thing  con- 
cludes himfelf  ftock'd,  and  ftrait  Commences  both  Wit  and  Atbeifi 
upon  u;  and  thenceforth  pronounces  all  ferious  Piety  efpecially  the 
Presbyterian  prayers  to  be  CANT-,  becaufe  forfooth,  there  was  one  Mr 
Cant  once  a  Presbyterian  Minifter  at  Aberdeen.  I  confefs  it  is  not 
through  any  Defect,  of  Duncery,any  more  than  of  Debauchery,  that 
they  talk  at  this  Rate.  Cant  is  truely  a  Term  borrowed  from 
the  Begging  Trade.  When  the  idle  feigned  Fellows  are  got  into, 
and  Chime  over  to  every  PalTenger,  a  Rote  of  Words,  not  which 
the  fen fe  of  Want  fuggefts;  but  which  they  have  contrived  and 
Conn'd  for  their  purpofe.  This  is  indeed  Cant,  and  there  is  too 
much  Caufe  to  impute  this  to  the  Liturgick  Worfhip,  where  they 
ftill  Tone  over  the  felf  fame  thing  the  felf  fame  Way,  whatever 
Difpofition  they  find  their  Souls  in.  But  on  no  Account  can  it  be 
charged  on  the  Presbyterian  Way,  even  in  Strife  much  lefs  in  Juftice : 
For  it  is  their  Cafe  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  Rbind  underftand  what  the  Pre- 

L  1  2  sbyterians 


*  Men'  movent  quippe,  et  Cantec  fi  Naufragus  afrem 
Protulerim?     Camas,  cum  fr act a  te  in  trabe  pietum 
Ex  bumero  portes.     Verum,  nee  noctc  pa.ra.tum 
Fhrab't,  qui  me  velet  incurvafse  auarela, 

-!  ■*  Ters.  Stt.  I.L.J8. 


268  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IV. 

sbyterians  mean  by  _/?/»'/>£  the  Spirit,  I  frail  fuppofe  the  Minifter 
has  read  the  Morning  Prayers  in  the  Liturgy  with  his  Congregation  ; 
and  now  he  intends  to  Preach  to  them  .     Is  it  not  reafonable  that,, 
ere  he  begin,  he  fhculd  put  up  a  particular  petition  tor  Affiftance, 
tohimfelfin  (peaking,  and  to  the  people  in  hearing?     Theie  is  no 
fuch  petition  in  the  prayers  which  he  has  read  ;     and  if  he    ven- 
ture upon  a  prayer  of  his  own  ;     ftrait  all  the  Highflyers  are  on   his. 
Back,  and  Dr  South  tells  him,  (ky hat  it  is  aSen/eU/s  and  ahfurd  pra- 
Ctice,a>idthat  the Canons  and  Conftitutions  of  the  Chunk  are  notrefphn* 
fible  fay  tt  •     And    he  (hall  be  fure  not  to  efcape   wthout  being, 
branded  for  a  Puritan.    The  fame  will  his  Fate  be,  if  he  adventure 
to  pray  over  his  Sermon  after  he  has  preached  it.     We  heartily  at fire 
(faidthe  Eleven  Bifhops  and  the  other   dignified  Clergy  at    the 
Savoy  Conference) (I),  that  GREAT  Care  may  he  tahn  to  juppreft 
tho/e  private  Conceptions  of  prayer  BEFORE  and  AFTER  Sermor<(m). 
Is  not  this  to  dint  the  fpirit.     Are  generall  petitions  enough,  as  Mr 
Khind  wou'd  perfuade  us  p.  174-when  we  are  called  to  be  parties 
lar  ?  If  fo,  then  I  propofe  this  prayer  as  fuffieient  for  the  <a  hole.  Al- 
mighty and  Mercifull  Gody  tve  beg  that  Thou  may  give  us  whatever  thou, 
knowefl  to  be  necejfary  and  convenient  for  us,  through  Jefus    Chrtfl   our 
Lord,  Amen.     I'll  undertake,  this  prayer  is  as  comprehenfive,  not  only 
as^,huteven  as*// the  prayers  ofhumane  Compofure  in  the  Liturgy  : 
Yet  who  wou'd  endure  to  be  reftrifled  to  fuch  a  Gene-ral?  Yet  further,  , 
when  People  are  reftri&ed  to  the  Liturgick  Way,not  only  neaffary  Pe> 
titions  are  omitted,  but  they  are  oftimes  forced  upon  Petitions  which 
are  either  abfurd  in  themfelves,  or  againft  which  their  Confcience 
recoils,   fo  that  they  cannot   put  them  up  in   Faith.    To  give  an 
Inllance  or  two,   When  the  Prince  of  Orange  landed  in  England  1688, 
'tis  vtvy  well  known  the  Body  of  the  Englifjj  Clergy  favoured  his 
Attempt,  yet  for  ieveral  Months  after,  they  notcnly  were  obliged 
in  Law,  but  actually  did  pray  for  K.  James,  begging,  in  the  Words 
of  the  Liturgy,  that  God  wou'd  confound  the  Devices  of  his   Enemies. 
Once  more,  When  Prince  George  of  Denmark  Her  Majefly's  Hu- 
sband was  dead,  the  Clergy  continued  as  formerly  to  pray  ior  IfTue 

ro 


[  !c  ]  Sei-m.  Vol.  II.  on  Ecdef.  V.  z.  [  1  ]  See  eke  Conterence  p.  jj..   .       £  m  J    See  fecondl 

dialogue  on  the  Liwgy    p.  6,  7.    . 


I  L  Presbyterian  JVorjhif,  269 

to  her  Majefty,  till  that  Claufe  of  the  Liturgy  was  difcharged  by 
an  Order of  the  Council.  This  is  no  Secret,  for  we  had  it  in  the 
Publick  News  Prints.  Were  thefe  Petitions  either  reafonable  or 
decent.?,  I  hope  by  this  Time  Mr.  Rhind  understands  what  the 
Presbyterians  mean,  when  they  fay  the  Spirit  is  {tinted  by  Forms. 
yhly,  He  Objefts  p.  174.  that  I  if  the  preparing  the  Subftance  of 

*  a  Prayer  does  flint  the  Spirit,  then  are  they  who  are  obliged  to 
'  follow  the -WeHminJter  Directory,  no  lefs  guilty  than  they  who  ufe 
'  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.  'Tis  anfwered.  No  Man 
is  obliged  to  follow  the  Weflminfler  Directory  fo  clofely,  but  that  he 
may  leave  out  fome  of  the  Petitions  mentioned  in  it,  or  infert  others 
as  in  prudence  he  QialJ  think  meet.  Thus  It  felf  directs,  i  We 
4  judge  this  to  be  a  Convenient  Order,  in  the  Ordinary  publick 
<' Prayers,  yet  fo,  as  the  Minifter  may  defer  fas  in  prudence  he 
'  fhall  think  meet)  fome  part  of  thefe  petitions,  till  after  his  Ser- 
f  mon,  or  offer  up  to  God  fome  of  the  Thankfgivings  hereafter  ap- 
(  pointed  in  his  prayer  before  his  Sermon.  And  as  to  the  very 
Words  in  the  Directory,  the  Minifter  is  not  at  all  reitricled  to  them, 
but  only  to  call  upon  the  Lord  to  this  Effetf.  But  Mr.  Rhind  was  re- 
folved  to  be  throughout  Chimerical.     Laftly,    He  objects    p.  ij6a 

*  'that  all  publick  Prayers  are  unavoidably  Forms  to  the  Congrega- 
'  tion,  and  therefore  flint  the  Spirit  as  much  as  any  Ltturgy  in  the 
World.  Sen  felefs  Stuff/  The  people  meet  in  the  Congregation.,  not 
to  offer  up  their  own  Separate  Prayers,  but  to  join  with  the  Minifter, 
who  is  their  Mouth  to  God  in  prayer,  ss  he  is  God's  Mouth  to  them 
in  Preaching.  There  is  then  Nothing  required  of  them,  in  that  Cafe, 
but  Fervency  and  Sincerity  in  joining  with  the  petitions  that  are 
put  up  for  them;  nor  does  the  Spirit  operate  otherwife,  in  that  Cafe, 
than  to  help  them  to  luch  Sincerity  and  Fervency,  not  at  all  to  fug- 
gelt  to  them  Prayersof  their  own  diftinct  from  the  publick  Prayers. 

Thus  now  I  have  gone  through  Mr.  Rhinos  Arguments  which 
tho'  contemptible  in  the  Ia'ft  Degree,  yet  are  not  only  the  be(ly  but 
indeed  the  whole  of  what  the  party  have  to  offer.  They  are  either  ig- 
norant of,or  willfully 'miftake  the  Presbyterian  principles  concerning 
prayer,  and  then  inltead  of  difputing  againft  them,  they  dtfputs. 
againft  their  ownFramick  Notions.  ■  They  ftilldifpute  as  we  heard 
Mr*  Rhind-  doing,,  againit-  the-  Infallible  Infpi/ation  of  the  Spirit  in 

prayer- 


270  Defence  of  the  Chap   IV; 

Prayer.  But  fuch  as  cannot  conceive,  how  one  may  be  aflifred 
by  the  Spirit  either  in  Prayer,  or  indeed  in  any  Holy  Exercife, 
without  being  under  his  infallible  Conduit  (o  as  to  be  kept  altoge- 
ther from  Error  or  Imperfection,  fuch,  I  fay,  whocannoc  conceive 
this  are  beyond  arguing  with, and  fhould  be  left  tothemielves.  That 
every  good  Man  is  aOed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  the  common  Be- 
lief of  the  whole  Chriftian  World.  But  if  any  Man  fhou'd  deny 
this,  and  alledge  that  it  wou'd  follow  thence,  that  every  good  Man 
were  perfect  and  infallible,  what  elfe  fhou'd  people  do  but  pity  and 
pray  for  the  foolifh  ObjeQor  ?  How  olten  does  the  Church  of  Eng. 
Und  Her  felf  pray  for  INSPIRATION?  Thus  in  the  Col- 
led before  the  Communion,  Cleanfe  the  Thoughts  of  our  Hearts  by 
^INSPIRATION  of  Thy  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  in  the  Colled  on 
the  fifth  Sunday  after  EaHer,  Grant  to  us  thy  humble  Servants,  that  by 
Thy  holy  INSPIRATION  we  may  think  thofe  things  that  be  Good. 
Thus  in  the  prayer  for  the  whole  State  of  Chill's  Church  Mili- 
tant-  Befeeching  Thee  to    INSPIRE   continually   the  Vniverfal 

Church  with  the  Spirit  of  Truth.  Does  any  Body  think  that  thofe 
prayers  import  an  Infallible  Guidance  and  Jffiftwce?  As  little  do  the 
Presbyterians  mean,  that  They  are  under  an  Infallible  Conduft, 
when  They  fay  Their  prayers  are  hfp'red.  But  our  Scotch  Epifco- 
pal  Clergy  neither  know  the  Scnpt^rcs  nor  indeed  the  Englijh  Li- 
turgy which  they  are  fo  fond  of.  Let  them  tell  us  in  what  Senfe 
they  underffand  what  is  laid  in  the  Preamble  to  the  Liturgy,  viz. 
That  by  an  Uniform  Agreement  it  was  concluded  on  BY  THE  AID 
OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST,  and  then  we  fhall  eafily  explain  to 
them  how  our   h'ayers  are  Infpired. 

I  fhall  conclude  my  Defence  of  CONCEIVED  Prayer  (which 
I  have  hitherto  call'd  Extemporary,  only  in  Compliance  with  Mr. 
Rhino's  Phrafe)  with  the  Words  of  Bifhop  Wilkins,  who  at  once 
fhews  the  Meannefs  of  Mr.  Rhinos  Objections,  and  reproves  the 
Prophanencfs  of  his  Spirit     (#  J. 

1  But  now,  in  the  Second  Place,  for  anyone  fo  to  fit  down  and 
1  fatisfy  himfelf  with  this  Book-Prayer,  or fome  frefcript  Form,  as  to 
[  go  no  farther,  this  were  ftill  to  remain  in  his  Infancy,  and  not 

to 


[  n  J  Ubi  Supra  p.  9.  10, 


Se&k  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  271 

to  grow  up  in  his  new  Nature:     This  would  be,  as  if  2  Man 
who  had  once  need    of  Crutches,  fhou'd  'always  afterwards  make 
ufe of  them,  and  fo  neceffitate  himfelf  to  a  continual  Impotence. 
Tisrhe  Duty  of  every  Chriftian  to  grow  and  encreafe  in  all  the 
parts  of  Chriftianity,  as  well  Gifts  as  Graces;  to  exercife  and  im- 
prove every  Holy  Gift,  and  not  to  ftifle  any  of  thefe  Abilities 
wherewith  God  hath  endued  them:     Now  hf5\V  can  a  Man  be 
fa  id  to  live  fuitable  unto  thefe  Rules,   who  does  not  put  forth 
himfelf  in  fome  Attempts  and  Endeavours  of  this  Kind  i     And 
then  befides,  how  can  fuch 'a  Man  fuit  his  Defires  unto  ieveral 
Emergencies?     What  one  faies  of  Counfel  to  be  had  from  Books, 
may  be  fitly  applved  to  this  Prayer  by  Book;  that  it  is  commonly 
of  it  felf,  iomething  Flat  and  Dead,  floating  for  the  moft  part  too 
much  in  Generalities,  and  not  particular  enough  for  each  feveral 
'OccaiioJV-  There  is  not  that  Life  and  Vigour  in  it  to  engage  the 
AffecHons,  as  when  it  proceeds  immediatly  from  the  Soul  it  felf, 
and  is  the  Natural   Expreflion  of  thofe  particulars  whereof  we 
are  moll:  fenfible.     And  if  it  be  a  Fault  not  to  drive  and  labour 
after  this  Gift,  much  more  is  it  to  jeer  and  defpife  it  by  the  Name  ; 
of  ex  Tempore  Prayer,   and  praying^  the  Spirit ;  which  Exprcm-  ■ 
ons  (as-they.are  frequently  uied  by  fome  Men  by.  Way  of  Re-  ■ 
proach  )  are  for  the  moft  part  a  Sign  of  a  f  ^ropham 
Heart,  and  fuch   as  are  altogether  Strangers  from    the    *  N-  B- 
Power  and  Comfort  of  this  Duty.  :  Thus  Bifhop  WiU 
kins.     And  had  others,  more  nea'Vy -concerned,  treated  Mr.  Rhind 
with  the  fame  Freedom,  he  had  never  publifh'd  fuch  a  Book,  fo  ' 
much  to  the  Scandal  of  Religion  and  the  Shame  of  the  Party  He  - 
writes  for.  - 


5  E  G  Tc 


J2  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IF* 


S     E    C    T.     II. 

Wherein  Mr  R  hind's  Objections  againjl  the  Pre- 
sbyterian Do&rine  concerning  the  Sacraments, 
and  his  Exceptions  againjl  their  Manner  of 
Diftenfing  them,  are  confidently  From  P.  ijj* 
to  A  185. 

TO  Begin  with  Baptifm.  Concerning  this  Mr  Rhind  afTerts 
roundly  and  without  Fear  Fir  ft,  That  Baptifm  with  Wa- 

Baptifm  ter  *s  indifpevfibly  Necefsary,  feeing  without  it  none 
*  J  '  can  reafonably  expeci  to  be  baptized  with  the  Spirit, 
or  that  they  fhall  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  nay  that,  if  God's 
extraordinary  Mercy  does  not  interpofe,  they  fhall  be  damned  with- 
out it.  Secondly,  That  the  Water  is  the  Vechicle  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  thefe  Principles,  He  objects  Firft,  That  the  Presbyterians  teach 
that  Baptifm  is  of  no  Efficacy.  Secondly,  That  they  fuffer  Children 
to  die  without  it.  Thir dly ,That  their  ConfeJJlon  of  Faith,  whereof 
fome  Doctrines  are  dubious  and  iome  impious  and  falfe,  is  the  Creed 
into  which  they  baptize.  Fourthly,  That  the  genuine  Presbyterians 
urge  the  Obligation  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  and  prefs  it 
as  a  neceiTary  Condition  of  the  Child's  AdmilTionto  Baptifm. 

As  for  his  Firft  Affertion.  That  Bapti[?n  with  Water  is  indifpsnfibly 
mcefary,  it  isdireftly  Popifh.  The  Presbyterians  willingly  grant 
that  the  Contempt  or  wiilfullNegledof  Baptifm  is  damnable,  I 
mean,  in  an  adult  Perfon,  or  to  the  Parent  who  neglects  to  procure 
it  for  his  Child.  But  that  the  meer  Want  of  it  is  damnable  to  the 
Child,  or  to  an  adult  Perfon  when  he  cannot  have  it  in  an  orderly 

Way 


£e&  II.         Presbyterian  Worfhif.  273 

Way,  that  is,according  toChruVsInftumion,  this!  affirm  is  a  damn- 
able Error,  an  En  or  which  gives  one  the  moft  unworthy  Notions  of 
God,  an  Error  which  hath  been  the  fruitfull  Mother  of  many  others 
and  of  the  mod  fcandalous  Praelices.  It  is  to  this  Error  the  Limbus  In- 
fantum owes  its  Being,  to  this  is  owing  the  Practice  of  Lay  Baptifm 
by  Women  as  well  as  Men  in  the  Church  of  England ;  yea  by  Jews, 
Turks  and  Pagans,  aswell  as  by  Chriftians,  as  is  allowed  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  Itis  to  this  Erronhefe  hafty  Baptifms  are  owing, 
where  there  is  no  Profeffion  by,  noSponfion  for  the  Party  baptized; 
than  which  there  can  hardly  be  a  greater  Scandal  on  the  Chri- 
ftian  Religion.  For,  it  expofes  that  Holy  Myftery  to  the  fame 
Reproaches  wherewith  the  Heathen  Luftrauons  werefojuftly  loaded 
■*.  But  I  need  not  infift  on  this.  The  excellent  Forbes  aCorfe  before 
cited  has  fufficiently  expofed  that  execrable  Doctrine  at  large  in  Six 
Chapters  (<?).  The  Church  of  Rome  has  found  ittoo  hard  for  her  to 
anfwer  him  on  that  Head.  But  indeed  there  is  nothing  too  hard  for 
our  Modern  Epifcopalians,  who  do  all  their  Bufinefs  by  Aflertion, 
Proof  being  too  great  a  Drudgery. 

Mr  Rhinfcs  Second  AfTertion  is  like  unto  the  Firft.  When  the 
Council  of  Trent  decreed  (  p)  That  the  Sacrments  confer  Grace  non 
pnentikus  Obicem,  it  gave  Scandal  to  all  the  World:  For  it  turns 
thefe  facred  Ordinances  into  meer  Charms.  Yet  Mr  Rhind  has 
new  vamped  it,  requiring  Nothing  elfe  but  a  Non.Renitency\n  the 
Recipient,  whereas  the  Scripture  expreily  requires  the  pofitive  Qua- 
lifications of  faith  and  Repentance,  Yea,  the  Scots  Epifcopal  Litur- 
gy fuppofes  thefe  Qualifications  even  in  Infants.  Thus  in  the  Ca- 
techifm. 

Q.     What  is  required  of  ferfons  to  be  baptized  ? 

Anf  Repentance, whereby  they  forfake  Sin,and  Faith,whereby  they 
fiedfaftly  believe  the  Promifes  of  God,  made  to  them  in  the  Sacrament. 

Q.  Why  then  are  Infants  baptized,  when  by  Reajon  of  their  tender  Age 
They  cannot  PERFORM  theml  Mm  Anf 


*     Omne  n:fas,     omnemque  mall  purgamine  caufsam 
Credebant  noftri  tullere  pofse  Senes. 
Gratia  principiumvnoris  fuit :     ilia  nocentes 
Impia  lujlratos  poncre  facta  putat. 
\Ab  nimium  fati.es,     qui  triftia  c/imina  cadis 

Fluminea  tolli  fofse  putatis  aqua.  Ovid.  Faft.  Lib.  II. 

[o]    Inftruft.    Hift.   Theol.     Life-    X.     Cap.    VI.     VII.    VIII.    IX.    X.XI.    [  pj    Can.  VI.  Do 
©*cramemis  inGenere. 


274  Defence  of  the  Chap.//7. 

Anf.  Yes  :They  do  PERFORM  them  by  their  Sureties,  who 
promife  and  vow  them  both,  id  their  Na;T>es:  Which  when  they 
come  to  Age,  themfelves  are  bound  to  r/etioim. 

Thusalfo  it  was  in  the  En*  fh  Liturgy,  buMfrerthe  Re  ft  titration- 
they  altered  it,  3nd  dafh'd  o;u  the  Word  PERFORM  in  the  he- 
ginning  of  the  anfwer  to  the  laft  Queftion.  And  they  had  good 
Reafon  to  do  fo  :  For  a  vicarious  Performance  of  Faith  and  Re- 
pentance is  a  pretty  dark  Myitery.  I'm  fureit  wou'd  be  Nonfenfe 
in  a  Presbyterian  ;  and  yet  the  Alteration  they  have  made  n  ends 
not  the  Matter  a  Whit.  But  that  is  not  it  we  are  at  prefeni  con- 
cern'd  about,  'tis  plain  that  the  Doctrine  of  N on- Recite  my  is  a 
Stranger  to  the  Scriptures.  But  Mr  Rhind  was  for  brufhirg  for- 
ward in  his  Chat  ;  difpleafe  whom  he  will,  he  has  the  Church 
of  Rome  on  his  fide.  So  much  for  his  AJJerttons .  Next  to  his 
Objections. 

First,  He  objecls,  That  the  Presbyterians  teach  that  Btptifm  is  of 
no  Efficacy  p.  178.  What  Anfwer  is  to  be  given  to  this  ?  None  fa 
proper  as  that  of  the  Pfalmift,  What  fljall  be  given  unto  thee?  Or 
what  fjj all  be  done  unto  Thee,  thou  falfe  Tongue?  Sharp  Arrows  of  the 
Mighty,  with  Coals  of  Juniper,  pf.  CXX.  3,4.  Hear  the  Presbyte* 
rians  declare  themfelves  in  their  Qonfffion  of  Faith  (  q  ).  '  The  Ef- 
4  ficacy  of  Baptifm  is  not  tyed  to  that  Moment  of  I  ime  wherein 
*  it  is  adminiflred  :  Yet,  notwithftanding  by  the  Right  Ufe  of  this 
4  Ordinance,  the  Grace  promifed  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  ex- 
e  hibited  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  to  fuch  (whether  of 
4  Age,  or  Infants)  as  that  Grace  belongeth  onto,  according  to  the 
4  Counfel  of  God's  own  Will,  in  his  appointed  Time.  The  Presbyte- 
rians have  no  where  declared  that  any  baptized  Infants  are  Damn- 
ed; But  to  afTert,  as  the  Eng lip  Liturgy  does  (r),  '  ihatChild- 
4  ren  which  are  baptized  dying  before  they  commit  aftual  Sin,  are 
4  undoubtedly  faved,  is  fo  far  from  being  certain  by  Goo's  Pl'ord,  that 
I  affirm  there  is  not  one  Title  from  the  Beginning  of  Gemfis  to  the 
End  of  the  Revelation  to  fupport  it.  God  has  his  own  Way  of  dealing 

with 


[  (]  J  Chap.  XXVIU  Sett.  6.       £r]  Penult  Rubrickin  the  Office  for  publickBajtifm  of  Infants 


Se&,  IL  Presbyterian  VPorjhip.  275 

■with  Infants,  which  we  are  fure  is  mod  Juft  and  Holy.  But  it  is 
fecret  to  us.  And  therefore  to  determine,  that  all  that  die  in  that 
State  unhaptiz'd  are  damn'd,  and  that  all  that  are  Baptized  are 
undoutedly  faved,  is  very  high  Prefumption.  'Tis  a  very  ufual 
Thing  among  the  Popifh  Miflionaries  to  Baptize  the  Infants  of  the 
native  Indians  Clanculary,  without  the  Knowledg  or  Confent  of 
their  Parents,  when  They  can  find  any  fecret  Occafion.  Will  any 
Proteftant  determine,  that  fuch  of  them  thus  baptized  as  die  in  their 
Infant  State  are  therefore  undoubtedly  faved I?  Muft  the  abfurd  and 
unwarrantable  Aclion  of  a  vagrant  Fellow  conclude  God  as  to  the 
Difpofd  of  His  Creatures  ?  This  is  fuch  nonfenfical  Doclrine  as  is 
fie  only  for  the  Church  of  Rome  which  God  has  given  up  to  De- 
lufions. 

Secondly,  He  objecls,  '  That  the  Presbyterians  cruelly  fuffer  wretched 
*  Children  10  die  without  Baptifm,  than  which  Nothing  can  be  more 
'  op  polite  to  the  Do&rine  of  Chrift  who  exprefly  fays  Jobnlll.  5. 
e  That  except  a  Man  be  born  of  Water  and  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into 
6  the  Kjngdom  of  God.  Might  not  one  have  expected,  that  he  wou'd 
have  adduced  fo  many  Instances  as  might  have  made  his  Charge  pre- 
fumably  true,  and  juftified  it  fo  far,  as  that  it  might  affect  the  Body  of 
the  Presbyterians'?  Nay  but  he  has  not  even  offered  at  fo  much  as 
one  Inftance.  '  Tis  very  true  Presbyterian  Minifters  will  not  baptize 
Children  in  a  Hurry,  nor  content  themfelves  with  pronouncing  the 
folemn  Words  without  a  previous  Profeflion  or  Sponfion.  And  in 
this  both  Scripture  and  Reafon  juftify  them.  They  are  ftill  ready  to 
baptize  Children,  when 'tis  defired,  in  a  regular  and  orderly  Way: 
But,  when  it  cannot  be  done  but  in  fuch  a  Manner  as  reprefents  Bap- 
tifm as  a  Charm,  and  expofes  the  Chriftian  Myfteries  totheCon- 
tempc  and  Reproach  of  prohme  Perfons;they  don't  think  ir  lawiull 
for  them  to  difpence  it,  and  herein  they  are  Juftified  by  Bifhop 
HM  (s)  who  exprefly  fays,  that  as  Baptifm  is  net  to  be  negligently 
deferred,  fo  'tis  not  to  be  fuperflttioufly  haHened.  But,  which  is 
of  much  more  Import ,  they  are  very  fure  that,  in  fuch  a  Cafe,  the 
^Want  of  Baptifm  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  Salvation  of  the  Child  ; 

M  m  2  for 


£  s  ]  Decad.  V.  Ep.  IV. 


2  J  6  Defence  of  the  Chap,  IK 

For  it  were  moft  horrid  to  think,  that  a  Merciful!  God  fhou'd  damn 
Infants  for  what  was  not  their  own  Fault  in  any  Refpecl. 

As  for  that  Text  which  Vfr  Rhind  infifts  on   Except  a  Man  beborn 
&c  it  is  moft  ridiculouflyapplyed  in  this  Cafe.  For  that,  aswellasall 
Scripture  Declarations  of  the  like  Nature  are  calculated,  not  for  In- 
fants, butfor  adult  Perfons  andfuchas  arecome  to  the  Exercifeof 
their  Reafon.    To  fuch  it  is  not  only  neceftary  (asit  isalfo  to  In- 
fants) that  they  be  internally  fan&ified,  but  alfo  that  they  make  an 
outward    Profeflion  by    receiving  Baptifm.    For  Chrift  will  own 
none  for  his  Difciples  that  are  afhamed  ot  Him  before  Men.  Plainly, 
the  Import  of  that  Text  may  be  eafily  gathered  from  the  Occafion  of 
it.    AfoWw/tfjwasadifcreetPerfon,  and  had  a  honourable  Opinion 
of  our  Saviour,  that  He  was  aTeacber  come  from  God.    But  then  he 
had  come  to  Jefus  by  Night,  which  argued  that  hewastimorous,and 
loath  to  profefs  publickly  the  inward  Sentiments  of  his  Soul.  Where- 
fore Chrift  knowingbis  weak  Side,  and  underftanding  the  Reafon 
of  his  Night  Vi(it9    inftantly  and  at  firft  Dafh  tells  him  the  Ufelef- 
nefs  of  internal    Perfwafion  without  an  open    Profeflion ;  that  it 
was  necefTary  he  fhould  be  born  again  (  which  isa  Phrafe  taken  from 
the  Jetvijb  Doctrine  about  Vrofelytifm  )  not  only  of  the  Spirit  by  San- 
Qification  and  the  renewing  ofthe  inner  Man,  but  of  Water  too  by 
an  open  and  undaunted  Profeflion  before  the  World,    ofwhich 
Baptifm  wou'd  be  the  Badge  and  Token,    without  which  latter  he 
cou'd  not  own  him  for  His    Difciple,  anymore  than  without   the 
former.  This  is  the  plain   Senfe  of  that  Text  ;     but  what  Relation 
has  this  to  Infant  Baptifm,    which   is   not  founded  upon  that  Text, 
nor  indeed  reafonably   can  be,    but  uponother  Scripture  Grounds 
which  I  need  not   now    mention.     And  that  the  (aid  Text  does  not 
prove  the   Damnation   of  Infants    dying  without  Baptifm,    I  fhall 
produce  the  Judgment  of  two  Bifhops.  The  Firft  is  of  Hopkins  late  Bi- 
fhop  of  London-Deny  in  his  Sermon  upon  it.  Having  narrated  that 
Comment  upon  it  which  Mr  Rhind  has  given  us,  He  adds.  *  But  this 
'  Opinion   is  unwarrantable,    and  contrary   to  the  received  Judg- 

*  mentofthe  Church  in    the  Primitive  Times,     who,   if  they  had 

*  thought  the  baptifmal  Regeneration  was  indifpenfibly   neceilary 

*  to  Salvation,  wou'd  not  certainly  have  ftinted  and  confin'd  the 
I  Adminiftratiqn  of  it.  only  to  two  Times  of  the  Year  Eafter  and 

Ptnticoff, 


277 


Se&.  ID  Presbyterian  Worjhif: 

6  Pentecoft,  thereby  to  bring  upon  themfelves  the  Blood  of  their 
1  Souls  that  (hould  in  that  Interimh&VQ  died  without Baptifm.  Thus 
he.  Tbeotheris  Jofeph  Hall  Bifhop  of  Exeter  in  his  Letter,  to  the 
Lady  Honoria  Hay,  jn ft  before  cited  on  the  Margin.  Throughout 
all  that  Epiftle,  which  I  recommend  to  the  Reader's  Perufal, 
he  difputes  with  the  greateft  Force  of  Reafon  againft  that  Opi- 
nion of  the  Damnation  of  Infants  dying  without  Baptifm,  and 
in  Terms  calls  it  The  hard  Sentence  of  a  Bloody  Religion. 

All  this  Doclrine  of  the  Damnation  of  Infants  dying  without 
Baptifm  is  founded  upon  another  falfe  Doclrine  licked  up  by  Mr 
Rhind,  viz.  That  the  Water  is  the  Vehicle  of  the  Spirit,  and  that 
the  very  ad  of  Baptifm  carries  always  with  it  an  inward  Regene- 
ration, and  that  none  can  have  the  Spirit  without  or  before  Baptifm. 
This  is  plainly  contrary  to  the  whole  Tenor  of  the  Scripture,  and 
tho'  it  was  too  early  entertained  by  fomeofthe  Fathers,  yet, 'tis 
certain  it  was  not  the  received  Do£trine  of  the  Primitive  Church  ; 
as,  befides  many  particular  Tefhmonies  that  might  be  adduced, 
will  appear  from  thefe  three  general  Considerations. 

Fir  fly  It  was  a  very  prevailing  Cuftom  among  them  to  dehy 
their  Baptifm  till  they  were-  in  extremis.  In  fome  indeed  this 
proceeded  from  a  Tincture  of  the  Novatian  Herefy  :  But  others, 
For  Inftance, -Conftantine  the  Great  who  was  no  Novatian,  delayed 
it  upon  other  Considerations.  But  now,  if  Chriftians  had  believ- 
ed that  they  coo'd  not  have  the  Spirit^  nor  be  internally  regene- 
rated,nor  be  Members  of  Chrilt  or  the  Children  of  God  till  they 
Were  made  fuch  in  Baptifm,  and  that  they  fhou'd  certainly  be- 
come fuch  in  Baptifm ;  wou'd  all  the  World  have  been  able  to 
perfwade  them  to  delay  it?    'Tis  very  hard  to  think  fo. 

Secondly,  The  fame  appears  from  the  Hiftory  of  the  Catechumens. 
During  that  State  they  were  Probationers,  not  only  as  to  their 
Knowledg,  but  like  wife  their  Piety,  and  Manners;  and  were  ob. 
liged,  before  they  cou'd  be  admitted  to  Baptifm  to  give  moral  E- 
vidence  of  the  Grace  of  God  in  their  Heart*,  in  a  Word  to  have 
every  Thing  in  Chriftianity,  but  the  Solemn  Inveftiture,  which 
both  confirmed  what  they  had,  and  entitled  Them  to  father 
Degrees. 
Thirdly,  Tho'  Infant  Baptifm  was  ftill  allowed  as  Imfull  in  the 

Catholick 


278  Defence  of  the  Chap  IV. 

Catholick  Church,  yet  it  did  not  univerfally  obtain  for  feveral  Cen- 
turies*, fo  that  (If  I  am  not  much  mifhken  )  the  Necefflty  there- 
of was  not  afferted  before  the  Council  of  Carthage  in  the  Year  418. 
Certainly  had  Christians  believed,  that  the  Water  is  the  Vechicle 
of  the  Spirit,  and  that  we  cannot  be  fpiritually  Regenerated  without 
it  or  before  it,  and  that  in  the  very  Aft  of  it  we  ate  fpiritually  Re- 
generated, they  wou'd  never  have  omitted  it.  I  do  not  adduce  this 
to  juftify  them  in  that  Omiflion,  but  only  thereby  to  fhew  that 
Mr.  Rhivd's  Doclr ine  was  not  the  Belief  of  the  Primitive  Church 
as  he  without  proof  alledges. 

In  a  Word  Faith  and  Repentance  are  prerequired  to  Baptifm  in 
adult  Perfons  at  lead.  If  they  can  have  Faith  and  Repentance 
without  the  Spirit  andfpiritual  Regeneration,  which  is  not  obtained 
(  as  They  fay")  but  in  and  by  Baptifm,  I  don't  fee  why  They  may 
not  go  to  Heaven  without  the  Spirit  or  fpiritual  Regeneration. 
For  I'm  fure  Repentance  towards  God  and  Faith  towards  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  Sum  of  the  Gofpel.  But  Enough  of  this 
for  this  Time. 

Thirdly ,  Mr.  Rhind  objects,  c  That  the  Confffion  of  Faith,  where- 
*  of  fome  Doclr ines  are  dubious,  fome  Impious  and  falfe,  is  the 
'  Creed  into  which  the  Presbyterians  baptize.  I  anfwer  ift,  That 
however  dubious,  falfe  and  impious  thefe  Doctrines  are,  yet  I  have 
already  proved  them  to  be  the  Doclrines  of  the  Catholick 
Church  of  Chrift.  zdly3  *Tis  falfe  that  the  Confeffion  of  Faith  is 
the  Creed  into  which  They  baptize  They  baptize  into  the  Be- 
lief of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tettarnent,  and  only 
declarativly  alfert  Their  Co/fffion  of  Faith  to  be  agreeable  thereto. 
.idly,  Suppofe  They  did  baptize  into  their  Confffion  of  Faith,  why 
is  not  that  as  lawfull  as  baptizing  into  the  dpoftu's  Creed?  Are 
they  not  both  humane  Compofores?  Or  does  he  dream  that  the 
Apoftles  themfelves  were  the  Authors  of  it  ?  But  this  only  ad  Ho* 
minem.  For  my  own  Part  I  afTert,  that  it  is  unlawfull  to  baptize 
into  the  Belief  of  any  human  Compofure  otherwife  than  as  I 
have  explain'd  -above. 

Laftly,  He  Objects,  '  That  the  genuine  Presbyterians  prefs  the 
'  Obligation  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  as  a  neceffary  Con- 
\  dition  of  the  Child's  Admiffion  to  Baptifm.    'Tis  denjed,  and  Mr. 

Rhind 


S'eft.  IL  Presbyterian  Worjhij.  279 

Rhind  is  challenged  to  prove  it.    I  affirm  further,  that  there  is  no 
Presht 'rim  Minifter  in  the  Nation  who  will  refufe  to  baptize  in 
the    Terms  of  the  Directory,  among  which  Terms  there  is  not  fo  ' 
much  as  Mention  of  the  Solemn  he  ague  and,  Cvienant.-   Mr.  Rbind  is  ■ 
challenged  to  difprove  this  if  he  can.     So  much  for  Baptiim. 

I  proceed  ntxt  to  confider  his  Objections  relating  to  the  other  Sa- 
crament viz;  The  Lord's  Supper.     As  to  this  he  Ob- 
jects upon.     I.  The  Mfrecyuemy of  it  among  the  Pre-     The  Lord's* 
sbyterians     II.     The  Indecency  wherewith  They  cele-       Supper. 
brate  it.     III.  The  hard  Terms  upon  which  They  ad- 
mit to  it.     IV.  Thar  it  is  indeed  no  Sacrament  at  all  as  difpenfed 
by  them.     Ofthefe  in  Order. 

I.  He  objects  upon  the  ^frequency  of  the  Lord's  Supper   among 
the  Presbyterians.     In  the  Presbyterian  Communion,  faith  hep.  182,. 
my  Lot  might  frail  in  a  Place  where  the  Holy  Eucharift  would  not  be  ad* 
miniftred  once  in  a  Dozen  of  Tears.     Foranfwer.  ift,  Has  he  given  ■ 
Inftaoce  of  any  fuch  Place?     No,  not  fo  much  as  one.    idly,  Sup- 
pofe  he  had  given  one,  two,  three,     nay  even  a  Score  oflnftances,  ■■ 
were  the  Contlituuon  to  be  charged  with  that?     There   are,  no  ' 
doubt,     carelefs  Minifters  among  the  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  in  ' 
other  Communions,  but  none  but  a  mean  malicious  Soul  will  load 
the  whole  Body  with  the  Defects  of  a  few.     $dly,  Was  the  Epif* - 
copal  Ckvgv,  during  their  Reign    before  the   Revolution,  lefs  guilty. 
than  the  P  resbyterians  are  ?  I  am  content  it  be  put  to  a  Trial  through; \ 
the  Nation.     And,  to  begin  the  Work;     within  the  Preshytry  of r 
Dumhirtan,  where  Iferve,  there  are  Seventeen  Parifhes.  I  affirm  that 
inthQfe  Seventeen-  Parifhes  taken  complexly,  the  better  to  mend  the  ' 
worfe-,  the  Communion  has  been  celebrated  three  times  oftner  whh'm  : 
thefe-  Dozen  Years  laft  by  pair,  than  it  was  during  the  whole  twenty  •-' 
eight  Years  under  the  Epifcopal  Reign  before  the  Revolution. r-  ^thlyy  • 
Isi  the  Church  of  England,  to  which  Mr  Rhind  is  gone  over,  innocent 
in  this  Particular.     Hear  Dr  Wetenhall  late  Bifhop  of  KJlmore  in  his  > 
Book  entitled  Due  frequency  eft  be  Lord's  Supmf7  dedicated  to  Her  Ma-  • 
jelly,  and  printed  at  Edinburgh  1706.     '  Amoogft  the  Laws  of  our  r 
4  Church     (faith  he  in  his  Dedication  )     as  there  is  none  perhaps 
'  more  excellent  and  truly  Lhrilhan,  than  thofe  touching  the  Lord's 

6  Supper ;  fo  it  is  hard  to  affiga  ANY  MORE  NEGLECTED,  than 

the 


a8o  Defence  of  the  Ctap.  IV. 

1  the  Kubricks  which  injoin  Dye  Frequency  of  it ;  and  the  Neglect 
«  isnotonlv  in  COUNTRY-PARISHES,  butcven  in  fomeGREAT- 
«  ER  CHURCHES.  Thus  the  Bifliop.  Why  then  wou'd  Mr  Rhind 
leap  out  of  the  Frying  Pan  into  the  Fire  ?  Why  wou*d  he.  charge 
the  Presbyterians  with  that  whereof  his  Brethren  both  in  Scot  Una  and 
EngUfid'h&vc  been  fo  notorioufly  guilty  ?  But,  an  impudent  Way 
of  writing  is  become  the  Characteriftick  of  the  modern  Epifcopal 
Authors. 

II.  He  objects  upon  the  Indecency  wherewith  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  celebrated  among  the  Presbyterians.  Wherein  lyes  this  Indecency? 
6  Why,  faith  be  p.  182,  the  Convocation  has  more  of  the  Confufi- 
1  on  of  a  Fair,  than  of  the  order  and  Decency  of  a  religious  Af* 
*  fembly.  And  how  can  it  other  wife  be,  when  they  not  only  al- 
4  low,  but  encourage,  on  thefe  Occafions,  fuch  Rendevouzes  ofthe 
'  promifcuous  Rabble,  who  defert  their  own  Churches,  to  the  great 
'  Hinderance  of  their  Devotion  who  communicate,  and  Scandal  too, 
'  when  they  fee  fo  many  profeffed  'Chriftians  negleft  their  Lords 
'  exprefs  Command  of  keeping  up  the  Memorial  of  his  Death  and 
'  Faflion  for  them.  For  Anfwer.  1ft,  Tis  true,  Communicants 
have  been  very  numerous  among  the  Presbyterians  ever  fince  the 
Revolution.  Not  only  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Parifh  in  which  the 
Communion  is  celebrated,  but  many  from  the  neighbouring  Pa- 
ri flies,  attefted  by  their  refpedive  Minifters,  have  ufually  joined 
in  it;  But  is  the  Numeroufnefsof  Commuicants  either  a  Fault  or  an 
Indecency  ?  So  far  from  it,  that  cou'd  the  whole  Chriftian  Church 
communicate  at  once,  it  wou'd  be  fo  much  the  more  of  the  Nature 
of  a  Communion,  and  tend  fo  much  the  more  to  the  Honour  of  our 
Biefied  Saviour.  But  this  Objection  of  Mr  Rhind's  proceeds  from 
Sillinejs,  or,  which  is  the  fame  Thing,  from  Envy;  becaufe  during 
the  Epifiopal  Government,in  many  Places  the  Minifter  and  his  Family, 
with  the  Sexton  and  his,  and  perhaps  two  or  three  more  made  up  the 
whole  Communicants,  idly,  Tis  true  like  wife,  that  there  are  many 
others  prefent  oftimes  befides  thofe  that  Commnnicate.  But  where  is  the 
Harm  of  this  ?  Does  it  binder  the  Devotion  of  the  Communicants,  that 
others  are  looking  on  them  ?  Is  it  not  rather  an  Engagement  upon  Them 
to  carry  Themfelves  with  the  more  folemn  Gravity?  Or  how  can 
the  prefence  of  fuch  as  do  not  communicate  be  a  Scandal  to  thofe 
that  do  f    For ,  tho*  They  do  not  communicate  at  that  time,    it 

cannot 


§e&.  //,  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  q  8 1 

cannot  inferr  a  NegleO:  of  our  Lord's  Command,  feeing  people 
are  not  at  all  Times  in  a  Frame  for  Communicating-  And  when  a 
Miniftercomes  to  a  (lift  his  Neighbour  Minifter  in  difpenfing  the 
Communion,  is  it  either  Fault  or  Scandal  for  his  People  to  follow 
him  where  they  are  furnifhed  with  Sermon  ?  Is  not  this  better  than 
that  they  fhould  loiter  idly  at  Home  all  the  Lord's  Day,  wThich  wou'd 
be  both  a  Sin  in  them,  and  give  Scandal  toothers?  But  this  Ob- 
jection of  his  was  indeed  too  mean  to  have  been  noticed. 

I  wou'd  only  ask  Mr  Rhind  if  there  are  not  incomparably  greater 
Indecencies  in  the  Way  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  which  he  has 
feparated.  Is  it  poflible  there  can  be  a  greater  Scandal,  than  to  fee  a 
known  Rake,notour  for  all  Manner  of  Vice  and  Leudnefs,  partaking 
ofthofe  holy  Myfteries,  before  he  has  given  the  lead  Proof  or  Evi- 
gence  of  his  Reformation  ?  Yet  this  is  every  Day  feen  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  Priefts  cannot,  dare  not  help  it. 

I  am  not  to  alledge  this  without  proof,  that  were  the  Epifcopal 
Way  of  writing,  which  I  don't  envy.  I  fhallgive  good  andfuffi- 
cient  Documents  of  it.  Mr  Biflet  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of 
England  has  lately   told  us  0)  c  of  a  Minifter  who  was    worried 

*  out  of  his  Living  and  Life  too,  for  denying  the  Communion  to 

*  a  Rake,  before  the  Chancellor  had  excommunicated  Him.  Again 
tho'  the  Rubric  require,  that  fo  many  as  intend  to  be  Partakers  of 
the  Holy  Communion  (hall  fignifie  their  Names  unto  the  Curate,  at  leap 

fomeumethe  day  before.  Yet  (  fays  the  fame  Author  p.  51.  )  'this  is 
€  more  than  I  ever  knew  done.      I'm  lure  'tis  omitted  in  all  or 

*  moft  of  the  London  Churches.  Yet  further  he  tells  us  p.  54-that 
Dr  F  »- - -r  was  jufp 'ended  for  denying  the  Sacrament  to  fuch  as  only 
came  to  it  as  a  Qualification  to  fell  Ale  and  Brandy.  Laftly,  he  tells  us 
(ibid)oi  a  Solution  that  was  given  to  one  f^who  doubted  of  coming 
to  the  Communion)  in  thefe  Words  What  Damage  is  it  to  fledge 
the  Parfon  in  a  Cup  ofWine,fuppofwg  only  the  Wine  be  good.  To  Mr 
Bifit  let  us  add  the  Author  of  The  Cafe  of  the  Regale  and  Pont  if  cat, 
who  is  known  to  be  moft  violently  High  Church.  He  roundly 
averts  p.  179  6  that  an  Action  lies  againftthe  Minifter  who  fliall 

N  n  refufe 


£  c  ]  Modern  Fanacick.  p.  4.3. 


282  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IV. 

t  refufe  the  Sacrament,  to  them  who  he  knows,  fees  and  hears  in 
*  their  Converfation  and  Principles,  to  be  never  jo  much  unqualifyed. 
Thefe  are  not  Presbyterian  Alledgances,  but  true  Epifcopal  Hiltory. 

III.  He  Objecls  p.  183.  upon  the  Hard  Terms,  on  which  the 
Tresbyterians  admit  to  the  Communion,  in  Two  Particulars.  The 
Firft,  relating  to  the  Verfons,  the  Second  to  the  Yo/lure.  Firjl,  As 
to  the  ?erfo»s.  He  alledges  ■  They  will  admit  none  who  in  the 
c  leaft  favour  the  Hierarchy  and  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
1  but  Excommunicate  them  with  the  vileft  Rlafphemers  and  Adul- 
terers. I  ask  him,  Does  he  know  any  of  the  Favourers  of  the  Hi- 
erarchy and  Liturgy  who  were  ever  denyed  the  Sacrament  on  that 
Account  ?  Has  he  given  any  Inftance  of  this  4  Not  one.  The 
"Presbyterians  debarr  none  from  Communion  with  Them  in  the  Sa* 
crament,  whofe  Principles  and  Life  do  not  debarr  Them  from  the 
Chriftian  Communion-  1  hey  don't  look  upon  that  Holy  Ordinance 
as  the  diftinguifhing  Badge  of  a  Party  or  of  any  parricular  Com* 
munion  of  Chriftians;  but  as  the  Common  Priviledge  of  all  the 
Faithful!.  And  therefore  They  ufually  Fence  the  Lord's  Table  in  '■ 
the  Words  of  the  Scripture  I  Cor.  VI.  9.  Kjjow  ye  n*t  that  the> 
'Unrighteous  {hall  not  inherit  the  Kjngdom  of  God  ?  Be  not  deceived :  Nei» 
ther  Fornicators,  nor  Idolaters— ot  fame  fuch  like  Scripture  ;  orbygo* 
ing  through  the  Ten  Commandments.  If  Mr  Rhind  can  name  any  Pre- 
sbyterian Minifters  who  do  otherwife,  I  fuppofe  the  Church  will  not 
think  her  felf  obliged  to  defend  them,  But,  to  exclude  the  Impenitent 
Breakers  of  any  of  the  Ten  Commandments  from  the  Priviledge 
ofGofpel  Myfteries;  to  debarr  thofefrom  the  Lord's  Table,  whom 
the  Lord  has,  by  the  exprefs  Sentence  of  his  Word,  debarred  out  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  is,  what  every  one,  who  is  not  quite  loft 
in  Impiety,  muft  own  to  be  not  only  lawfull  but  a  Duty. 

This  is  fufficient  to  vindicate  the  Presbyterians :     But  who  fball  I 
vindicate  the  Church  of  £#g/d^Conftitution  ?  Mr  Rhind  is  the  mod 
unlucky  Man  in  the  World.     Hehas  feparated  from  the  Presbyteri-- 
ansy  upona  Chimericallmagination  of  the  Narrownefs  of  their  Cha- 
rity., that  they  admit  none  to  the  Communion,  who  in  the  leaft  Fa-  • 
vour  the  Hierarchy  and  Liturgy,    tho'  I  fuppofe,  there  is  no  one 
living  can  bring  Inftance,     where  ever  they  refu  fed  it,    on  that; 
Score,  to  any  who  defired  it :     And  yet  he  has  gone  overto  the 
Church  of  England,    whofe  Divines,  I  mean    the  High-Church 

Farty 


Se$a  //.  Presbyterian  VForJhty.  285 

■Party  of  *em," have  declared  inthe  ftrongeft  Terms,  that  they  will 
not  admit  to  it  Dijfenters   or  Presbyterians,     whom  they,   in  their 
equally  wife  and  charitable  Stile,    call    NOTORIOVS  SCHISM  J- 
TIC/^S  at  the  fame  Time  that  they  declare  them  to  be  without  the 
Church,     This  is  plain  from  the  Reprefentation  made  by  the  lower  Houfe 
of  Convocation  to  the  Archbijhops  and  Bijbops  in  the  Month  of  De- 
cember 1704.  which  the  Reader  may  confult.    And  Mr.  Barclay* 
Teacher  of  the  Party,  juft  come  from  London,  has  told  his  Mind 
very  honeftly  in  this  Cafe.    I /ball  not,  fays  he  %  flick  to  fay  that 
I  would  not  admit  a    NOTORIOUS  SCHISMATICK,  to  Catholick 
Communion,  till  he  recanted  his  Error  ^  upon  any  confideration  of  Laws  or 
Statutes.  I  don't  think  but  Mr.  Barclay  may  be  eafie  on  that  Head: 
For,  Ifuppofe,  thele   NOTORIOVS   SCHISM  ATICK.S  he 
fpeaks  of  will  not  give  him  much  Trouble  that  Way.  However, 'tis 
plain  that  High-Church  has  made  the  Communion  a  Badge  of  a  Party. 
Was  not  Mr.  Rhind  then  very  well  advifed  ingoing  over  to  Her? 
Secondly,  As  to  the  Pofture.     Mr.  Rhind  Obje&s,  *  That  the  Pre- 

*  sbytetians  difcharge   that  as  Idolatrous,  which  others  think  mofl: 

*  expreflive  of  their  inward  Devotion,   and  debarr  fuch  from  the 

*  Communion  who  wou'd  ufe  it.  There  is  no  doubt  he  means 
the  Pofture  of  Kpeeling  which  is  enjoined  both  by  the  Scotch  E- 
pifcopal  and  the  Englijh  Liturgies.  And  as  to  that,  I  here  engage 
that  no  one  Presbyterian  Minifter  in  the  Nation  fhall,  on  that  Ac- 
count, refufe  the  Communion  to  any  Perfon  who  can  prove,  or  find 
any  other  to  prove  for  him,  either  ift,  That  chat  Pofture  was  com- 
manded by  Chrift.  Or  2dly,  That  it  was  ufed  by  the  Apoftles  when 
They  communicate  in  Chrift's  prefence.  Or  $dly,  That  there  is 
any  Hint  of  its  Ufage  in  the  New  Teftament  Or  ^thly,  That  it 
Was  praftifed  in  the  Primitive  Church  for  the  firft  Five  Centuries 
at  leaft  after  Chrift.  If  none  of  thefe  Things  can  be  proved,  as  I 
am  fure  none  of  'em  can,  and  which  every  Writer  on  the  Epifco- 
/WSide,  of  any  Character,  owns;  why  fhou'd  a  Church  break  Her 
Order  to  gratify  people  in  their  Fancies,  when  £tis  conferTed  on  all 
hands  That,  that  Pofture  of  Kneeling  in  the  Sacrament  has  been 
ufed  to  the  moft  Idolatrous  Purpofes.    But  Mr.  Rhind  alledges 

N  n  2  That 


*  Perfwafiyc  to  the  People  of  Scotland  p.  i6j. 


284  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IF. 

<  That  fuch  as  are  for  that  Pofture  are  ready  to  atteft  the  Searcher 
of  Hearts  that  their  Adorarion  is  only  diretled  to  the  one  True 
'  and  Living  God,  and  His  Son  Jefus  Chrift,   who  is  exalted  at 
e  his  Father's  Right  Hand.    I  anfwer.    So  is  the  Church  of  Rome 
ready  to  atteft  with  the  fame  Solemnity,  That  when  She  worfbips 
before  the  Piclure  of  an  Old  Man,  She  does  not  worfhip  the  Image 
but  God  the  Father  by  it.     Yet  who  will  excufe  Her  from  Idola- 
try on  that  Account  ?*   And,  which  renders  this  Bufinefs  of  KpeeU 
ing  ftill  fo   much  the  more  Sufpicious,  the  late  Vindicator  of  the 
fundamental  Charter  of  Presbytry  is  angry  at  the  Rubric  in  the  Li- 
turgy which  explains  the  Reafon  of  Kneeling  at  the  LordS  Sup- 
per, and  exprefly  fays  p.  79,     That  neither  hath  the  Church  gained 9 
nor  can  the  Liturgy  be  [aid  to  have  been  made  better  by  it.     But  of 
this,  and  the  dreadfull  Blunder  in  Hiftory  he  has  committed  to 
fupport  this  His  Opinion,  the  Reader  may  perhaps  hear  moreelfe- 
where.     Yet  further,  why  may  not  Presbyterians  confine  People  to 
the  Table  Posiure  in  the  Sacrament  which  the  Epifcopal  Divines 
themfelves  own  was  the  Pofture  ufed  by  the  Difciples  in  ChriiVs 
prefence;  when  the  Church  of  England  confines  People  to  the  Po- 
fture of  Kjieeling   for  which  there  is  no  fuch  Warrant,  and  ap-* 
points  (v )    every   Minifter  to  be  fufpended  who  wittingly  gives' 
the  Communion  to  any  that  do  not  Kneel.    Some  may  perhaps  think 
that  our  Scotch  Epifcopalians  are  milder  in  that  Matter,  and  indeed 
the  above  mention'd  Vindicator  of  the  fundamental  Charter  wou'd' 
have  us  believe  fo.    c  It  is  true,  faith  he  p.  34.  all  communicate  icT 
'the  Sacrament  oftheEucharift,  kneeling  ;  but  Iknow  none,  that 
*  would  deny  the  Sacrament  to  one,  who  could  not  without  Scru- 
6  pie  take  it  in  that  Pofture.  This  is  fpoken  with   Abundance  of 
Gravity,  but  with  what  Integrity  let  the  Reader  judge,  when  he 
confiders  j/?,  That  the  Rubric  in  the  Scots  Epifcopal    Liturgy  is 
as  .(trick  for  kneeling  as  in  the  Englifb   Liturgy.     And  idly,  the 
Scots  Epifcopal  Canon  with  i^efpe£t  to  that  Pofture  is  equally  ftridl 
with  the  Englifo,  as  maybe  feen  both  in  the  Canon  itfelf  and  in 
Clarendons  Hiftory.      Does  not  this  fhew  their  Spirit  and  Pru> 
ciples,  tho'  they  yield  at  prefent  to  gull  unwary  People  ? 

Before. 


i  v  ]  Canon  XXVII.  160^ 


Se&  II.  Presbyterian  Worjhif.  285 

Before  I  proceed  to  Mr  Rhinos  next  Objection,  there  is  one  thing 
I  cannot  but  take  notice  of.    The  Epifcopal  People  have  lafely  cau- 
fed  reprint  the  Liturgy  which  was  lent  doun    for  Scotland  by   K, 
Charles  I,  ani  which  began  the  Troubles  Jnnoi6u»  and  I  am  in- 
formed that  it  is  begun  to  be  praclifed  in  fome  of  their  Meeting 
tloufes  inftead  of  the  Enghfh  Liturgy.     I  think  my  felf  obliged 
in  Charity  to  advertife  People,  *  That  that  Liturgy,  in     *  N  B 
the  Office  for  the  Communion,  is  a  great  deal  worfe  than 
the  F nghfh,  and  is  ^plainly  calculated  for  Begetting  in  People  the 
Belief  of  the  Corporal  Prefence.     I  fhall  at  this  Time  give  three 
Evidences  of  this.     isl,  The  Englifi  Liturgy  has  along  Rubric  de- 
claring that,  by  the  Pofture  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  Prefence  of  Chrift's 
Natural  Fiefh  and  Blood.     The  Scots  Liturgy  neither  hath  this  De- 
claration, nor  any  Thing  equivalent  to  it.     irlly^     the  Englifh  Ia- 
rurgy  has  a  Rubric  enjoining  the  iVHnifter  at  the  faying  thefe  Words 
in  the  Confecration,.  When  he  had  given  Thanks  He  brake  it,  to  break 
the  Bread.     The  Scots  Liturgy    has  no  fuch  Rubric,    nor  any  Ap- 
pointment for  breaking  the  Bread,  anymore  than  the  Roman  Ritual 
has.  idly,  The  Englifh  Liturgy  enjoins  the  Mimfter  to  deliver  the 
Bread  to  the  People  in   Order,    into  their  Hands  all  MEEKLY 
Kjteeling,     but  the  Scots  Liturgy  Words  it,     All  HUMBLY  KjieeU 
ing,  that  we  might  know  They  intended  Adoration  by    that  Po- 
fture,tho'  they  havenottold,  towhat.  I  may  pollibly  have  Occafion, 
fometirae  after  this,    to  fhew  particularly  how  much  worfe  the  Scotch 
Liturgy  is  than  the  Englifh,    But  I  thought  it  needfulltogivethefe 
Hints  now,  becaufe  the  Epifcopal  Clergy  bear  their  People  in  Hand, 
that  it  is  upon  the  Matter  one  and  the  fame  with  the  Engl/fi.  Par- 
ticularly Mr  Smarts  one  of  their  Teachers  at  Edinburgh,  in  his  fbort 
Difcomfe  after  Sermon,  commending  the  Service  told  them  p  8.  i  That 
4  there  is  no  Material  Difference  between  the  Scotifb  and  Engl/Jh 
€  Books  of  Common-Prayer ;  and  that  they  differ  as  little  as  the 
*'-  Scotifb  and  Englifh  Tongues.  The  firft  of  which  A  tTertions  is falfe, 
as- 1- have  juft  now  made  out;   and    the  latter  Nonfenfe.    For,  fo 
far  as  it  follows  the  Englifh'm  Matter,  it  is  the  very  fame  in  Words 
and  Phrafe  j   and  no  Wonder3    for  every  Body  knows  it  was  of 

Englifh 


:i%6  Defence  of  the  Chap  IV. 

Englijb  Birth,  which  herhaps  made  it  take  fo  ill  with  the  Scots  Air 
Butenough  for  Mr  Smart,  whofe  Name  and  Pamphlet  are  fo  very 
ill  fuited,  and  whofe  Character  feems  to  be  the  very  Reverfeofthe 
Apoftle's  Precept ,  Being  in  "Understanding  a  Child,  howbeit  in  Malice 
he  is  a  Man. 

IV.     Mr  Rhind  objects  p.  184.  That  it  is  no  Sacrament  at  all  as 
difpenfed  by  the  Presbyterians.     Pray  why?     There  is,  iaith  he   no 
due  application  of  the  Form  to  the  Matter.     Very  ftrange  /     Thev  al- 
ways read  the  Words  of  Inftitution  either  out  of  the  Gofpels  or 
out  of  I  Cor.  XI.    They  have  frill,  after  our   Lord's  Example   a 
Prayer,  Thanksgiving  or  Blefling  of  the  Bread  and  Wine.     Is  not 
this  a  due  Application  of  the  Form  to  the  Matter  ?     «  No  fates 
1  Mr  Rhind,  the  Form  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  SuppeV  are 
1  the  fame  Words  by  which  our  Lord  did  at  firft  conftitute  the 
'  Sacrament  viz.     Take,  eat,  This  is  my  Body,  Do  this  in  Remembrance 
1  of  Me,  and  Drink  ye  of  this  Cup,  for  this  is  my  Blood:     Do  this  as 
•■'  oft  as  ye  Drink  it  in  Remembrance  of  Me.     Very  well      Dn 
the  Presbyterians  ufethefe  Words?     Are  they  not  in  the  Inftitution? 
■'  Nay,  trot,  faith  he,  if  they  be  at  all,  they  ought  to  be  ufed  in  that 
'  Prayer  by  which  they  intend  to  confecrate  the  Elements  ?    Is 
thereany  Pw^for  this  in  the  Scripture  ?    No.  Any  Examplethere? 
None.     Any  Evidence  for  the  Practice,  for  at  leaft  four  or  five  Cen 
tunes  after  Chrift,  in  the    Writings  of  the  Fathers?    Not   anv 
The  firft  Account  we  have  of  it  is  in  the  Books  of  the  Sacraments 
(x)  which  pafs  under  the  Name  of  Ambrofe,  and  are  inferted  a- 
mong  his  Works.    But  I  hope  Mr.  Rhind  knows  that  thefe  Book* 
were  not  writ  till  fome  Ages  after  Jmbrofe's  Death.     And  if  Mr 
Rhind's  Doftrine  be  true,  the  Church  of  England  Her  felf  for  a 
long  Time  after  abolifhing  the  Mafs  had  not  the  Sacrament'  of  the 
Lord  s  Supper.    For   that  which  is  call'd  the  Prayer  of  Con fecration 
and  in  which  the  Words,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  Body  ho  are    wa« 
not  in  K.  Edward* ;  firrl t  Liturgy ;    But  inftantly  after  the  Praver 
We  do  not  prejumeho.  They  proceeded  to  the  Diftribution.     Nav 
which  is  worft  of  all,  we  are  allured  from  the  Infallible  Chair   thar' 
the  Apoftles  ufed  no  other  Prayer  of  Confecration  but  the  Lord's 

Prayer 

£.*2  Lib.  IV.  Cap.  V. 


Se&;  Hi  VresbytcmnJforfhip,  287 

Prayer  (j).  And,  I  fuppofe  ever  Body  knows  that  thefe  Words, 
Take,  eat,  this  is  my  Body,  zxe  not  in  that  Prayer*,  and  I  think 
Vis  plain  they  were  never  intended  to  {land,  in  that  Form,  in  any 
Prayer. . 

Bur  now  to  gratifie  Mr.  Rhind,  let  us  fuppofe  that  thefe  Words 
fhou'd  be  in  the  Prayer  of  Confecration,  what  follows  ?  Why,  there, 
faith  he,  they  are  never  once  mentioned  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  too  ' 
often  there  is. :  Nothing  equivalent  to  J up fly  the  Defect.  Did  he  ever 
confider  what  he  faid  ?  Did  he  ever  regard  whether  it  was  true 
or  falfef  Is  not  every  Minifter  Directed  (z)  uponthat  Occafion 
to  pray,  *  That  God  may  fanQifie  the  Elements  both  of  Bread  and 

*  Wine,  and  fo  blefs  his  own  Ordinance,  that  we  may  receive  by 
c  Faith  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jefus  Chrift  crucified  for  us,  and 

*  fo  to  feed  upon  Him,  that  He  may  be  one  with  us,  and  we  with 

fi  Him  ;     trm  He  may  live  in  us  and  we  in  Him  and  to  Him,     who  : 

*  hath  loved  us  and  given  himfelf  for  us  Is  not  herefomethingequi-  - 
valent  to  thefe  Words  ?  And  can  Mr  RhindnamQ  that  Minifter  who  } 
does  not  pray  either  thus  or  to  the  fame  Purpofe.  But  f  roving  was  » 
none  of  his  Bufinefs,    all  he  had  to  do  was  to  Afjert. 

I  doubt  not  but  after  all  this  the  Reader  will  think  ftrange  that  Mr 
Rhind  fhould  have  mentioned  fuch  an  Objection.  But  the  Cafe  is  plain,  > 
as  he  was  avowedly  Popifb  on  the  other  Sacrament,  fo  is  he  upon  this ; ', 
and  wou'd  iniinuate  upon  People  the  very  rational  DoQrineof  Tran.  - 
fubft 'ant iat ion  to  be  effected  by  the  pronouncing  of  thefe  particular r 
Words.  And  Bellarmin  led  the  Way  to  him  <  (a),  fothat  he  has  ■ 
indeed  a  Man  ofa  very  confiderable  Name  for  his  Matter. 

Thus  now  I  have  gone  through  the  Epifcopal  Objections  againfl:  the  ; 
Presbyterian  Worlhip  both  as  to  Prayers  and  Sacraments.  And  I  hope  : 
I  have  made  ir  plain  that  there  is  not  any  one  of  the  Things  objected 
againft,  but  what  ('fo  far  as  the  Objection  is  true )  is  fo  far  from  < 
being  a  Ground  of  Reparation,  that  it  is  highly  juftifiable.  But  then,  » 
I  muhVask  MiRhindjwhy,  as  he  has  given  us  the  Grounds  of  his  fepa- 


£  y  ]  Gregory  Lib.  7.  Ep.  63.  Orarionem  autem  Dominicam  idcirco  mox  port  precem  dicinius/quia  mosA- 
uofiolorum  fuit,  ut  ad  lphmfoli/mmoda  orarionem  oblationis  hoftiamconfecraient. ,;- 
£  z,  J     S«e  the  Diretterj.    J.  a  J  .  De  Saciam.  Eucharift.'  Cap*  ia.  13.'  s 


qS8  Defence  of  the  Chap.  IV. 

rating  from  the  Vresbyterian  Worfhip,  be  has  not  alfoanfwered  the" 
other  half  ofthe  T/Vte  of  his  Book,  and  juftified  the  known  Objections 
againft  the  Worfhip  of  that  CW^  who  fe  Communion  he  pretends  to 
have  embraced.    I  have  hinted  at  feveralof'em  as  I  came  along,     and 
they  may  be  found  more  at  length  in  fome  fmall  Tracts  lately  publifh- 
ed     (£).     Was  there  Nothing  in  the  Liturgy  that  he  ftartled  at?     I 
obferve,  the  above  cited  Mr  Smart  p.  9.     with  much  AfTurance,     bids 
his  Audience  read  it  all  over,  and  among  all  the  Prayers  that  are  in  it ,  fee 
if  there  be    any  grayer  for  the  Dead,    any  worjjjipping  of  Images,     any 
fraying  to  Saints  and  Angels.     I  do  not  lay  that  there  are  any  Yrsyers 
for  the  Dead  in  it,    but  the  Famous  Author  of    the  Cafe  fe^exprefly 
fays  p.  189.  there  are,     and  proves  it  from  the  Order  for  the  Burial  of 
the  Dead,     and  from  the  Prayer  for  the  Church  miltt&m  in  the  Commu- 
nion Office,     I  do  not  fay  that  there  is  any  wovfbipftng  of  Images  in  it.  But 
I  fay,  that  many  of  the  Common  Prayer  Books  are  filled  with  fuch  Pi- 
ctures as  are  condemn'd  by  the  Homilies  ofthe  Church  of  England,  yea 
and  by  the  High  Church  Divines  themfelves;     witnefsrhe  laft  cited 
Author  (  fuppofed  to  be  Dr  Ltjly  )  who,  in  his  Converfation  withrhe 
Roman  Catbolick  Nobleman,  tells  him  p.  1  3  5.     We  abftain  from  the  Pi- 
ctures or  Images  of  the  Saint  sin  our  Churches,  becaufe  they  have  been  abufed 
to  Superflition  and   to  avoid  Off  nee.     Now  it  they  are  unlawfull  in 
Churches,  how  is  it  pofTible  ihey  can  be  lawful!  in  Books  appointed 
for  the  Church-Service  ?    That  fame    Author  likewile  in  the  fame 
Place  approves  of  the  Zeal  of  Eptfhanius^  who  finding  a  Linrien  Cloth 
hungup  in  a  Church  Door  (  it  is  like  jy  to  keep  out  the  Wind  J  where- 
on was  a  Picture  of  Chriftovotfome  Saint ^  tore  it  and  ordered  a  dead 
Corps  to  be  buried  in  it.     And  lamented  the  Supet  Hition  he  faw  com- 
ing by  thefe  Pictures  and  Images  then   beginning  to  creep  into  the 
Church.     Yet  in  England  not  only  the  Common  Prayer  Books,     but 
even  the  Bible  it  felf  is  filled  with  Pictures  of  Chrift  and  the  Saints  \ 
witmfs  the  Bible,  printed  London  by  Charles  Bill,  and  the  Executrix 
of  Thomas  Newcomb  deceased  Yr inters  to  the  Queen's mofl  excellent  Majefly, 
1708.     Many  Copies  of  which  Impreffron  are  ftuffed  witn  fuchPi- 
Ctureso    Are  they  more  innocent  in  the  Bible ,  than  upon  aLinnen 

Cloth 


r  h  ]    See  the  Dialogues  between  the  Curate  sud  the  Countryman  &c. 


Chap.  V-  Presbyterian   Spirit,  289 

Clorh  hanging  in  the  Church  Door?  Yea,  which  is  mod:  abomi- 
nable, there  are  feveral  Obfcene  Pictures  among 'em,  particularly 
that  of  Noah  Uncovered  Gen.  IX,  Lot  and  his  two  Daughters  Gen. 
XIX,  David  and  Bathjhsba  1 1  Sam.  XL  Finally,  I  do  not  fay  there 
is  any  praying  to  Saints  and  Angels  in  the  Common  Pray er-Book, 
But  I  do  fay,  that  the  eonfecrating  Churches  and  Days  to  them, 
and  the  appointing  particular  Offices  upon  thefe  Days  to  their  Honour 
is  the  like  tt  Thing  to  worfhipping  them  that  lean  conceive.  Be- 
fides,  did  Mr  Rbmd's  nice  and  fcrupulous  Confcience  never  bogle 
at  the  Ceremonies  of  Human  Invention  ?  If  the  Church  have  Power 
to  inftiture  fuch,  fhe  has  certainly  Power  to  make  a  new  Bible ;  For 
there  is  no  fuch  Power  given  her  in  the  old  one :  Or  if  there  is,  cer- 
tainly Pi oreftants  have  been  much  in  the  Wrong  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  But  I  am  not  now  toinfift  on  thefe  Things. 


CHAP.     V. 

Wherein  Mr.  Rhind^  Fourth  Re  of  on  for  His 
Separating  from  the  Presbyterians  vi%.  That 
Their  Spirit  is  diametrically  Oppofite  to  that 
of  the  Gofpel,  is  Examined [  from  P+  185, 
to  the  End. 


•*HE  Meaning  of  this  Reafon  is,  That  Presbyterians 
are  incarnate  Devils  :  And  the  Intendment  of  it  is, 
That  all  Perfons  who  regard  Confcience  or  Duty 
fhould  hang  out  a  Bloody  Flag  againft  'em,  and  rife 
up  with  one  accord,  and  fpoil  Their  Goods  and  de- 
O  0  ftroy 


290  Defence  of  the  Chrp.  V. 

ftroy  Their  Perfons ;  or,  to  fpeak  in  Dr.  SacheverePs  much  more  e- 
Jegant  Stile,  That  the  Bifhops  ought  to  thunder  out  the  Ecclefiafti. 
cal  Anathema's  again  ft  Them,  and  let  any  Power  on  Earth  DARE 
reverfe  them ;  and  that  the  People  fhou'd  treat  Them  like  grow- 
ing Mifchtefs  or  infetUous  Plagues  *.  This  is  indeed  fomewhat  hard ; 
but  fuch  is  the  Vpifcopal  Charity,  fuch  are  the  mercifull  principles 
wherewith  they  feafon  Their  new  Converts,  and  fuch  is  the  Ufage 
we  are  to  expect  whenever  the  Sins  of  the  Nation  fhall  ripen  to 
that  Height  as  to  provoke  a  Holy  God  to  let  in  Prelacy  upon  it.  But 
to  make  way  for  Particulars. 

The  Presbyterians  neither  are  nor  defire  to  be  of  thofe  who  yujli- 
fie  themfelves.  They  know  and  confefs  that  there  are  Tares  in  Their 
Field  as  well  2&  Wheat  \  and  are  fenfible  that  They  have  the  outmoft 
Reafon  to  cry  with  the  Publican  God  be  mercifull  to  us  Sinners: 
But  they  think  it  a  very  fhamelefs  Thing  in  the  Epifcopalians,  that 
They  fhou'd  be  the  firft  who  take  up  Stones  tocaft  at  Them  :  For, 
if  the  Presbyterians  are  great  Sinner  s^Vin  arTVaid  C  were  that  the  Enqui* 
ry  )  the  Epifcofalians  wou'd  not  be  found  to  be  very  great  Saints. 

Our  Saviour  has  given  us  an  excellent  Rule  whereby  to  judge  of 
Men's  Spirits,  By  their  Fruits  ye  (hall  -know  Them.     I  hope  it  needs 
not  be  deem'd  a  Refle&ion  upon  Them,  or  an  immoderate  flatter- 
ing of  our  Selves  to  affirm,  Thanhs  Presbyterians,  generally  fpeak- 
ing,  are  as  Devout  toward*  God,  as  frequent  at  Their  Prayers;  and?. 
10  outward  Appearance  (tor  God  only  knows   the  Heart  )  as  fer- 
vent in  Them  as  the  Prelatifls.    That  They  fwear  as  feldom  by 
the -Name  of  God,  as  feldom  tear  open  the  Wounds  of  our  Rlefs» 
ed  Saviour,  and  as  feldom  imprecate  Damnation  upon  Themfelves 
or  others  as  the  Epi/copalians.    That  They  are  as  Sober  and  Tem- 
perate, go  as  feldom  Drunk  to  Bed,  are  as  mild  in  Their  Carriage^ 
as  little  given  to  Bullying  or  Bluftering,  as  thofe  of  Hi?h-Chnrch. 
That  They  areasjVtf  in  Their  Dealings  with  Their  Neighbours,. 
£s  open  Handed  to  the  Indigent,  Their  Poor  as  content,  Their  Rich 
as  Humble,  that  They  make  as  kind  Husbands,  as  dutifull  Wives ;. 
as  carefull  Parents  and  as  obedient  Children  ;  as  juft  Mafters  and  as 
iaithfull  Servants,  as  thofe  that  live  in  Communion  with  the  Bijhop. , 

NO; 


*-Sei.m0  Falfe  Brethren  p.  380 


Chap.  V.         Presbyterian  Spirit.  291 

No  Man  that's  capable  of  making  Obfervations,  and  is  not  quite 
loft  to  Ingenuity,  will  deny  any  of  thefe  Things.  If  I  had  faid  more, 
and  affirmed,  That  '  Outrage,  Murder  and  AfTafRnations  are  the 

*  known  Practice  of  the  Highflyers,  as  well  as  of  the  bigotted  Pa- 

*  fijls,  and  that  Their  true  Mother  Tongue  is,  I  will  not  fail  to  cut 
1  jour  Throat  by  G-d,  it  wou'd  be  thought  hard  ;  yet  I  might  be  very 
well  excufed,  becaufe  Mr.  B/jfet  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  faid  every  Word  of  it  before  Me  (c). 

But,  that  Mr.  Rhind  may  have  all  due  Advantage  againft  the  Pre- 
sbyterians ;  There  are  many  Things  he  has  charged  Them  with  as 
very  odious,  which  They  not  only  freely  confefs,  but  boldly  avow. 
Such  as,  for  Inftance.  Fir  ft  9  When  He  charges  Them  p.  1 89.  That 
They  believe  uncommon  Meajures  of  the  Spirit  of  our  Lord  to  be  Hill  ne- 
ceffary  in  the  Work  of  Converfion.  The  whole  Catholick  Church  of 
Chrilt  in  all  Ages  ftill  believed  fo;  and  I  never  fufpefted  but  that 
tbofe  of  the  Epif copal  Communion  had  believed  fo  too,  till  their  new 
Difciple,  whom,  no  doubt,  They  have  inftrucled  in  all  Their  Ar- 
cana, inform'd  Me  otherwife.  The  Scripture  tells  us  That  if  any 
Man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Chrift  He  is  none  of  His:  But  to  fay, 
that  this  Spirit  is  common  to  all  the  Baptized  Swearers,  Curfers, 
Whoremongers  and  Adulterers  through  the  Country,  or  that  it  is 
Common  to  fuch  who  live  in  a  habitual  Neglecl  of  God  or  Uncon- 
cern'dnefs  about  their  Souls  and  Eternal  State,  even  tho'  They 
are  free  of  Scandalous  Sins,  This  I  judge  to  be  therankeft  Blafphe- 
my.  And  if  that  Spirit  be  not  common  to  all  fuch  Perfons,  then 
certainly  it  is  an  uncommon  Spirit,  or  there  are  uncommon  Meafures 
thereof  by  which  good  and  Pious  Men  are  aded.  Secondly,  When  He 
charges  Them,ibid,  with  teaching  That  the  best  Actions  of  Men  before  the 
Grace  of  God  are  but  fo  many  Jplendid  Sins.  They  own  They  do  be- 
lieve this,  as  we  have  feen  before  p.  10.  the  Church  of  England  does. 
Thirdly,  When  he  charges  Them  p.  19$.  That  They  have  a  hidden 
Spice  of  Devotion  in  Their  Tempers.  They  are  fo  far  from  being  afhamed 
of  this,  that  They  pray,  Would  to  God  there  were  more  of  it.  Fourthly, 
When  He  Charges  Them  ibid.  That  upon  the  Commiffion  offome  Griev- 
ous Sin9  They  are  offered  with  horrible  Apprehenjions.   The  Presbyterians 

O  0  2  own 


£  c  J  Ubi  Supra  p.  8. 


292.  Defence  of  the  Chap,    V. 

own  that,  in  that  Cafe,tbev  ought  to  b£  Co :  For,  they  know  that  it  ex* 
pofes  them  to  the  Wrath  of  God  ;  and  believe,  that  it  isafarfull 
thing  to  fall  into  his  Ha? -ds.  And  f^O4,  ir»  that  Cafe,  Their  Souls  (that 
I  may  ufe  Mr  Rhindls  Words  p.  189./  ami  commonly  thttr  Boates  too  are 
in  the  great eft  Di for tier ,  yet,  they  fir.dthat  the  Holy  Men  of  God 
upon  Scripture  Record  have  been  the  fame  Way  affected  in  the  like 
Cafe.  Thus  David  Ptel.  XXXVIII  3, 4,  5.  There  it  no  Soundnefs  in 
my  ¥  left),  becauje  of  thine  Anger  \  Nei,he>  is  there  any  Reft  m  my  Bones; 
htcaufeofmySin.  For  mine  Iniquities  are  gone  ovet  mine  Head:  As  an 
heavy  Burden  tney  an  too  heavy  for  me.  My  Wounds  flink,  and  are  corrupt 
Becaufe  of  my  Foolijhnefs.  In  like  Wanner  Heman  P{.  LXXXVHI.  14,' 
1 5.  Lord  why  c  aft  eft  thou  off  my  Soul  ?  Why  hideH  Thou  Thy  Face  from  me  ? 
lam  afflicledand  readie  to  die,  from  my  Touth  up :  While  Ifufter  thy  Term 
rorsl  am  diftracJed.  The  Bifhop  of  Sarum,  when  inftructing  Mini* 
ftersfd)  how  to  deal  with  thofe  of  their  People  that  are  troubled  in 
JMind,  delivers  himfelf  thus.  '  Some  have  committed  enormous  $ins9 
4  which  kindle  zStorm  in  their  Confciences ;  and  that  ought  to  be 
1  cherifhed,  till  they  have  compleated  a  Repentance  proportioned  to 
*  the  Nature  and  Degreeof their  Sin.  Thus  he,  and  thus  every  one, 
who  is  not  quite  abandoned  ot  God,  wou'd  teach.  But  Mr  Rkind  is  not 
for  having  People  affected  with  horrible  Apprehenfions  upon  the  Corn- 
mi  flion  of  grievous  Sins,  much  lefs  (or  having  thefe  Apprehenfions 
cherifiied  till  they  are  brought  to  Repentance.  What  Times  are  we 
refer ved  to  !  Fifthly,  When  he  charges  them  with  zfenous  Air  p.  202; 
with  a  peculiar  Vehemency  in  Preaching,with  a  Preci/enefs  of  Converfa- 
tion  p.  204,  with  Difcourfes  of  the  Love  of  God  and  Chrift,*  and  Jweet 
Communion  with  the  Father,  and  the  Son  p.  205.  The  Presbyterians  are 
fo  far  from  being  angry  at  this  Charge,  that  They  are  forry  there  is 
too  little  Ground  for  it ;  and  They  are  heartily  forry  that  the  Epifcopal 
Clergy  fhou'd  have  had  fo  little  Regard  to  Piety,  to  the  Honour  of 
Religion*  and  to  their  own  Reputation  with  all  ferious  People,  as 
to  have  cherifhed  fuch  a  Book. 

For  befides  thefe  Inftances,  Is  it  poflible  any  thing  can  be  more 
Vropbane,  than  to  jeft,  as  he  does  p.  194  &c,  upon  People's  Exenife 
of  Soul  about  their  Eternal  Concerns  ?    Does  not  the  Apoftle  com- 
mand 


l  d  J    Ptfoxal  Ca;e  IV, \ Edit.  p.  ,17$, 


Ghap.  V.  Presbyterian  Spirit.  zyj 

mand  Timothy  i  Tip.  IV.  7  to  Exercife  Himfelf  unto  Godlinefs  ?   Nay 
does  he  not  command  all  Chriftians  to  work  out  Their  Salvation  with 
FEAR  and  TREMBLING  ?     Has  the  Epi/copal  Party  found   out 
aneafier  Way  of  getting  to  Heaven  ?    Is  it  poflible  any  Thingcan 
be  more  prophage  than   His  charging  Yresbjterians  p. 200.  with  re- 
folving  much   of  the  Spirit  of  Religion  into  Amorous  Recumbancies, 
and  that  They  think  that  Thefll  recommend  Themfelves    to  God   after 
the  very  fame  Manner  as  to  their  MiTtrefses  ?     Was  not  this   plainly 
intended  to  burlefque  the  Scripture  ?    Is  there  any  thing  more  fa- 
miliar in   the   Scripture  than  to  reprefent  the  Intercourfe   'twixt 
God  and  the  Soul  by  the  Love  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  Bride,  of 
the  Hufband  and  the  Wife?    And  if  thefe  ftudy  to  recommend 
themfelves  to  each  other  by  an  AgreeaHlenefs  of  Temper,  and  do- 
ing what  They  know  will  be  well-pleafing  to  each  other;    is  it 
culpable  in  the  Soul  to  ftudy  to  be  aflimulated  to  God,  to  be  made 
Partaker  of  the  Divine  Nature,   and  to  do  what  is     well  plea  fin  g  in 
His  fight?     What  are  his  amorous  Recumbancies  but  a  Comical  Phrafe 
whereby  he  defigned  to  ridicule  the  Scripture  Expreflion  Cant.VUL 
5.  Leaning  upon  he*  Beloved,  which  is  literally  the  Englifh  of  it?    Is 
it  poflibie  any  thing  cou'd  be  more  Prophage  than  to   ftrick  at  (as 
he  does  p.  190^  the   Work  of  Regeneration  through  the  fides  of 
the  Presbyterians,  wham  he  reprefentsas  talking  of i  Their  feeling 

*  the  ftrugglings  of  the  Babe  of  Grace  in  the   Place    of    bringing 
*'furth  of  Children^  a  paflage,  faith  he,  of  the  Prophet  impertinently 

*  applyed  by  them  to  this  purpofe?  For  was  there  ever  any 
Chriftian  that  denyed  the  Turning  of  the  Soul  to  God  to  be  expreiTed 
in  the  Scripture  by  the  Birth  of  a  Child?  Don't  the  Jrmwians, 
Does  not  the  Church  of  Rome  herfclf  own  this?  And  is  there 
not  the  greater!:  Reafon  for  it,  if  we  confider  either  the  Difficulty 
or  the  Great ne/s  of  the  Change  wrought  upon  the  Soul  thereby  ? 
Was  there  ever  any  Chriftian  who  applyed  that  paiTage  of  the 
Prophet  to  any  other  purpofe  than  that  of  the  Turning  the  foul  to  God? 
Even  Grotius  Himfelf  upon  the  place  applys  it  thus,  'That  Ephraim 
<;was  not  wife  who  fo  long  delayed  to  repent  and  turn  to  God, 
'and  fo  to  deliver  Himfelf  out  of  his  Calamities.  Cou'd  there 
be  any  Thing  more  Wicked  thin  to  load  the  Presbyterians  fas  he 
does.p,  197.  )with  the  Scandal  oi  Major  Weir  thu  Son  of  Terdi- 

uonj 


294  Defence  of  the  Cba;\  V# 

tion,  who,  faith  he,  prayed  thofe  who  joined  with  him  into  Raptures: 
For,  fuppofing  it  were  true  he  had  done  fo,  which  yet  Mr  Rhind 
and  all  his  Party  can  never  prove,  how  cou'd  this  arTeci  the  Pre. 
sbyteriam?  Was  there  not  a  J"^  among  the  Twelve  Difciples? 
Can  any  Man  prove  but  that  He  was  equally  gifted  with  tfie 
Reft  ?  Yet  who  ever  reproached  either  Chrift  or  the  College  of  the 
Apoftles  on  his  Account?  Or  who  dare  fay  but  that  God  may 
employ  fuch  as  are  Sons  ofTerdition  themfelves  as  Inftruments  of 
Salvation  to  others  ?  Cou'd  any  thing  be  more  Wicked  than  to 
reprefent  fas  he  does  p.  190.  196  )the  Presbyterians  as  doing  Exe- 
cution  upon  themfelves  through  Defpiir  f  There  is  no  doubt  but 
Vresbyterians  are  liable  to  be  oppreffed  with  Melancholy  as  well  as 
others,  and  thatfomein  that  Communion  may  fin  themfelves  io  far 
out  of  the  Favour  of  God,  as  that  in  his  juft  Judgment  he  may  give 
them  up  as  a  Prey  to  Satan.  But  why  fhou'd  the  Presbyterian 
Spirit  be  reproached  with  this  ?  Tho'  the  Newsprints  from  Lon- 
don *  tell  us  that,  laft  Year,  from  the  16th  of  December  171 2  to  the 
15th  of  December  1713,  there  were  34  Ferfons,  within  the  Bills  of 
Mortality,  guilty  of  Self-Murder,  will  any  Body  therefore  charge 
Prelacy  and  Liturgy  therewith,  tho'  rampant  there  ?  Becaufe  lean 
name  a  famous  Divine  of  the  Church  of  England  who  trufs'd  up 
himfelf  in  his  Canonical  Belt,  were  it  therefore  juft  that  I  fhou'd  load 
the  Spirit  of  the  Church  of  England  therewith  ? 

Mr  Rhind  does  indeed  name  Two  Books  viz.  Shepherd's  fincere  Con- 
vert ,  and  GuthriesTrial  of  a  faving  Intereft  in  Chrift,  as  leading  Men 
into  that  Courfe,  or  into  deceitfull  Hopes  founded  upon  Animal 
Impreflions.  As  for  Mr  Shepherd's  Book,  I  am  not  fo  much  concern'd 
about  it,  he  was  a  Man  that  as  I'm  informed  had  Epifcopal  Orders,  and 
wasfometimesof  Emanuel  College  in  Cambridge,  And  I  will  not  under- 
take to  defend  fome  Peculiarities  he  has  in  his  Writings ;  let  Mr  Rhind, 
whob  more  obliged,  do  it  at  his  beft  Leifure.  But  that  there  is  any 
Thing  in  that  Book  chat  has  the  leaft  Tendency  either  to  drive 
Men  into  Defpair,  or  to  encourage  them  to  bottom  their  Hopes  of 
Heaven  upon  falfe  Grounds,  I  absolutely  deny,  and  challenge  Mr 

Rhind 


*    See  the  Evening  Pojl    Numb.  $83. 


CBap,  V,         Presbyterian  Sprit*  295 

Rhind  to  prove  it :  For  hitherto  he  has  a&ed  as  an  avowed  Calumni- 
ator, in  not  daring  to  cite  fo  much  as  one  PaiTage  of  the  faid  Book 
for  making  good  his  Charge. 

As  for  Mt  Guthrie,  he  was  a  genuine  Presbyterian,  his  Book  is  writ- 
ten in  a  moft  familiar  Stile,  adapted    to  the  Capacity  of  every  com- 
mon Reader,  and  to  the  Feeling  of  every  good  Chriltian  ;  And  God 
hasfo  fignally  bleffed  it  with  Succefs,  that  no  one  Book  can  be  nam- 
ed, written  by  any  Scots  Man  of  either  Communion,  that  has  been 
foinftrumental  infringing  ofTPeople  from  a  Courfe  either  of  Vice 
or  Indifferency,     and  in  engaging   them  to  Thoughttulnefs  and  a 
Concern  about  their  Eternal Intereft,   as  this  has  been.     Can  then  Mr 
Rhind  inftance  wherever  the  Father    of  Lies  was  guilty  of  a  greater 
than  what  he  has alledged  againftthat  Book?     No.  He  was  felf-con- 
demned,  and  therefore  darM  not  adventure  to  cite  fo  much  asoneL^e- 
of  itfor  verifying  hisCharge.   But  we    are  not  to  wonder  at  this  his 
Conduft.     For  whenoncea  Man  proclaims  Hoftility  againft  Piety  in 
the  general,  He  finds  it  necelTary  to  blow  upon  every  ferious  Book  thae : 
tends  to  promote  it.    I  thought  it  neceffary  to  give  thefe  Hints  by 
the  By,  that  the  World  may  fee  what  Men  They  are  that  feparate- 
from  the  Presbyterians,  and  are  received  by  the  Epifcogal  Party. 

lam  now  to  confider  His  Argument  as  he  has  laid  it.     Fhtt%  As 
to  its  Weight,  and  then  as  to  its  Truth, 

-     In  the.  First  Place  as  to  its  Weight,    Suppofing  it  were  true,  that 
the  Spirit  of  the  Presbyterians  is  diametrically  oppofiteto  that  of  the : 
Gofpely  wou'd  that   ALONE  juftify  a  Separation?     Mr.  Rhind  af- 
finals it  would  ;    and  pofitiviy  iaies  in  his  penult  Page,  *   Thxt  each > 
s  of  his  Arguments  feparatl) is  fufficient  to  warrant  the  Change  he 
'  has  made  ;.and  as  to  this  argument  particularly,  He  faies  p.  1S50. 
That  it  might  ferve  inflead  of  all  thefe  He  haih  urged.     I  affirm  the.- 
Contrary;  and  that,  even  fuppofing  itsTruthi  it  cou'd  not  juliify. 
&  Separation,  abftracling  from  the  Reft.    The  Truth  or  Bei*g  of  a. 
Church  is  never  to  be  meafured  by  the  Manners  of  the  Members^ 
which  may  be  Good  and  Bad  at  different  Times,  and  vary  as  Men 
do.     The  Church  of  Ifraet/was  always*  as  God  had  framed  ir,  a 
true  Chuich.     But  if '  Holmefs  of  Life  had  been  made  a  Mote  of  it, 
it  might  in  fome  Junctures  have  been  called  no  Church  at    all. 
When  our  Saviour  vifited  the  World,  He  cou'd  fcarce  find  any 

-  Probky>' 


2g6  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V. 

Probity  in  it ;  and  the  formal  Religion  of  the  Pharifees  had  made  void 
real  and  folid  Piety.  The  Blood  of  all  the  Prophets  was  lying  upon 
th^m,  and  through  their  own  Traditions  they  had  made  void  the 
CommandmentsofGod.  And  yet,  no>  withstanding  all  this,  Chnfl: 
did  notfeparatefrom  them.  Confequently  the  like  Objection  cannot 
be  a  justifiable  Ground  of  Separation  many  other.  Thus  Dr  Tenijon 
now  Primate  of  all  England,  and  who  is  at  once  the  Honour  as  well 
as  Head  of  his  Order,Reafon'd  (ej  againft  the  Romamfls  urging  (with 
the  fame  Modefty  as  Mr  Rhinddoeb)  HoltmfsofLtfe  as  a  Note  of 
their  Church.  And  Ifuppofethe  Reafo.iing  *  illy?;// hold  Good.  It 
was  then  a  very  Unchriti  lan  Aft  in  Mr  Hhtndto  hparate  tromthe 
Presbyterians,  when  his  fhining  Virtue  and  bright  Example  cou'd  not 
have  fail'd  to  have  reclaim'd  'em,  or  at  lectio  render  'em  inexcufable. 
But  it  is  not  the  fir  ft  fad  Lofs  they  have  fuftained,  and  overcome 
too ;     as,  I  hope,  they  fhall  do  this. 

However,  fuppofing  the  Weight,  letusconfider  the7V«^ofhis  Ar- 
gument. This  I  (hall  do  by  examining  the  I  articulars  be  infiltson. 
Having  fpent  Two  or  Three  Pages  in  defcribing  the  Spirit  of  the  Gofpel% 
and  what  he  means  by  the  Spirit  of  a  Party :  He  alledges  1.  That  the 
Presbyterian  Spirit  is  Enthuftajiical.  II.  That  it  is  a  meer  Animal  or  Me- 
chanical  Spirit.  III.  That  it  is  a  Partial  Spirit,  damning  and  denying 
Grace  to  all  but  their  own  Party.  IV.  Thatitisa/w>w  and  mean  Spi- 
rit. V.  That  it  i$  a  malicious  unforgiving  Spirit.  VI.  That  it  is  an  un- 
converfible  Spirit.  VII.  That  it  is  a  Disloyal,  Rebellious  Spirit.  VIII. 
That  it  is  a  Spirit  otDtvifton.  IX.  That  it  ibanVnneigbbourly9  Cruel 
and  Barbarous  Spirit. 

Here  is  a  very  formidable  Mufter;  yet,  after  all,  not  very  dan- 
gerous. For, Mr  fttod  has  been  fo  wellnaturedas  not  to  cite  fo  much 
as  one  Line  out  of  any  Presbyterian  Author  for  proving^  Thing  of 
all  this ;  1  ho' that  was, I'm  fu re  the  mofty  perhaps  the  only  habile 
Way  of  doing  his  Bufinefs  effectually.  Nay,  tho'  the  greateft  Part  of 
his  Charge  turns  upon  Matter  of  Faff  ;  yet  he  has  not  cited  fo  much 
as  one  Hiitonan,  great  or  fma  11,  of  either  Side,  lor  making  it  good.  But 
fuch  ibthe  Epif copal  Way  of  writing,  and  we  muft  not  complain.  Ha- 
rangue 


£  e  J    On  Btllarmin's  X.  Note  of  the  Church. 


Chap  V,  Presbyterian   Spirit.  297 

■tongue  and  Declamation  are  All- Powerfull  Engines  when  play'd  by 
a  Canonical  Hand;  And  when  They  are  at  fo  much  Pains  to  labour 
Their  Periods  into  a  Cadence,  'tis  Rudnefsand  111  Manners  in  us  to  ask 
for  Proof,  the  infilling  on  which  wou'd  fpoil  the  Harmony  oftheir 
Rhetorick.  However,  we  muft  crave  Leave  to  enquire  a  little  into 
the  Particulars  of  this  Charge. 

I.  He  charges  the  Presbyterians  with  an  Enthufiafticaltymt.     But 
on  what  Grounds?  '  if,  faith  he  p.  200,  Their  moft 
r  admired  Practical  Syftems  contain  Nothing  but  the    The    Presby- 
e  very  Dreg  of  Mylficifm,  and  a  Jargon  no  lets  unintel-    terian    Spirit 
c  ligible,  than  that  of  Jacob  Behmen    or  Molmo.  Well     not    Enthufi 
what  are  thefe  Practical  Sy ferns  J     He    is  fo  far  from     afiicaL 
ckeing  any  Thing  out  of  'em,  tifat  he  does  not  fo  much 
zsnzme  any  of 'em,  except  the  Two  already  mention'd   viz.  Shepherd 
&  Guthrie.  For  Vindication  of  Mr  Guthrie's  Book,  I  ask  no  more  of  any 
Perfon,  but  that  he'll  perufe  itferioufly;  and  if,after  he  has  done,  he 
can  fay  there  is  any  other  Myfkkijmox  Enthufiafm'm  it,  than  what  the 
Gofpel  teaches  ;  Nay,  than  what  every  Man  who  is  concern'd  about 
hisSoul/^/i,  1 11  frankly  forgive  him. 

Plainlv,  the  Import  of  that  Syftem  is  this.  That  the  great  Work 
every  Man  has  to  do  in  this  World  is  to  fecure  Eternal  Happinefs 
to  Himfelf.  That  there  are  indeed  fome  Perfons  bleifed  with  the 
Advantage  of  a  Religious  Education;  and  the  Grace  of  God  fal- 
ling in  therewith;  They  are  ivfenfibly  train'd  up  to  Piety  and  Vir- 
tue, and  find  Tbemfelves  in  a  fixed  Habit  thereof,  wiihout  being 
able  to  give  a  diftincl  Account  how  it  began,  or  by  what  fenfible 
Steps  it  has  arrived  at  fuch  a  Height.  But  then  the  far  greater 
Part  of  Baptized  Perfons  fpend  a  great  Part  of  their 
Life  either  in  a  Courfe  of  Vice  and  Leudne/s,  or  at  beft  in 
Jndijferercy  and  Carelefsnejs  about  their  Eternal  Salvation.  God,  who 
is  an  Infinite  Lover  of  Souls,  and  wills  not  that  they  fbou'd  perifh; 
is  gracioufly  pleafed,  in  His  own  good  Time,  by  His  Spirit,  work- 
ing by  thefe  Ways  He  has  appointed,  to  awaken  them  into  a  thought- 
full  Temper,  and  to  alarm  them  of  their  Danger.  He  engages 
them  ferioufly  to  compare  their  Heart  and  Life  with  the  Law  of 
God.  And,  upon  the  doing  this,  they  cannot  but  difcover  a  vaft 
Contrariety  and  Contradiction  between  them.    He  engages  them 

p  p  like  wife 


298  Defence  of  the  Chap.  F. 

like  wife  ferioufly  to  lay  to  Heart  the  Threatnwgs  of  God,  and  the 
dreadfull  Things  His  Law  has  awarded  againft  fuch  Criminals  as 
they  are:  And  this  cannot  but  ar?e£t  them  with  the  moft  horrible 
Jlptprehenfcns,  For,  who  can  be  eafie  either  in  Body  or  Mind  un- 
d'er  the  Thoughts  of  having  God  for  his  Enemy ;  and  under  the  projped 
of  getting  Hell  for  his  Portion .?  God  is  pleafed  to  excercife  them  with 
fuch  Thoughts,  till  he  fees  they  are  duly  humbled,  and  in  Earned 
convinced  that  it  was  a  bitter  and  evil  Thing  to  depart  from  the  Living 
God.  But  then,God  does  not  project  for  the  Uneafinef,  ot  His  Creatures^ 
nor  require  Sorrow  for  Sorrow's  Sake,  but  that  they  may  be  the 
more  watchfull  againft  Sin  in  Timecomeing,  and  the  more  arTecled 
with  His  Goodnefs  in  providing  a  Method  of  Delivery  for  them. 
And  therefore,  when  He  has  Exerctfed  them  fo  lon^  and  to  fuch  a 
Height  as  is  needfull  for  attaining  thefe  Ends  upon  them  •,  He  is 
pleafed  to  begin  their  Relief  by  intimating  to  them,  by  means  of 
the  Gofpel,  a  Pojfibility  of  Salvation  through  Jefus  Chnft.  Yet  even 
this  is  not  fufficient  to  determine  the  Soul  to  God.  For,  be  the  Re- 
medy never  fo  foveraign,  yet  it  can  do  no  good  to  luch  as  don't 
apply  it;  whether  through  De/pair,  that  it  will  not  be  effectual; 
or  through  a  falfe  Hope  that  the  Wound  will  not  prove  deadly. 
And  therefore,  yet  further,  God,  by  the  Internal  Operation  of  His 
Spirit,  in  the  Way  of  Gofpel  Means,  gives  a  new  Turn  and  Byafs 
to  the  Soul,  not  onlv  perfwades  it  thatv  it  is  pffihle  to  be  laved; 
and  that  it  is  abioluily  needfull  to  fall  in  with  the  Gofpel  iMetiiod 
of  Salvation;  but  effectually  determines  it  todofo;  fo  that  the  Soul 
heartily  renounces  all  Sin,  fincerely  engages  insCourie  oiVmve/Jal 
Holinefs;  and,  in  that  Method,  trufts  to  .he  ierit  and  Righteouf- 
nefs  of  Chrift  a/lennarlyfoc  Acceprance  with  God,  Pardon  of  Sin,  and 
comeing  to  Heaven  at  laft.  Now,  when  a  Perfon  finds  his  Cafe 
altered  thus  fo  much  to  the  better  ;  is  it  poilible  but  that  he  muft 
needs  rejoice  with  Joy  un/peakable  and  full  of  Glory?  While  he  goes 
on  in  the  Way  of  Holinels,  is  it  polfible  but  he  muft  rind  that  the 
Ways  of  Wifdom  are  Ways  of  P  leaf  ant  nefs,  and  Her  Paths  Peace? 
When  he  is  fenfible  that  his  Eternal  Happinefs  is  fecured  by  an  In- 
tereft  in  Chrift,  is  it  poffible  but  that  he  muft  rejoice  in  the  Hope  of 
the  Glory  of  God}  If  at  any  Time  he  flack  his  Diligence,  and  fall 
into  Sin,  through  the  Infirmity  of  Nature  or  the  Violence  of  Sa- 
tan's 


Chap  V.1  Presbyterian  Sprit.  299 

tanYTentations,  and  thereupon  the  Confolations  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
are  withdrawn,  has  he  not  the  greateft  Reafon  to'bedeje&ed  both 
in  Body  and  Mind,  and  to  pray  with  the  Pfalmili  Pf.  LI.8.11. 
Make  me  to  bear  "Joy  and  Gladnefs :  That  the  Boms' which  Thou  haB 
broken  may  re  joke.  C a ft me  not  away  from  thy  ?r e fence  :  Take  not  Thy 
Holy  Spirit  from  Me.  Or,  if  God,  even  in  a  Sovereign  Way  over- 
caft  Hi3  Soul ;  that  he  may  long  fo  much  the  more  for  the  uninter- 
rupted joys  of  Heaven ;  Is  this  any  other  than  what  the  moft 
Holy  Men  recorded  in  Scripture  have  felt  ? 

This  is  the  Import  of  Mr  Guthrieh  Book,  and  indeed  of  all  the 
other  YraUicalSy ferns  written  by  the  Presbyterians  on  the  fame  Subjecl. 
Is  there  any  thing  of  Enthufiafm  in  all  this?  Any  irregular  Hests?  Why 
then  wou'd  Mr  Rhind  adventure  to  expofe the  internal  Part  of  Religi- 
on in  fo  ludicrous  a  Manner  as  he  has  done  ?  Certainly,  if  ever  any 
Man  was  guilty  of  the  Sin  of  doing  Defpite  unto  the  Spirit  ofGvace^ 
he  is  fo.  This,  which  I  have  told,  is  that  which  he  calls  the  Long  and 
fenfelefs  Story  of  the  Manner  of  Gods  dealing  with  the  Souls  of  his  Ekff.  ■ 
Thefe  the  Hrange  Things  they  talk  of  their  Manifefi&tiom  and  DefertHns.  • 
This  the  judden  aud  irrefifttble  Manner  of  God's  influencing  thereby 
hisSpirit,  which  Mr  Rhind  thinks  fo  much  a  Jeft ;  but  which  mo 
Man  that  fears  God  will  allow  hirnlelf  to  think  the  fame  Way  of.  'T  is 
true,  the  determining  Turn  that  the  Spirit  of  God  gives  to  the  Soul  is 
acknowledged  by  the  Presbyterians  to  be  Injlant^neous ;  but  than 
They  acknowledge  too  a  great  Dea?  of  Preparatory  Work,  and  Mr  G#- 
thrie,  in  particular  largely  infiftson  it  f  So  that  Mr  RlnnePs  reprefenting 
the  Presbyterians  y>.  193.  as  pleading  for  Converfions  ;  attended  with  ' 
futh  Circumftances  as  thefe  of  Paul  &cwere,  is  only  an  Inftancedf 
that  Calumny  to  which  he  has  fo  intirely  given  up  hi  mfelf. 

idly,  Another  Ground,  whereon  Mr  Rhind   vi'ou'd   found   the 
Charge  of  Enthufiafm  againft  the  Presbyterians ,  is,  That  they  pretend,  . 
as  he  alleges  p.  190^  to  Illuminations  and  Raptures  .and  to  the  moft 
extraordinary  Infpirations ;  and  then  he  falb-  adifputingvety  wight-  '- 
ly  in  order  to  difprove  their  being  extraorMnarlj   infpired,    and 
very  frequently '  compares  them  to  the  Modern  Propbets  in  their  j&gu  - 
tations.    But  how  does  he  prove  that  They^  pretend  to  any  fuch 
Thing?  No' Way.  He  has  not  fo  much  coffered  at  aloing  fo,    nor 
adduced*  one  Syllable  for  that  Purpofe.  What  then is  to  be  thought 


'j  oo  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V. 

of  him  *nd  his  Fellow-Writers  who  osdioarly  ta^afcthe  ft  me  Rate? 
Is  it  not  plain  that  they  a?e  under  the  Poweroi Hypoco>id>i4c4  Melan- 
choly ,  whereof  wild  and  extravagant  Imaginations,  tor  which  there 
isnoGroumd,  are  a  moftlafallible  Symptom? 

But  why  did  Mr  Rbind  charge  the  Presbyterians  with  Enthufiafmy 
when  his  own  Beloved  Party  had  been  fo  fcandaloufly  Guilty  ofr  it  ? 
In  the  firjl  place,  when  Enthufiafm  was  in  Fafhion  in  the  Time  of 
the  late  Civil  Wars,who  were  the  great  Matters  of  it?  The  Presbyte- 
rians in  Scotland  preach'd  and  wrote  againft  it;  but  the  Epfcopalians 
in  England  cheriflhed  it;  and  (ome  of  their  Clergy  were  the  prin- 
cipal Writers  for  it,    for  Inftance,  Mr  William  Erbery  who  owns 
Jiimfelf  to  have  been  Epifcopally  ordain'd.     There  is  a  thick  Q<aHo 
Volume  of  his  Lucubrations  extant  under  the  Title  of  his  Teftimo- 
ny,    from  which  'tis  evident  that  Jacob  Behmen  might  have  gone 
to  School  to  him  to  learn  Enthufiafm.     2dly,  Does  notP^r^  who 
writes  againft  the  Confeffion  of  Faith,  and  has  prefixed  to  it  a  Poem 
againft  the  Synod  of  Don  and  in   praife  of  Arminiusy    and  who 
was  juft  fuch  another  Proteftant  as  Mr  Rhind,  does  not  he,  I  fay, 
avow  Himfelf  an  Enthufiaft,  and  recommend  Jacob  Behmen  and  fuch 
others  as  divinly  infpired  (  /  )  ?     $dly9  Who  knows  not  that    Dr 
George  Garden,  one  of  the   firft    Chara&er    among   the    Epi/copal 
Clergy,  is  the  great  promoter  of  the  Bourignian  Principles?  4?%, 
Who  were  they  that  were  moftly  carried  away  by   the  Modern 
Prophets  and  feized  with  their  Agitations  ?     I  fuppofe  the  Epifco- 
pal  Clergy  cannot  purge  their  own  Families.   yhlyy  Does  not  the 
Author  or  Mr  DodwelW  Life  confefs  that,  toward  the  latter  Part  of 
it,  He  feemed  to  v  row  not  a,  little  Enthufiaftical'?  Andis  it  poflible  any 
one  can  read  his  Epistolary  Difcourje  and  not  be  convinced  of  this. 
For  Inftance,  when  he  teaches  lhat  our  Saviour  preached  to  the  Sepa- 
rate Souls  who  daceafed  before  His  Incarnation,  Seel.     41.     When  he 
teaches  that  Water  Bapti/mjvas  given  to  the  Jeparate  Souls  of  them  who 
had  no  Means  of  obtaining  it  when  living  Seel.     42.     When  he  teach- 
es that  Renunciation  of  the  Devil  was  perform&ble  in  the  J ^par  ate  flats 
by  thofe  who  co/Sd  not  know  their  Duty  before  Seel.     43.     When  he 
teaches  that  the  Gentiles  received  the  Spirit  by  our  Saviour's  Bap>tifm  in 

their 


[i~\     Page  6,  14.  &C. 


Chap."  Presbyter »an  Sfmt:  301 

thei  feparare  flute  SecT:.  44.  When  he  teaches  that  the  Apoflles 
being  them) (elves  deeeafed  preached  to  the  deceafed  Gentiles.     Se£t.     45. 

•  Were  there  evermore  diftraclted  Notions  than  thefe  vented  in 
Bedlam  ?     I  think  then  it  were  the  Wifdom  of  the  Epifcopal  Party 

1  'for  their  own  fakes  to  drop  the  Charge  of  Enthufiafm  againft  the 
Presbyterians.  I  fhall  conclude  this  with  observing  by  the  By, 
That  Mr  Rbind  writes  inaccuratly  when  he  Yoaks  Jacob  Behmen  and 
Molinos  together.  -Molinos*  s  greateft  Errors,  for  which  He  feems 
to  have  been  fo  feverely  perfecuted  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  were 
according  to  the  beft  information  the  Do&rines  of  Yredeftination 
and  its  Dependencies,  and  his  teaching  People  to  place  their  Devo- 
tion rather  in  internal  Prayer  and  Communion  with  God  than  in 
numbering  their  Beads  (g  ):  Whereas  all  the  Enthuflafts,  are  mor- 
tal Enemies  to  the  Doctrines  of  Predeftimtim  &c,  and  Mr  Poiret 
owns  that  he  levelled  hisOeconomk  Divin  mainly  againft  thefe  Do- 
ctrines. And  Dr  Garden  does  the  fame  in  his  Writings.  So  much, 
for  the  Charge  oizsi  Enthujiattical  Spirit, 

II.  He  C  barges  th e  Presbyterians  with  a  meerly  Animal  or  Mecha- 
nical Spirit,  and  that  all  their  Hopes  and  Fears, 
Joys  and  Sorrows  in  Religion  are  meer  Mecha-  Not  meerly 
nifm,  the  Effect  of  Melancholy,  Imagination  and  Am-  Animal  or 
mal  Impreffions.  Hear  him  a  little  p.  196.  6  He  Mechanical. 
'  ( that  is,  a  Presbyterian  after  the  Commiffion  of 
c  Tome  grievous  fin)  dreams  of  Nothing  but  of  Hell  and  Damna- 
tion, which  in  the  Hurry  of  his  pa  (lions  perhaps  forces  him  to 
*  difpatch  Himfelf.  But  if  the  black  Blood  fhall  chance  to  be 
**fweetned  by  a  Mixture  of  better,  and  if  the  Violence  of  His 
'  Pafllons  is  abated,  He  begins  to  conceive  better  hopes.  And  if 
'He  fhall  chance  to  recover  from  this  Fever,  fo  that  his  Blood  does 
''again  glide  after  its  due  Manner,  he  concludes  that  all  is  well 
1 '  with  him.  Thus  he  and  a  great  deal  more  to  the  fame  purpofe.'Tis 
true,  the  Presbyterians  own  themfeives  to  be  compound  Beings,  and 
that •- they,  confift  of  Fle/b  as  well  as  Spirit,  and  believe  that  God 

applys 


i  S>  J    See  Supplement  to  Dr.  Burnett  -Travels. 


502  Defence  of  the  Chap,  V. 

applys  Hluifelf  to  them  according  to  the  Make  of  Human  Nature, 
and  difcovers Infinite  Wifdom  and  Goodncfs  in  doing  fo;  tor  He 
knows,  oar  Frame  and  remembers  we  are  Dust.  But,  becauie  the  -Am-  - 
mat  ArTe&ions  operate  Senfibly,  either  upon  the  Commiffion  of  fome 
grievous  Sin,  or  upon  ou?  having  made  Peace  with  God,  does  it 
therefore  follow  that  the  Spirit  of  God  did  not  excite  them  ?  Or 
that,  becaufe  the  inferior  and  bodily  Faculties  do  operate,  therefore 
the  Superior  Faculties  do  not?  Is  it  poffible  but  that  the  Soul  and 
Body  mull  work  mutually  upon  and  affect  each  other  while  we 
are  in  the  embodied  State  ?  Nay,  will  they  not  do  fo  even  after 
the  Refurreclion  which  is  the  mod  ferfefit  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  iVlr  Rhind,  after 
all  his  Eoafts,  to  be  but  very  indifferently  qualified  to  write  Leftures 
upon  the  Animal  OEconomy,  and  that  he  is  a  perfect  Stranger  to 
Solon's  Precept  Nofce  TeipJ^m,  as  well  as  to  the  Exercife  of  piety. 
And  therefore,  ere  he  begin  to  write  his  LeQures,  I  cannot  but 
recommend  to  him  the  perufal  of  that  excellent  Difcourfe  concern- 
ing the  Mechanical  Operation  of  the  Spirit  annexed  to  that  very  pious 
Book  called  A  Tale  of  a  Tub.  If  Mr  Rhind  can  recover  the  pa- 
pers necelfary  for  the  filling  up  the  Lacuna  p.  303.  his  Bufinefs 
is  done:  For  the  Bookfeller  has  allured  us,  that  In  them  the  whole 
Scheme  of  Spiritual  Mechanifm  was  deduced  and  explained,  with  an  dp* 
parance  of  great  reading  and  obfervation;  thd*  it  was  thought  neither  fafe 
nor  convenient  to  prim  them.  Such  devout  Books  tend  mightily  to 
the  promoting  of  Religion,  and  many  fuch  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land  Clergy  has  ble fled  this  finfull  Age  with:  And  it  cannot  but 
raife  Mr  Rhind^s  Character  to  Communicate  fuch  laudable  Pro- 
ductions of  his  Brethren  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Publick.  But  to  1 
go  on  , 

If  Mr  Rhind  was  fo  great  an  Enemy  to  every  thing  of  Animal 
Exercije  in  Religion,  Why  did  He  join  the  Church  of  England   : 
For,  of  all  other,  Proteftant  Churches  in  the  World,  She  has  aimed  I 
moft  at  the  railing  the  Animal  Affections  by  her  Way  of  Worfhip,  , 
though  flie  is  fo  unhappy  as -to  attempt  it  by  Methods  which  our 
Bluffed  Saviour  never  Jnftituted  :    For:  what  elfe  means  the  Pom- 

poufnefs  i 


vChap/V.         Presbyterian  Spirit.  303 

poufoefs  of  her  Service?  What  elfe  is  defigned  by  the  Cope,  $ur~ 
plice,  Rotchet  &c  ?  What  elfe  by  the  Ceremonies  and  all  that  Mi- 
<mical  Cringing  and  Bowing  Cfo  much  praQifed  in  the  Chapel  and 
Cathedral  Worfhip  )  which  is  below  the  Gravity  of  a  Man  much 
more  of  a  Minifter?  Can  there  beany  thing  elfe  defigned  by  all 
this,  but  to  bear  upon  the Senfes and affeQ: the  Imagination?  What 
is  the  Surf  Ike  and  all  the  other  Sacred  Accoutrments  intended  for, 
but  to  dazle  the  Eyes?  What  are  the  Organs  and  finding  Boys  de- 
figned for,  but  to  charm  the  Ears?  Why  are  the  Prayers  and  the 
whole  Devotions  parcell'd  into  fuch  Shreds,  but  that  the  Animal 
Tart  may  be  gratified  with  Variety?  Mr.  Rhind  then  ought  to 
have!  been  aware  of  touching  upon  this  Point :  For,  after  all  the 
Abftra&ion  he  and  his  Party  pretend  to,  the  World  fees  well  e- 
nough  that  they  are  but  Flefhand  Blood  like  their  Neighbours. 

III.  He  charges  the  Presbyterians  with  a  partial  Spirit,  damning 
and  denying  Grace  to  all  but  their  own  Party.    *  So 
'  few,  faith  he  p,  191  are  they  to  whom  they  allow  this    Not  a  Par* 
c  faving  Grace,  that,  ifwefhall  except  the  Apoftles,    tial,  Damn* 

■ '  and  thofe  of  that  extraordinary  Age,  and  St  Auguflin,    ing    Spirit, 
'  They'll  allow  none  to  have  been  blelfed  with  it,  till 
c  it  was  vouchafed  to  fome  Presbyterians  in  the  Weft  of  Scotland,  about 
'  a  hundered  Years  ago,  who  conveyM  it  to  their  SuccefTors,    and 

■*  infected  fome  of  their  Englijh  Brerhren  therewith.  And  p.  204. 
They  confin?,  frith  he,  the  Grace  of  Conver [ion,  and  confequently  Election 
to  their  own  Party.  This  is  indeed  a  hainous  Charge.  But  how  has 
he  proved  it?  Nay  not  fo  much  as  the  kali  Document  has  he  offered 
to  produce  lor  that  Purpofe.  The  Epifcopal  Veracity  mufl  ftand  for 
all.  But  the  Presbyterians  deny  the  Charge  till  They  fhallfeeit 
proved. 

In  the  mean  Time  /  charge  Mr  Rhind  and  his  Party  with  a  Partial, 
Damning  Spirit,  and  fhall  prove  it  ere  I  go  further.  FirH  I  charge 
Mr  Rhind  with  it.  For,  fpeaking  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Presbyterians 
p.  2  id.  Heexprelly  fays  that  it  drives  them  from  the  Communion  of  the 
Church,  and  cuts  them  off  from  the  ordinary  Communications  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  Belides,  he  has  (  as  we  have  heard  before  )  damned  the  whole 
Yrotejlam  Churches  that  want  Epifcopd  Government.  Nay,  he  has 

damned 


304  Defence  of  the  Ch^p.  V. 

damned  the  whole  Catholkk  Church  of  Chrifl:  by  declaring  herDo- 
£\rii\es fundament  ally falfe  and  pernicious.  Secondly,  I  charge  his  Party 
with  it.  Befides  many  Shoals  of  letter  Authors,  I  inftance,  for  the 
Purpofe  Mr  Dodwell  the  Standard-Bearer  of  the  Party.  In  his  Book  of 
Schifm,  the  Sum  of  the  XV Chapter is ,  That  the  Spirit  of  God  is  not 
given,  nor  his  Graces  communicated,  nor  Pardon  of  Sin  beftow'd, 
nor  Salvation  to'be  expefted  without  the  Sacraments.  The  Defign 
of  his  XVTH  Chapter  is  to  prove,  That  the  Validity  of  the  Sacra- 
ments depends  on  the  Authority  of  the  Perfons  by  whom  they  are 
adminiitred.  The  Defign  of  his  XIX  Chapter  is  to  prove,  That  no 
other  Minifters  have  this  Authority  of  adminiftring  the  Sacra- 
ments but  only  they  who  receive  theirOrders  in  the Epijcopd Communi- 
on. The  Sum  of  all  is,  NoBifhop  no  Minifter;  No  MiniAer  No  Sacra- 
ment; No  Sacrament  no  Salvation  ;  Etgo  no  Bifhop  no  Salvation. 
Or  take  it  in  his  own  Words  (h)  \  The  alone  Want  of  Communion 
1  with  the  Bifhop  makes  Ferfons  Alum fromGod  and  Chrifl,  Stran- 
c  gersto  the  Covenant  of  Promife  and  the  Common  Wealth  of  Ifrael—  -  . 
*  They  muft  certainly  Jbe  deprived  of  all  thofe  real  Enjoyments 
'  and  Holy  Relifhes  which  devout  Souls  experience  even  in  this  Life 
c  in  the  Communion  with  their  belt  Beloved.  In  a  \~Vord,  he  tells  us, 
that  on  that  Acccount  we  muft  want  the  Comforts  of  Religion  here, 
and  lofe  the  Hopes  of  enjoing  them  hereafter.  Say  now,  good  Reader, 
if  it  is  not  modeft  in  the  Epif copal  Party  to  charge  the  Presbyterians 
with  a  Damning  Spirit.  Whether  Atheifm,  Lazmefs  or  Uxorioufnefs 
(as  Mr  Rhwd  alledges  againft  the  fresbyterians)  can  engage  Men  of 
Senfe  to  entertain  fuch  Phantaftick  Principles,  Ifhall  not  fay:  But 
lure  I  am,  they  come  not  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  nor  are  confident 
with  the  Peace  of  the  Church  or  Nation. 

IV.  He*  charges  the  Presbyterians  with  a  Narrow  and  Mean  Spi- 
rit.   Upon  what  Evidence?     lft,  '  Chrift, 
Not  a  Narrow  or         '  faith  He,  dyed  for  all  Men,  but  the  Pre- 
Mean  Spirit.  *  sbyterians  confine  the  Merit  of  His  Death 

'  to  a  Yredeftinated  Few  p.  207.  I  anfwer, 
The  Presbyterians  acknowledg  that  Chrift  died  for  all  Men  in  all 
^ --•  that 

[  h  j  Cne  PmJtoood  Ch^.  XIII.    £  eft.  14. 


Chap.  V.  Presbyterian  Spirit,  305 

tbatSenfethe  Scripture  meant  ever  that  Expreflion.  'Tis  true  They 
confine  the  Efficacy  of  his  Death  to  the  Predeftinated,  and  acknow- 
ledg  that  Chrift's  F/^^comparativly  fpeaking)  is  but  ?l  lit  tie one; 
but  'lis  falfe  that  they  confine  it  to  a  Few.  On  the  contrary,  they 
believe  the  Redeemed  to  be  paff.  numbring,  and  hope,  upon  the  Af- 
forance  of  the  Scripture,  Rev.  VII.  9.  to  behold  one  Day  a  great 
Multitude  which  no  Man  can  number ,  of  all  Nations,  and,  KJndreds,  and 
People,  and  Tongues  fan  ding  before  the  Throne,  and  before  the  Lamb 9 
cloathed  with  white  Robes,  and  Palms  in  their  Hands,  and  Hymns  in 
their  Mouths.  idly,c  Chrift  meant,  faith  he,  that  his  Grace  fhould 
c  extend  univerfally,  which  the  Presbyterians  retrain  to  theirown 
'  Party.  I  anfwer.  The  firft.Part  of  this  Charge  is  falfe  Doctrine, 
the  latter  impudent  Calumny.  The  firft  Part  of  it  I  fay  is  falfe  Do* 
Brine,  for  which  (waving  other  Arguments  at  this  Time,)  J  ap- 
peal to  the  Church  of  England,  which,  in  her  Catechifm,  tho'fhe 
teaches  her  Catechumens  to  fay,  /  believe  in  God  the  Son,  who  hath  re~ 
deemed  me  and  all  Mankind,  yet  fhe  exprefly  reftridls  the  Obje£t  of 
fanclifying  Grace ;  and  teaches  the  Catechumen  to  fay,  7  believe  in  God 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  fanUifieth  Me  and  all  the  Ele8;  People  of  &od.  The 
latter  Part  of  the  Charge,  I  add,  is  impudent  Calumny,  The  Presbyte- 
rians are  fo  far  from  retraining  Grace  to  their  own  Party,  that  they 
both  believe  and  profefs  that  in  every  Nation  he  that  feareth  God  and 
fporketh  Righteoujnefs  is  accepted  of  him. 

But  then,  who  knows  not  that  High-Church  is  guilty  of  this  War- 
rovonefs  and  Meannefs  of  Spirit  even  to  the  laft  Degree  of  Scandal  ? 
Is  it  not  known  that  They  not  only  deny  Grace  to  Presbyterians, 
but  even  confine  the  Church  of  England  to  their  own  Party,  and 
reckon  all  fuch,  even  of  the  Epifcopal  Communion,  Schifmaticks,2s 
fall  in  with  the  Government-,  nay,  in  their  mod  folemn  Offices,  rank 
their  Epifcopal  Brethren  of  the  lower  Form  in  the  very  fame  Clafs 
with  Pagans.  Thus,  in  their  new  Liturgy  (i) which  they  form* 
ed  after  K.  William's  Accefflon  to  the  Throne,  They  prayed  in 
Terms,  Re  fore  to  us  again  the  Publick  Worfiip  of  thy  Name,  the  re- 

Q_  q  verent 


r_  i  ]     See  a  Pamphlet  encituled Reflections  upon  *  Vorm  of  Prayer  lately  fet  forth for  the  Jacobites  of  the 
tyurch  of  EBgland,  printed  for  Richard  Baldwin.    i£$Q. 


3<d5  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V< 

verent  Adminiflrationofthy  Sacraments:  Raife  uf  the  former  Govern- 
ment both  in  Church  and  State,  that  We  may  be  no  longer  without  Kjng7 
without  Priefl,  without  God  in  the  World.  ^dly,  '  Chrift's  Charity, 
'  faith  he,  relieved  all  Men  indifferently,  Enemies  as  well  as  freinds 
*  while  the  Presbyterian  Byafs  vifibly  fways  them  to  favour  the 
'  Godly,  that  is,  thofe  of  their  own  Way.  'Tis  anfwered,  Ths 
"Presbyterians,  as  they  have  Opportunity,  do  good  unto  all  Men;  tho' 
indeed,  according  to  the  Apoftles  Precept,  efpecially  unto  them  who 
are  of  the  Houfhold  of  Faith,  whether  of  their  own  or  any  other 
Way;  tho'  no  doubt,  they  love  thofe  of  their  own  Way  beft;and 
I  fuppofe  all  the  World  does  the  like. 

In  the  mean  while,  tho'  'tis  both  Vain  and  finfull  to  boaft  on 
this  Head,  yet  for  flopping  the  Mouth  of  Calumny,  the  Presby- 
terians are  content  it  be  put  to  a  Trial,  which  of  the  Parties  have 
gone  furtheft  in  their  Publick  Deeds  of  Charity  to  the  other  in 
their  Diftrefs.  By  all  the  Information  I  can  have,  the  Epifco- 
pal  Clergy,  during  the  whole  28  Years  of  their  late  Reign,  never 
relieved  any  of  their  Presbyterian  Brethren  with  fo  much  as  one 
{billing.  The  Truth  is,  they  durft  not  ask  it,  but  thought  them- 
felves  happy  enough,  if  they  efcaped  without  being  relieved  out 
of  all  their  Miferies  at  once  by  the  COMPENDIOUS  Way  then 
in  Fafbion:  Whereas,  to  my  certain  Knowledg,  the  Presbyterians  have 
often  relieved  rhe  Epifcopalians,  and  I  hope  (ball  always  continue 
to  do  fo  in  Imitation  of  their  Heavenly  Father  who  is  kind  even  to 
the  Bad  and  theVnthankfull,  and  in  fpite  of  the  Apocryphal  Prohibi- 
tion Ecdus.  XII.  5.  Give  not  to  the  Ungodly:  Holdback  thy  bread 
and  give  it  not  unto  him, 

V.  He  charges  Them  with  a  Malicious  and  Unforgiving  Spirit  p." 

209.  fo  contrary  to  that  which  Our  Saviour 
Not  a  Malicious  or  and  the  BleiTed  Martyr  St  Stephen  exempli- 
Vnforgiving   Spirit        fied.      Well  how  does  He  qualifie  or  prove 

this  Charge  I    Why,  '  their   Rebellious 
e  Martyrs,  Jaith  he,  w?wexpre!Ted  their  Forgivnefs  of  the  Injuries, 

*  which  They  thought  were  done  them  by  fuppofed  Periecuters :; 

*  Their  lajl  Speeches  fo  faithfully  recorded  in  Napht&li,  and  fo  much 
I  admired  by  the  party, containing  rather  too  plain  Indications  of  the 

Malice. 


Chap.  Vtf  Presbyterian  Sprit.  g  07 

*  Malice  and  Rancour  of  their  Souls,  when  they  were  ftepping  into 
Eternity.  Thus  he.    'Tis  true,  thefe  rebellious  Martyrs  did  not  allow 
themfelves  to  die  as  a  Fool  dietb,  tho,  their  Hands  were  bound  and 
their  Feet  (  and  Legs  too  )  were  oftimes  put  into  the  moft  pinching 
Fetters.    They  boldly  avowed  the  Caufe  for  which  they  died,  and 
with  all  Freedom  told  their  Perfecuters  of  their  Injuftice  and  the 
wicked  Courfe  they  were  in.  And  for  this  Pradice  they  had  the 
Example  of  the  BlefTed  Martyr  Stephen,  who  treated  the  San hedrim 
with  (harper  Language  than  any  is  to  be  found  in  Napthali.    Te 
Hiff  necked,  and  uncircumcifed  in  Heart  and  Ears,  ye  do  always  refifl  the 
Holy  Ghofi :     As  your  Fathers  did  fo  do  ye.     Which  of  the  Prophets 
have  not  your  Fathers  perfecuted?    And  they  have  Jlain  them  which  (hew* 
ed  before  of  the  Coming  of  the  Jufi  One,  of  whom  je  have  been  now  the 
Betrayers  and  Murderers,     Ads  VII.  $i>  $2. 

But  now  as  to  the  Charge  it  felf.  If  we  (hall  find  thefe  rebeU 
lions  Martyrs  expreffing  their  Forgivnefs  of  their  Enemies :  If  we 
fhall  find  them  doing  this  in  their  lajt  Speeches:  If  we  fhall  find 
them  doing  this  in  their  laft  Speeches  recorded  in  Naphtali;  will 
not  this  difcover  what  a  Spirit  of  Truth  and  Modelty  that  is,  the  £- 
f  if  copal  Party  are  poffeffed  with  ?    Let  us  try  it  then. 

The  Marquefs  of  Argile  who  fuffered  May  27.  1661.  *  And, 
J  faith  He,  as  I  goto  make  a  Reckoning  to  my  God,  I  am  free  as 
f  to  any  of  thefe  Calumnies  that  have  gone  abroad  of  me,  concern. 

*  ing  the  King's  Perfon  or  Government.  I  was  real  and  cordial 
l  in  my  Defires  to  bring  the  King  Home,  and  in  my  Endeavours 
«  for  Him  when  He  was  at  Home,  and  I  had  no  Correfpondence 

<  with  the  Adverfary's  Army,  nor  any  of  them,  in  the  Time  when 
J  His  Majefty  was  in  Scotland;  nor  had  I  any  Acceflion  to  His  late 

*  Majefties  horrid  and  execrable  Murder,  by  Counfel  or  Knowledge 

*  of  it,  or  any  other  Manner  of  Way.  This  is  a  Truth,  as  I  fhall 
«  anfwer  to  my  Judge-— I  defire  not  that  the  Lord  fhould  judge 

<  any  Man;  nor  do  I  judge  any  but  my  Self:    I  wifh,  as  the 

<  Lord  hath  pardoned  me,  fo  He  may  pardon  them  for  this  and  orher 
J  Things,  and  that  what  they  have  done  to  me,  may  never  meet 

<  them  in  their  Accounts- And  I  pray  the  Lord  preferve  His 

<  Majefty  and  to  pour  out  His  beft  Blefliogs  on  His  Perfon  and  Go- 
{  vernment.    Naph.  Edit.  1693.  p.  285.&C 

Q/q2  Mr; 


308  Defence  of,  the  Chap.  V. 

Mr  'James  Guthrie  Minifter  of  the  Gofpelat  Sterlin  who  fuffered 
June  1.  1661.    '  God  is  my  Recovd,  faith  he, :  that  in  theie   things 

*  for  which  fen te nee  of  Death  hath  paffed  againft  me,  I  have  a  good 
€  Confcience.    IblefsGod  they  are  not  Matters  of  Compliance  with 

*  Seclaries,or  Defigns  or  Practices  againft  His  Majefty's  Perfon  or  Go- 
'  vernment  of  his  Royal  Father :  My  Heart  ( I  blefs  God  )  is  con- 
'  fcious  unto  no  Difloyaity;  nay,  Loyal  I  have   been,  and  I  com- 

€  mend  it  unto  you  to  be  Loyal  and  Obedient  in  the  Lord — 

'  The  Miftake  or  Hatred  or  Reproach  of  mv  Enemies  I  do  with 

*  all  my  Heart  forgive,  and  wherein  I  have  offended  any  of  them 

*  do  beg  their  Mercy  and  Forgivnefs  —  -  I  forgive  all  Men  the 
'  Guilt  of  my  death,  and  I  defire  you  to  do  fo  alfo  :  Pray  for 
c  them  that  perfecute  you,  and  blefs  them  that  curfe  you,  blefs  I  fay  and 
I  curfe  not.     Ibid.  p.  291.  &C. 

The    Lord  War  i ft  on  who  fuffered  July  22  1663. '  The  good 
'  Lord   give  unto  them  (His  Enemies )Repentance,  Remijjion  and 

*  Amendement;  and  that  is  the  worft  wifh  1  wifh  them,  and  the 

*  belt  wifh  I  can  wi^iuntothem.  •— -  I  am  free  (  as  I  (hall  now 
'  anfwer  before  His  Tiibunal)  from  any  Acceflion  by  Counfel  oc 
\  Contrivance,  or  any  other  Way  to  his  late  Majefty's  Death,  or  to 
e  their  making  that  Change  of  Ctfernment :   And  T  Pray  the  Lord 

*  topreferve  our  prefent  King  Hi*  Majefty,   and  to  pour  out  his 

*  beft  Bleifings  upon  His  Royal  Pofterity.    Ibti  p.   got.  &cv 
Capt&in  Andrew  Arnot  who  fuffered  December*].  1 666.  r  And  who- 

*  ever  they  be  that  any  Way  have  been  Instrumental  or  incenfed 
'againft  me  to  procure  this  Sentence  againft  me,  Godforgive  them 
'  and  I  forgive  them.  Ibid.  p.  516.  And  in  his  joint  Tejiimony  whictf 
he,  with  Nine  others  who  were  put  to  Death  the  fame  Day  with 
him,  fubfcribed.in  Prifon  immediately  before  they  were  brought 
to  the  Scaffold,  he  and  they  in  Terms  acknowledgthe  King's  Au- 
thority. 'We  are,  jay  they,  condemned  by  Men,  and  efteemed  by 
i  many  as  Rebels  againft  the  King,  rvhofe  Authority  we  acknowledge : 

*  But  this  is  our  rejoicing  the  Teltimony  of  our  Confcience.  Ibid,  p, 
307.    &c. 

Mr.  Alexander    Robert foh  Preacher  of  the  Gofpel,  who  fuffered 
December  14.  1666.  «  I  wifh  that  they  may  lay  the  Mattel  to  Heart 

*  and  repent  of  it,  that  God  may  forgive  them,  ztlforgive  all  Men, 

and 


ap,  V-  Presbyterian   Sprit*  309 

€  and  particularly  Morton  who  did  apprehend  me,—  And  he  is  fofar 
from  entertaining  rebellious  Thoughts  that  he  declares  There  was 
jufl  Reafon  to  think,  that  if  Jhefe  rigid  Oppreffions  had  been  made  known 
to  his  Majefly,  his  J  u  ft  ice  and  Clemency  wou6d  have  provided  a  Remedy, 
Ibid,  p.  320.  &c. 

Mr  Hugh  M'kaile  Preacher  of  the  Gofpel  who  fuffered  December 
22. 1666.     i  I  do  freely  pardon  all  that  have  Acceffion  to  my  Blood, 

*  and  Willi  that  it  be  not  laid  to  the  Charge  of  this  finful  Land,  but 
/"  that  God  wou'd  grant  Repentance  to  our  Rulers,  that  they  may  ob- 
'  tain  the  fame  Reconciliation  with  Him,  whereof  I  my  felfdo  par- 
take.    Ibid.  p.  33@SfC. 

JohnWilfon  whofuffered  at  the  fame  Time  with  Mr  M'kaile,  c  For 
6  my  Fart  I  pray  that  the  Lord  may  blefs  our  Kjng  with  Bleffings  from 
'  Heaven..-  And  I  pray  for  all  that  are  in  Authority  under  his  Maj&* 
fc  sly* -- 1  can  forgive  the  Wrong   done  to  me  in  taking  away  my  Life 

*  for  this  Caufe,  and  wifh  Gad  to  be  mercifull  to  thofe  that  have  con> 
{  dernnedme,or  havehadany  Hand  in  my  Death.  i^/W. p.  351.&G. 

Mr.  James  Mitchel  white  under  the  Torture  of  the  Boots  Anno  16  j6. 
€  And  now  my  Lords,   I  do  freely  from  my  Heart  forgive  you  who 

*  are  Judges  fming  upon  the  Bench,  and  the  Men  who  are  appointed 
c  to  be  about  this  Piece  of  horrid  Work,  &alfothefe  who  are  vitiating 

*  their  Eyes  beholding  the  fame.  And  I  do  intreat^hst  God  may  never 
'lay  it  to  the  Charge  of  any  of  you,  as  I  beg  God  may  be  pleafed 
?  for  his  Son  Chrifi's  fake  to  blor  out  my  Sins  and  Iniquities.  ZW.  p.43 i» 

James  Lear  wont  who  furred  September  27.  1678.  c  As  for  Alexan- 
e  der  Mail' land  who  apprehended  me,  my  Blood  lyes  dire&ly  at  his 

*  Door,  whopromifed  .me  then,  that  nothing  (hould  reach  my  Life, 
'as  he  fwore  by  Faith  and  Confcience,  and  his  Brother  is  alfo 
1  guilty  of  my  Blood.  I  defire  the  Lord  to  give  them  Repentance  and 
<:  Mercy  if  it  be  pofsible.  Ibid,  p.  445.  And  in  his  Large  Speech  p.  450. 
He  thus  delivers  hirnfelf.  '  I  here  moft  freely,  before  I  go  hence  (  wiih- 
'  out  Defire  of  Revenge  upon  the  forenamed  Perfons,  ojf-  any  other, 
4  who  have  been  the  Occafion'ofmy  Blood  fhedding,  now  in  my  laft 

*  "Words after  the  Example  of  my  Lord  and  Matter  j  fay  as  is  men- 

*  tioned  in  that  Scripture  Luke  23.  34.  .And  JeJ "us  [aid,  Father forgive 

*  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.  My  dear  Friends,  T  give  my 
\  'Teiltmony  againft  that  Calumny  cad:  u^on  Presbyterians r  that  they 


^io  Defence  of  the  Chap,  V. 

c  Seditious  and  Dijbyal  Perfons,  the  which  Afperfion  I  do  abhorr. 
4  Therefore,  I  exhort  all  People,  that  they  will  fhew  Loyalty  to 
'  the  Kjng,  and  all  lawfull  Magiftrats,  and  all  their  juft  and  law- 
1  full  Commands. 

Mr.  John  Kjng  Minifter  of  the  Gofpel  who  differed  AuguH  14. 
1679.     '  The  Lord  knows,    who  is  the  Searcher  of  Hearts,  that 

*  neither  my  Dellgn  nor  Practice  was  againft  His  Majefty's  Perfon 
'  and  juft  Government,  but  J  always  intended  to  be  loyal  to  lawfull 
'  Authority  in  the  Lord.  I  thank  God,  my  heart  doth  not  condemn 
c  me  of  any  Dijloyalty,    I  have  been  loyal,  and  do  recommend  it  to 

*  all  to  be  Obedient  to  Higher  Powers  in  the  Lord.—.  I  blefs  the 

*  Lord,  lean  freely  and  frankly  forgive  all  Men  the  Guilt  of  it,  even 

*  as  I  defire  to  be  forgiven  of  God.     Pray  for  them  that  Per/ecute 

*  Tou  and  Blefs  them  that  Curfe  Tou.     Ibid.  p.  469.  475. 

John  Nilfon  of  Corfack  who  fuffered   December  14.   1666.     *  I 

*  pray  that  the  Lord  for  Chrift's  Sake  may  freely  forgive  me,  as  I 
I  have forgiven  them  that  have  wronged  me.    Ibid  p.  527. 

Thefe  are  the  Rebellious  Martyrs  recorded  in  Naphtali  who  never 
expreffed  the  Forgivnefs  of  the  Injuries  they  thought  were  done 
them.  Rebellious  Martyrs  they  were-,  for,  when  ftepping  into  E- 
ternity,  they  not  only  denyedand  difowned  any  Ad  of  Rebellion: 
But  (pent  their  laft  Breath  in  praying  for  the  Kjng  and  in  recom- 
mending Loyalty  to  their  Survivers.  Thefe  laft  Words  of  theirs 
which  I  have  cited  are  no  doubt  as  good  Evidence  of  the  Presby. 
terian  Malice,  as  their  Sufferings  are  of  the  Epifcopal  Mercy.  lean- 
not  but  wilh  that  the  Epifcopal  Authors  wou'd  retain,  at  leaft, 
fome  Relique  of  Modefty  and  not  advance  Things,  not  only  without 
all  Ground,  but  contrary  alfo  to  the  cleared  andampleft  Teftimony. 
I'm  fure  they  cannot  but  be  fenfible  how  odious  fuch  a  Way  of 
Writing  mult  needs  make  any  Party  that  uies  it  to  God  and  all 
good  Men. 

They  very  frequently  infift  on  this  Topick  of  Forgiving  Enemies 
againft  the  Presbyterians;  but'tisin  fuch  a  Way  as  fufficiently  difco- 
verstheir  Meaning.  I  remember  betwixt  the  Year  16  80  &  1688. there 
was  no  Doctrine  more  frequently  infilled  on  from  the  Pulpits  of 
Edinburgh  than  that  of  Forgiving  Enemies.    In  the  mean  Time,  the 

Gibbet, 


Chap.  V.*        Presbyterian  Spirit  311 

i 

Gibbet,  to  fave  Expences,  was  left  (landing  in  the  open  Street  from 
one  Mercat  Day  to  another  for  hanging  the  Whigs,  People  were 
mightily  puzzled  for  a  while  to  reconcile  the  Epifcopal  Preaching 
and  Practice  together.  At  laft  the  fecret  was  found  out ;  that  the 
Meaning  was,  that  their  Enemies  fhould  forgive  them ;  But  then,, 
that  they  fbou'd  forgive  their  Enemies  was  a  different  Cafe.  They 
muft  then  take  the  Sponge  to  their  late  Books  in  which  they  have 
fo  often  libelled  the  Presbyterians  on  this  Head,  and  wait  till  the 
Memory  of  the  late  Times  is  worn  out,  ere  they  can  perfwade 
People  xhax  their  infixing  on  the  Forgivnefs  of  Enemies  is  any  other 
than  moft  odious  Affectation ;  juft  as  when  the  Inquifuion  turns 
over  a  poor  Wretch  to  the  Secular  Arm,  intreatingin  the  Bowels 
of  Jefus  Chrift  to  be  tender  to  Him  ;  the  Meaning  of  which  is,> 
that  Secular  Arm  mud  burn  the  Poor  Creature  Qiiick,  on  Pain 
of  Excommunication  and  a  worfe  Turn  befides.  And  is  there 
any  other  Proof  needfull  to  fhew  what  a  Jeft  the  Epifcopal  infilling 
on  Forgivnefs  of  Enemies  is,  than  to  read  over  Mr.  Rai  fid's  Book, 
efpecially  the  latter  Part  of  it,  which  breaths  pure  unmixed  Ma- 
lice for  Thirty  Pages  together,  and  that  too  which  makes  it  fo  much 
the  more  Ridiculous,  without  the  lead  Shadow  of  Truth  or  proof. 
If  a  Man  treat  me  harfhly,  however  bitter  the  Things  may  be 
He  faies  againft  me,  yet  if  they  are  true,  and  He  convinces  me  that 
they  are  fo,  I  ought  to  bear  with  Him,  and  'tis  my  own  Fault  if 
If  don't  profit  by  the  Reproof.  But  if  he  charges  me  with 'the-" 
worft  Things,  without  io  much  as  offering  to  convince  me,  I  con- 
temn the  Malice  of  the  poor  Impotent  Things  and  cannot  revenge 
My  Self  better  than  by  fuffwring  Him  to  fry  in  His  own  Grace,, 
and  prey  upon  his  own  Spleen. 

TI  He  charges  rhe  Presbyterians  |>.  209.  with  an    Vnconverfbk 
Spirit,  in  that  they  value  themfetvegftffon  the 

SuUenmfs  of  their  Tempers.    A  very    great  Not  an  Vnconver** 

Fault  truly.     For  certainly  Chriftianity  is-         fible  Spirit, 
fuperftrucled    upon   Humanity,  and   the 

Grace  of  God  was  intended  not  to  deftroy,  but  to  improve  and; 
re-fine  it.  And  the  Apoftle  has  exprefly  commanded  us  1  Pet.  Ill 
8  Love  as  Brethren,  be  pitifully  be  Courteous:  Nor  does  Piety  ever 
appear  more  charming  and   engaging  than*  when  adorned  with 


512  Dc fence  of  the  Chap.  F. 

a  good  Behaviour.  But  how  does  Mr.  Rhind  prove  his  Charge  ? 
Why,  Good  Reader,  He  does  not  to  much  as  Attempt  this,  nor  has 
offered  To  much  as  one  Syllable  for  that  Purpofe.  Is  it  not  then  as 
eafily  denyed  as  affirmed.  And  is  not  the  Defender,  in  all  fuch  o- 
dious  Cafes,  prefumed  to  be  Innocent  till  the  Contrary  is  proved. 
Tis  true  Our  Saviour's  Defire  Cas  Mr.  /U.Wfuggefts;  of  doing 
Good  carried  Him  into  the  Company  of  the  Men  of  Iwfe,  as  well 
as  regular  Lives,  and  I  believe  all  Presbyterians,  whether  Mini- 
fies or  others,  who  are  pioully  inclin'd,  are  car«-;.wd,  by  the  fame 
Defire  of  doing  Good,  into  the  Company  of  Men  of  loofe  Lives, 
when  there  is  the  leaft  Hope  that  their  doing  fo  will  not  rather 
harden  them  in,  than  reclaim  them  from  their  Loofnefs.  But  then, 
That  they  keep  at  a  Diftance  from  them  in  their  Revells,  ftudy  a 
Frecifenefs  of  Converfation,  and  will  not  run  with  them  to  ihifame  Ex- 
cefs  of  Riot,  however  firangly  they  may  be  thought  of  on  that  Ac- 
count ;  This  they  are  fo  far  from  reckoning  a  Vault,  that  they  a- 
vow  it,  and  are  forry  there  is  not  more  Ground  for  charging  them 
with  it.  Mr.  Rhind  may  call 'em  Puritans  on  that  Score,  or  give 
'em  what  other  ill  Names  He  pleafes;  But  then,  what  comforts 
them  is,  that  the  Apoftle  Paul  was  juft  fuch  another  Puritan;  and 
not  only  warrants  them  in,  but  obliges  them  to  fuch  Precifnefs  and 
AbPaaclion,  commanding  them  I.  Cor.  V.  1 1.  With  fuch  Perfonsnot 
jo  much  as  to  eat.  And  II.  Theff.  III.  14.  To  note  fuch  Pevfovs,  and 
have  no  Company  with  them.  Our  Bleffed  Saviour  was  fuch.  a  Phy- 
fician  as  was  not  in  Danger  of  catching  the  Diieafe  from  the  Patient. 
But  when  virtuous  Perfons  allow  thernfeives  to  haunt  bad  Com- 
pany in  their  Bottle  Converfation,  I'm  affraid  it  too  often  falls  out, 
that  they  thernfeives  are  infeQed,  and  the  vicious  not  reformed.  . 
However,  whatever  Vnconi^mblenefs  the  Presbyterians  may  be 
guilty  of,  I  fuppofe  Mr.  Rhind  k^ght  have  kept  at  Home,  and  re- 
ierved  His  Le&ure  for  High-Church:  Not  that  they  are  very  nice 
in  their  Praclice;  for,  I  believe,  the  belt  that  can  be  faid  of  'em  as 
to  that  is,  That  they  are  (if  I  may  uie  our  Country  Phrafe)  but 
like  Neighbour  and  other.  But,  if  the  Church  of  England  Divines 
thernfeives  may  be  believed,  Mr.Bijjet  for  Inftance;  The  Height 
of  their  Principle  makes  them  fo  much  Enemies  to  the  Reii  of  Man- 
kind, that  neither  Presbyterians  nor  even  Low-Church  can  walk  the 

Streets 


V.  Presbyterian  Sprit.  |rj 

Streets  in  Safty,  but  are  every  Moment  in  Danger  of  being  jttflkd 
'■  into  the  Kennel  by  High-Church. 

TantumRelligio  potuitfuadere  Malorum! 

But  it  is  not  this  or  that  Man's  particular  Teftiinony  we  need  de- 
pend on.  'Tis  plain  their  Principles  oblige  them  to  fucb  Hoftility 
a  gainft  the  reft  of  Mankind.*  For,  were  I  of  Mr  Rhintis  Faith,  and 
believed  all  the  fame  ill  Things  of  the  Presbyterians  that  he  does,  I 
wou'd  not  only  reckon  it unlawfullto  con verfe  withthem,butIfhou'd 
think  my  felf  obliged  m  Confcience  tocleftroy  them*  If  they  are  Schif- 
rnaticks,  Hereticks,  and  their  Spirit  diametrically  oppofite  to  that  of  the 
Go/pel  foe.  What  fhou'd  Men  do,  but  treat  them  as  mad  Dogs,knock 
'em  on  the  Head,  and  rid  the  World  of  fuch  Nuifances. 

VII.  He  charges  them  with  a  Dijloyal,  Rebellious  Spirit,  p.  210.    I 
hope,  every  Man  ought  not  to  be  believed  a  Rebel 
who  has  been  at  any  Time  called  one.  I  haveob-    Not  zDt/Ieyal 
ferved  before  p.  29.  that  Mr  Dodwell  was  proclaimed    or    Rebellious 
a  Rebel  by  K.  James,  yet  who,  for  all  that,  believes     Spirit. 
he  was  fuch  ?  Perhaps  the  Presbyterians  will  be  found 
as  Innocent. 

Mr  Rhind  founds  his  Charge  both  upon  their  Principles and ?ra° 
Bices. 

Fir/},  upon  their  Principles .  But,  had  he  thought  that  any  part  of 
his  Bufinefs,I  fuppofe  he  wou'd  have  found  the  Proof  of  this  a  very 
feard  Task.TheFrinciplesofaChurch  are  to  be  gathered  from  her 
publick  Formula's.  And  I  appeal  to  every  Body  who  has  read  the 
Weftminfter  Confe/sion  of  Faith,  and  the  Thirty  nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  if  the  firft  is  not  as  Loyal  as  the  latter.  But  they 
art  private  Authors  not  publick  Confefftons  that  Mr  Rhind  was  to  build 
on.  And,  for  his  Purpofe,  he  names  (  for  he  cites  nothing  )  Buchan- 
&rPs  Treatife  dejure  Regni,  Rutherford's  Lex  Rex,  Naphthali  and  the 
Hind  let  loofe.  '  Which  Books,  faith  he  p.  211,  the  Presbyterians 
4  have  not  to  this  Day  branded  with  any  publick  Cenfure,  tho' 
i  they  have  been  often  upbraided,  and  folemnly  challenged  to  con- 
'  demn,  other  wife  to  be  counted  Abettors  of  them.  TheAnfwer, 

R  r  1 


314  Defence  of  the  >  Chap.  F. 

I  hbpe,  will  be  pretty  eafie.  The  Presbyterians  love  to  walk  by  Ex- 
ample, and  to  give  Place  to  their  Betters.  Mr  Rhind  certainly  knows 
that  the  Bifhops  and  other  Clergy  of  the  Church  of -England  have 
publifh'd  at  leaft  a  Hundred  Books  and  Pamphlets  with  the  fame 
Principles  and  Schemes  of  Government  as  are  in  Buchanan,  Rutber* 
ford&c.  ,  Let  the  Convocation  once  condemn  thefe,  and  begin  with 
the  Bifhop  of  Sarum,Dv  Higden  and  Mr  Hoadly  ;  and  then  poflibly 
the  Gener at  Affembly  may  write  after  their  Copy.  'Tis  certain  the 
Presbyterians  maintain  no  other  Principles  of  Government  than 
what  the  Church  of  £*g/W  has  pra&ifed,  no  other  Principles  than 
thefe  upon  which  She,  with  the  Affiftance  of  her  good  Neighbours, 
preferved  the  Proteftant  Religion  in  1688.  I  am  not  for  prying  into 
the  Power  of  Princes,  remembering  to  have  read  fomewhere  Pe* 
7 kuli  plenum  eft  deijs  difputare  qui  pofur/t  amput  are ,  deijs  fcribere  qui 
pofunt  profcribere,  but  I  think  the  Principles  of  our  Scots  Epifcopalians 
are  beyond  the  Power  of  all  Natural  Underftanding  to  account  for. 
Claudius  and  Nero,  who  reigned  fucceflively  in  the  Time  of  writing 
the  New  Teftament,  were  both  Ufurpers  and  Tyrants,  had  neither 
Hereditary  nor  Parliamentary  Right;  yet  both  the  Apoftles  Peter 
and  Paul  enjoin'd  Subjection  to  them,  and  commanded  Prayers  for 
them.  Her  prefent  Majefty  has  both  the  fulleft: and  cleareii  Right 
any  Prince  poflibly  can  have.  She  has  exercifed  it  in  the  molt  ob- 
liging Manner,  particularly  with  Reipeft  to  them.  Now  that, 
notwithltandi-ngall  this,  they  fhou'd  have  fo  long  retufed  to  pray 
for  Her,  and  that  moftof'em  fhou'd  do  fo  Mill ;  this  I  affirm  is  un- 
accountable in  Point  both  of  Duty  and  Gratitude.  Nor  have  the 
Actings  of  High  Church,  in  England  been  more  accountable,  as  I 
hope  we  (bail  hear  afterwards. 

Secondly,  He  charges  us  with  Difloyal  Practices.  They  were  no  foon* 
er  hatched,  faith  he  p.  212.  than  they  rebelled.  Sweet  Popery  /  What 
a  charming  Thing  art  Thou  ;  when  even  ?rot?ftanu,  nay  thofe  that 
will  needs  be  the  only  ChnWhns  among  'cm,  affirm  thata  Refor- 
mation from  Thee  was  Rebellion?  But  let  us  hear  his  Inftances  of 
their  Rebellion  ? 

First,  He  begins,  where  the  Reformation  began,  viz..  at  Q.  Ma* 
rfs  Reign,  c  whofe  Reputation,  faith  he>  they  blackned,  whofe 
*  Authority  and  Government  they  refilled  and  reviled,  whole  Per- 

fon 


■Ghap/W        Presbyterian  Spirit  515 

*  fon  they  imprifoned,  and  whom  they  obliged  to  fly,  in  Hopes  to 
■ '  fave  that  Life  which  (Be  cruelly  loft.  Thus  He,  Every  Body 
mufl:  needs  own  that  of  all  others  the  Epifcopal  Writers  are  the 
nimbleft  Difputants.  When  we  difpute  with  them  about  the  Go- 
vernment of  the  Church  in  Q.  Mary's  Days,  by  no  means  will 
they  allow  that  it  was  Presbyterian,  No.  Superintendents  were 
the  fame  Thing  with  Bifljops  (  k  ).  Well,  be  it  fo  :  And  kt  us 
diipute  a  little  about  Loyalty  in  the  Government  of  the  State,  How 
came  it  that  under  an  Epifcopacj,  Q_,  Mary  was  To  ill  treated  ? 
Oh,  now  the  Cafe  alters,  the  whole  Government  was  then  in  the 
Hands  of  the  Presbyterians.  Rebellion  was  the  very  Egg  out  of 
which  they  were  hatch'd  / 

Quo  teneam  Vultus  mutantem  Protea  nodo  ? 

But  let  us  fuppofe  the  Presbyterians  had  then  the  Government, 
What  did  they?  Why  firft,  faith  he,  they  blackned  Her  Reputation. 
For  Anfwer,  I  ask  has  Archbilhop  Spot/wood  whitened  it?  Does 
not  He  tell  the  Story  of  Signior  Davie  much  after  the  fame  Way 
with  Buchanan  ?  Does  He  not  tell  of  the  horrid  abufe  the  King 
met  with  at  Stirling,  how  He  was  neither  admitted  to  be  prefent 
at  the  Baptifm  of  His  Son,  nor  fuffered  to  come  to  the  Feaft  ? 
How  the  forreign  Ambafladours  were  difcharged  to  fee  or  ialute  Him, 
and  fuch  of  the  Nobility  as  vouchafed  him  a  Vifit  were  frown'd 
upon  by  the  Court,  and  he  at  laft  difmiffed  with  a  Dofe  ofPoifon 
in  his  Guts.  Does  he  not  exprefly  tell  that  the  King  was  Mur- 
dered by  Bothwell  and  the  Queen's  Domefticks?  Does  not  all  the 
World  know  that  Her  Majefty  afterwards  married  the  Murderer, 
and  that  too,  upon  a  Divorce  from  the  Lady  Jean  Gordon  his  wife 
obtain'd  in  the  moft  Scandalous  Manner .?  Does  not  Spot/wood  I 
fay  relate  all  thefe  Things  ?    Was  Spot/mod  Presbyterian  ? 

Nor  is  Spot  [wood  alone  in  the  Relation  of  'em.  For,  not  to 
mention  other  Scots  or  Englijh  Hiftorians,  Ruggerius  Tritonius  Ab- 
bot ofPignerol,  who  was  a  Zealous. Papift,  a  hearty  Friend  toQ. 
Mary,  lived  in  the  Time,  was  Secretary  so  Vincentius ,  Laureus  Car- 
dinal de  Monte  Regali,  who  was  fent  Nuncio  from  the  Pope  to  the 
Queen  for  aflifting  Her  with  his  Counfel  in  the  Extirpation  of  He- 

R  r  2  refy> 

£  k  ]     See  the  Fundamental  Charter  of  Frohyt/y,   with  many  other  Authors. 


%\6  -  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V: 

refy,  and  \ffas  lying  in  Taris  waiting  for  Orders  from  the  Queen  to 
come  over  into  Scotland,  at  the  Time  when  the.  King  was  murder- 
ed, and  kept  an  exacl  Correfpondence  with  the  Rom^tn  Caciioiicks 
there  :  This  Author,  I  fay,  thus  every  Way  qualified  for  bearing 
Wifnefs  in  this  Cafe,  exprefly  relates  *  and  that  with  the  P*r- 
mijpon  of  his  Superiors*  That  when  the  Nobility  told  Her  Majefty, 
that  they  had  taken  up  Arms  for  bringing  Bothwell  to  punifhment 
for  Murdering  the  King  &c,  Her  Majefty  juftified  Bothrre/l,  and  told 
them,  He  had  done  Nothing  without  her  Confent.  Did  then  the  Pre- 
sbyterians Forge  anyofthefe  things? 

But  adly,  faith  Mr  Rbind,  they  refified  and  reviled  Her  Authority 
an4d  Government ,  that  is  to  fay,  they  wou'd  not  allow  Her  toreftore 
Popery,  nor  wou'd  they  commit  the  Young  Prince  to  theCuftody 
of  Bothwell  who  had  murder'd  His  Father.  Were  not  thefe  very 
unpardonable  Faults  ? 

Yet  further  $dlyy  Q\  Elizxiheth  took  off  her  head  ;  and  no  doubt 
flie,  and  her  Council  that  advifed  Her  to  it,  were  (launch  Presby- 
terians.   Sa  much  for  Q.     Mary\  Reign. 

Secondly,  In  K.  James  VI's  Reign.  Mr  R^  owns  f  which 
is  very  mtieh  from  him  ■ )  that  in  his  Days  they  did  not  break  out 
into  open  -Rebtllion.  Why  then,  they  cannot  be  fo  rebelliouOy  dif- 
pofed  as  He  wou'd  reprefent  them  .•  For  if  they  had,  it  is  n»t 
quite  improbable  but  they  might  have  made  their  owrr  Terms  of 
jPeace;  But,  fays  Mr  Rhind,  they  Occafiori'd  Vexations  and  Diftur* 
bances  to  Him-,  that  is  to  fay,  they  protected  Him  in  his  Cradle,  fee 
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  himfelf  ac-; 
knowledged,  and  gave  publick  Thanks  to  God  for.  'Tis  true, 
they  grudfged  the  receiving  Bifhops  and  the 'five  Articles  of  Perth; 
which  he  wou'd  needs  prefs  upon  us  in  Order  to  a  Conformity 
with  England.  But  I  cannot  think  either  England  or  we  or  the  Royal 
Family  cou'd  have  been  much  Lofers,  tho?  he  had  never  fallen  into 
Jhat  Politick.  *  \  Before- 


*  Iixerrogati  quanam  de  caufa  armati  iiluc^accc/Tiffevir,  non  alia,  refpondifle  feiuntur,  nifi,  ut  arro- 
ws injuria m  a  fioduellio  faiftam,  ac  crudelem  &  indignam  Regis  necem,  vimque  ipfimet  Reginx  illacam 
viudrarent.  At  Regma  noxam  Boduelll  purgare  :  Nihil  non  ipfa  affentieiue  ommiffum.  See  Vita, 
h'lnccnu}  Lauiei  S.  R.  £.  Cardmaiis  Montis.  Rtgalis.  Ruggerio  Tritonio  Finaroli  Abbate  Au&ore;  Imprejlj 
fbnqnti  4.10  anud  Hacr«des  Johanna  Rojfij  C.I.p   Iq    IC   Supeaorum,  PeimUTu.  ,  P.  ij-r-3i,     , 


V4  Presbyterian  Spirit*  3*7 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  next  Reign,  I  miift  beg  Leave  for  a  fhort 
Digreffion,  which,  I  hope,  the  Reader  will  the  more  eafily  excufe; 
that  it  is  not  fo  much  from  the  Subject  as  from  the  Author ;  and 
is  intended  to  do  Juftice  to  the  Memory  of  the  Dead,  who  are  not 
in  Capacity  to  redrefs  themfelves.    The  Matter  is  this. 

The  Right  Honourable  the  Earl  of  Cromerty,  very  lately "i/izi 
mMay  laft  171$.  Publifh'd  a  Book  bearing  this  Title,  AN  HI- 
STORICAL ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CONSPIRA- 
CIES BY  THE  EARLS  OF  GOWRT,  AND 
ROBERT  LOGAN  OF  RESTALRIG,  AGAINST 
K.  JAMES  VI.  Therein  -{Preface  p.  VIII.)  His  Lordfhip 
writes  thus 

'  As  to  Truth  In  my  Prefent  Subject,  the  Malicious  Defigners/a- 

5  gainft  the -Royal  Family  in  Scotland,  did  at  firft  invent,  and  then 
'  foment,  a  molt  improbable  Falfhood,  making  it  their  Bufinefs  to 
*  fuggeft,  that  Gowrie  and  His  Brother  did  never  Confpire  againft 
s  the  King-,  But  that  the  King  did  Murder  them  both.  This  was 
1  invented  and  clandestinely  propagated  by  Bruie,  Rollock,  Dury% 

6  Melvil-  and  other  Presbyterian- Mim$QVs.     Thus  His  Lordfhip. 

■,     'Tis   hugely  affltcHng  to    the  Presbyterians  to  find  their  Fore- 
fathers reprefented',  by  a  Perfon  of  His  Lordfhip's  Figure,  under 
the  Odious  Char-after  of  MALICIOUS  DESIGNERS'  AGAINST 
THE    ROYAL    FAMILY.     What  is  ufually  advanced   againft 
'em  by  the  Common  Herd  of  Epifcopal  Writers  they  can  fecorely 
contemns     For,  why  fhou'd  that  give  them  any  'Concern,  w hick 
their  Enemies   Blurt  out  without  any  Care?    But  fuch  a  Charge 
from  His  Lord fhip  cuts  'em  to  the  Heart,  and  wou'd  leave 'em 
Inconfolable;  were  it  not  that  (  as  kind  Providence  wou'Ahave  it^ 
they  find  His  Lord fhip's  much  weightier  -Affairs  have  hurried  Him 
into  fome  Miftakes;  which,  they  make  no : Doubt,  He  will  reclifie 
upon  Advertifement;     which  I  now  humbly  crave  Leave  to  give. 
In  the  'Firft  Place,   As  for -Mr. ■  RcttocL  •  That  He-;did  neither 
Invent  nor  clandeftinely  Propagate  (uch  a  Story,  as  His  Lordlhip    ? 
alkdges/  ?cis  certain. .  By  this  Token,  that  Mr.  Rollock  was  Dead,  '.* 

and  ■■■ 


3 1 8  Defence  of  the  Chap,  V; 

and  Rotten  too,  before  the  Conjpiracy.  Every  one  knows  that 
Gowrfs  Con i piracy  fell  out  Augufl  yk  \6co.  But  Mr.  /WW  died 
in  the  Moneth  of  February  1598.  Thus  LUrk  relates  in  His  Life, 
Thus  Melchior  Adams  relates  in  his  Lives  of  Forreign  Divines.  Thus 
the  Manufcript  Calderwood  in  the  Univerfhy  Library  in  Glajgorv  re- 
lates. Nay  thus  bpotfwocd  relates  in  his  Hiftory  p.  454.  And 
thus,  Iprefume,  every  Body,  el(e  relates,  that  writes  of  Mr.  Rollock. 

For  preventing  Miftakes  I  muft  advertife  the  Reader,  that,  as 
Spot  (wood  informs  us  p.  4*56,  the  Year  among  us  ufed  to  begin  at 
25  March,  till  a  Publick  Ordinance  was  made,  appointing  that  the 
Beginning  of  the  Year  1600,  and  fo  on  thenceforward,  fbou'd  be 
reckoned  from  thefirft  of  January  as  now.  'Tisthen  no  Objection 
againft  what  I  have  advanced,  tho'  one  find  Mr.  Rollock  writing 
Books,  or  fpoken  of  in  Hiftory  as  living,  in  January  or  February 
1599.  The  different  Ways  of  Computation  quite  remove  that  Diffi- 
culty. And  tho'  Hiftorians  differ  about  the  Day  of  the  Moneth 
on  which  He  died;  Spot/wood  making  it  the  latt  Day  of  February, 
whereas  all  the  reft,  whom  I  have  feen,  make  it  the  eighth  Day  of 
that  Moneth:  Yet,  that  is  not  of  any  Import  in  this  Cafe:  For, 
even  by  the  loweft  Account,  He  was  Dead  at  kzR  feventeen  Moneths 
before  the  Con/piracy ;  and  therefore  cou'd  not,  without  a  Miracle, 
Invent  or  Propagate  falfe  Stories  concerning  it. 

idly,  His  Lordffiip  is  in  the  like  Miftake  concerning  Mr.  Dury.  For 
He  died,  as  Spot  [wood  alfo  relates  p.  457,  upon  the  laji  Day  of 
February  1600,  that  is  to  fay,  jive  Moneths  and  jive  Days  before 
the  Conjpiracy,  and  fo  could  not  be  Guilty. 

Thefe  Obferves,  concerning  Rollock  and  Dury,  the  Publick  owes, 
not  to  me ;  but,  to  that  Worthy  Perfon  and  my  very  good  Friend 
Mr.  Matthew  Crawfurd  Minifter  atlnchenan  in  the  Shire  of  Renfrew, 
who,  in  an  accidental  Converfation,  fir  ft  gave  Me  Notice  of  His 
Lordfnip's  Book,  and  that  He  had  obferved  the  faid  Miftakes  in  it. 
Which  Obferves,  upon  Examination,  I  found  to  be  Juft. 

His  Lordfhip  is  not  only  out  as  to  His  reckoning,  but  ismiftaken 
alfo  in  the  Characters  of  the  ^vlen:  For,  they  were  fo  far  from  be- 
ing DESIGNERS  AGAINST  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY;  that, 
as  Spotfrvood  relates  in  the  Places  above  cited,  they  fpent  their  laft 

Breath; 


Chap.  V.-  Presbyterian  Sprit.  319 

Breath,  Ro/lock,  in  exhorting  His  Brethren  in  the  Miniftry  to  carry 
dutifully  towards  the  King;  and  Duty,  in  advifing  them  to  com- 
ply with  His  Majefty's  Defigns  for  reftoring  Prelacy. 

I  don't  in  the  lead  incline  to  aggravate  thefe  his  Lordfhips  Miftakes. 
So  much  the  lefs,  that  I  find  'tis  ufual  with  great  Men,  when  writing 
againftthe  Presbyterians,  to  fall  into  the  like.  The  famous -Monfieur 
Varillas  very  gravely  tells  it  as  a  Singularity  *  concerning  Buchanan, 
that,  After  having  declared  himjeif  again  ft  his  Sovpraign  Lady,  Jo  far  as 
to  go  into  England  to  depofe  againSi  Her  in  the  Criminal  Procefs  then  de- 
pending, he  continued  to  perfecute  her  after  foe  was  beheaded.  This,  faith 
he,  is  a  Crime  which  they,  who  are  mofl  partial  in  Favour  ^Buchanan, 
muft  own  he  was  guilty  of.  And  yet  after  all  this,  'tis  certain,  that  Bu- 
chanan was  not  guilty  of  that  Crime,  for  this  good  Reafon,  that  he  di- 
ed feme  three  or  four  Years  before  the  Queen  was  beheaded.  But 
there  is  a  fhort  and  obvious  Apology  to  be  made  for  fuch  Miftakes  in 
,  Varillas  ox  his  Lordfhip,  Aquila  non  c  apt  at  Mu/cas,       To  go  on. 

$dly,  As  to  Mr  Melvil. 'Tis  true  he  was  on  Life  at  that  Time,  yet  I 
cannot  find  in  any  Hiftory  that  he  was  guilty  of  Invenring,Fomenting, 
or  Propagating  fuch  a  Story,  or  that  he  made  any  the  lea  ft  Noifea- 
bout  that  Matter.  His  Lord  (hip  therefore  wou'd  oblige  his  Country, 
if  he  wou'd  vouchafe  to  give  his  Authors. 

^thly,  As  to  Mr  Brucea  'Tis  true,  he  refufed  to  give  publick 
Thanks  for  the  King's  Deliverance  from  that  Confpiracy,  declaring, 
asSpotfvood  p.  461  relates,  that  he  wou^d  reverence  His  Map  Sty's  Reports 
of  t  hut  Accident,  but  could  not  fay  he  was  perf waded  of  the  Truth  of  it ' 
For  which  he  was  baniffrd  the  King's  Dominions, -and  went  into 
France.  But  this  is  a  very  different  Thing  from  what  his  Lordfhip 
charges  him  with.  -For,  tofuggeft,  that  Gowry  and  his  Brother  did  never 
sonfpire  again  ft  the  Kjng,  but  -that  the  l^jng  did- murder-  them  both,  had 
beenaG70?e;<  beeauie  it  was  not  poffible,  certainly  to  know  that ; 
and  yet  much  lefs,  to  prove  fuch  a  Suggestion.  But  to  declare,' that 
he  could  not  fay  that  he  was  per f waded  of  the  Truth  of  the  Confpiracy ,  which 
is  all  that  the  Hiftorians  of  that  Time  charge  him  with,  was,  at  the 
worfe,  but  a  Weaknejs  \  it  no£  being  in  a  Man's  Power  to  believe  a  Sto- 
ry, 


*     Preface  co  the  V. Torn,  of  the  Hijhiire.  de  V  Hemie.- 


3  2  o  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V. 

ry,butaccording  to  the  Impreffion  which  the  Grounds  of  ir?and  Credi- 
bility of  its  Circumftances,  make  upon  his  Mind.  And  no  one  knows 
better  than  hisLordfhip,  that  there  are  feveral  Circumftances,  in  the 
Story  ohhzConfpiracy,  which  are  not  fo  perfectly  clear,  but  that  they 
require  Time  to  believe  'em :  Tho'  indeed,  I  thuik  his  Majefty's  Te- 
ftimony,with  the  Prefumption  that  the  Earl  and  his  Brother  were  out 
of  their  Wits,  as  his  Majefty,  before  the  Attempt,  fufpe&ed  the  Earl's 
Brother  to  be,  is  fufficient  to  determine  the  Matter.  For  what  may 
not  mad  Men  do  ?  However  it  was,  it  does  not  appear  that  Mr  Bruce 
wasguilty  of  what  hisLordfhip  charges  him  with  ;  there  being  a 
very  great  Odds  betwixt  Contradicting  a  Report,  and  being  reve- 
rently iilent  about  it. 

yh/jy  As  for  other  Presbyterian  Ministers  whom  his  Lordfhip  inde- 
finitly  involves  in  the  fame  Guilt.  The  Accufation  can  be  o(  no  Weight 
till  his  Lordfhip  is  pleated  to  name  them.  'Tis  ttuethe  Miniftersof 
Edinburgh,  viz,.  Mrs.  Walter  Balcanqual,  William  Watfony  James 
Balfour  9  and  John  Hall,  demurr'd  at  firft  to  give  Thanks  for 
the  King's  Deliverance,  upon  this  Excufe,  as  Spot/wood^.  461.  in- 
forms-us,  that,  they  were  not  acquainted  with  the  Particulars,  nor  how 
thofe  Things  had  fall1  n  out.  3ut  howfoon  they  wereintorm'd  of  the 
ParticularsoftheConfpiracy,  they  complyed.  Now,  implicate  Faith 
having  been  cried  down,  everfince  the  Reformation,  it  feems  hard 
to  blame  fucha  Conducl:  And  'tis  no  Ids  hard  to  blame  Presbyterian 
jVliniiiers  for  a  Fault  which  was  common  to  fo  many  others  at  that 
Time;  Spotfwood  telling  us  that  many  doubted  that  there  had  been  any 
fuch  Con/piracy.  This  may  be  fufficient  for  Vindication  of  the  Presbyteri- 
an Ministers  againft  his  Lordihip's  Charge.  I  crave  Leave  only  to  add 
two  Remarks  more  on  hisLordfhips  Book. 

I.  His  Lordfhip  p.  30,  31.  has  advanced  a  Piece  of  Hiftory  in 
thefe  Words.  '  Upon  the  Information  of  Henderfon,  and  other 
'  WitnefTes,  Cranflon   and  Craigengelt  were  pannell'd  before  the 

*  Judiciary  at  St.  Johnfloun  ;  and  upon  clear  Tefrimonies,  and  on 
1  their  own  Confeffion  at  the  Bar  (  which  they  alfo   adhered  to 

*  on  the  Scaffold  )  they  were  both  executed  :  Only  alledging  that 
'  they  did  not  know  of  the  Deilgn  to  Murder  the  King;  but  that 
c  they  intended  to  force  the  King  to  make  great  Reparations  for 

the 


Chap.  V.         Presbyterian   Sprit,  521 

**'  the  late  Earl  of  Cowrie's  Death  ;  and  that  this  Earl  of  Gowry  was 
•'  to  be  made  a  great  Man.      Thus  his   Lordfbip. 

But  His  Lordfbip  has  not  thought  fit  to  Document  this;  and  Spptf. 
wood  who  lived  in  the  Time  has  flatly  contradicted  it  in  thefe  Words 
p.  459  c  Another  of  Gomieh  Servants  furnamed  Cratgengelt  was 
4  fome  two  days  after  apprehended,    and  both   he  and  M.  Tho. 

<  Cranfton  executed  at  Perth  ;  tho'  at  their  dying  they  declared  that 

•  they  knew  NOTHING  of  the  Earl's  purpofe,  and  had  ONLY 
«  followed  him  as  being  their  Mafter  unto  that  Room,  where  if  they 

<  had  known  the  King  to  have  been,  they  wou'd  have  ftood  for  him 

*  againft  their  Mafter  and  all  others .  Thus  Spot/mod.  Idont  for 
all  this  fay,  that  the  Earl  of  Cromarty  is  wrong :  But  if  he  is  not? 
certainly  the  Archbifhop  is. 

XL  His  Lordfhip  hasalfo  given  us  in  his  Book  a  large  and  par- 
ticular Account  of  the  Procefs  and  Trial -of.  Robert  Logan  of  Re- 
fialrig.  No  one  will  fufpeclHis  Lordfhip's  Exa&nefsin  the  Extracts 
of  the  Documents  of  that  Procefs  which  He  has  produced.  But 
tho'  His  Lordfbip's  F&ithfullnefs  is  beyond  Queftion, yet  the  Truth 
of  the  ftory  it  felf  is  not.  I  fhall  give  my  Reafon  why    I  fay  fo. 

Spot/wood  was  at  that  Time  at  Man's  Age,  was  Archbifhop  of 
GlafgotVy  was  one  of  His  Majefty's  Privy-Council,  was  upon  the 
Scaffold  when  Sprot  the  Notary,  from  whom  that  whole  Procefs 
fiow'd,  was  hang'd,  and  figns  the  Account  of  Spro^s  Behaviour  on 
the  Sea  {Fold,  which  we  have  p.  1 1 5  of  His  Lord  (hip's  Book :  Spot  p. 
wood,  I  fay,  who  was  thus  every  way  qualified  to  give  Judgment 
upon  and  a  true  Narration  of  this  Procefs ;  Yet,  in  his  Hittory, 
tells  the  ftory  in  fuch  a  Manner,  as  wou'd  tempt  any  Body  fhrewd- 
ly  to  fufpeft,  that  the  whole  Bufinefs  was  a  Fiction.  For  thus 
His  Words  are  p.  509. 

*  Whether  or  not  I  fhould  mention  the  Arraignment  and  Execu- 

*  tion  of  George  Sprot  Notary  in  Eymoutb,  who  fuffered  at  Edta* 
xt  burgh  in  the  Augufi  preceedmg,  I  am  doubtfull ;  his  Confeflion, 
c  though  voluntary  and  Conftant  carrying  SMALL     PROBABI- 

*  LITY.    This  Man  had  deponed,  that  He  knew  Robert  Logan  of 

*  Reftalrig,  who  was  dead  two  years  betore,  to  have  been  privy 
i  -to  Gowrie^s  Confpiracy,  and  that  he  underftood  fo  much  by  a 
J  Letter  that  fell  ir*  his  hand  written  by  Rettdrig  to  Gowr;e9  bearing 

S  f  thai 


322  Defence  of  the  Chap%  V; 

'  that  he  would  take  part  with  Him  in  the  Revenge  of  his  Father's- 
6  Death,  and  that  his  bell  Cburie  fhou'd  be  to  bring  the  King  by 
'  Sea  to  Fafaflte,  where  He  might  be  fafely  kept,  till  advetifernent 
1  came  from  thofe  with  whom  the  Earl  kept  Intelligence.  It  feem- 
<  eda  VERY  FICTION,  and  to  bea  MEER  INVENTION  of 
1  the  Man's  own  Brain  ;  for  neither  did  he  fhew  the  Letter,  nor 
4  cou'd  ANY  WISE  MAN  think  that  Gowry,  who  went  about 
'  that  Treafon  fo  fecretly,    would  have  communicated  the  Matter 

'  with  fuch  a  Man  as  this  Refialrig  was  known  to  be. Thus 

far  His  Grace,  who,  as  we  are  told  in  his  Life,  had  not  only  the  Vfe 
sf  all  the  Registers  both  of  Church  and  State  in  Scot  land, but  of  all  Let- 
ters of  State  that  cou*d  any  way  concern  the  Work  he  was  about.  And 
yet  his  account  not  only  differs  from  his  Lordfhip's,  but  plainly  con- 
tradicts it.:  'Tis  certain  then  there  muft  be  a  Miftake  fomewhere, 
which  I  muft  leave  to  the  Reader  to  judge  upon  as  he  lifts. 

I  do  not  defign  by  thefe  two  Remarks  to  derogate  in  the  leafl: 
from  the  Truth  of  the  Confpiracy.  For,  in  the  Light  wherein  it 
now  ftands,  I  cannot  conceive  why  any  man  fhou'd  fufpeQ:  it. 
The  Earl  of  Gorvry  ufed  the  Black  Jrt,  wore  Magicall  Spells  in  his 
Girdle,  which  His  Lordfhip  himfelf  was  once  Mafter  of,  and  has 
very  well  proved  in  his  Letter  to  his  Printer  prefix'd  to  his-  Book. 
What  Crime  was  not  fuch  a  Perfon  capable  of  ?  His  Brother's 
whole  .Conduct  in  the  Managment  of  the  Confpiracy  fpeaks  him 
Frantick.  For  lfi$  That  he  fhou'd  have  fhut  up  Henderfon  in  the 
Chamber  in  order  to  perpetrate  the  Murder,  and  yet  not  have  told 
him  before  hand  that  this  was  the  Defign.  .  idly,  That  after  hav- 
ing held  the  Whinger  to  the  King's  Breaft,  he  fhou'd  have  fall'n 
a  parlying  wiih  him,  and  gone  down  flairs  to  confult  with  the 
Earl  his  Brother  whether  he-,  fhou'd  murder  Him  or  not.  ^dly9 
That  he  fhou'd  have  taken  the  King's  Promife  not  to  open  the 
Window  or  cry  out  till  he  fhou'd  return.  qthlyy.  That  when  he 
had  rerurn'd  and  fworn  BT  GOD  there  is  no  Remedy ,  you  muft  die-, 
he  fhou'd  have  eflay'd  to  tye  the  King's  Hands  with  a  Garter, 
when,  'tis  probable,  he  might  have  more  eafily  difyatch'd  Him 
without  that  Ceremony.  Cou'd  there  be  greater  Symptoms  of  a 
Man  Diftemper'd  in  his  Wits  than  thefe  and  a  great  many  other 
CLrcumflanceSv  thatu  might  be  added  ?    Why  then  fhou'd  we  any 

is 


Ghap. W;  ^Presbyterian  Spirit.  ^25 

longer  doubt  whether  a  Man  in  Compatf  and  his  Brother  Non 
Compos  wou'd  attempt  the  greateft  Villa  ny  ? 

But  then,  both  the  Earl  and  his  Brother  had  always,  till  that 
very  Day,  pafs'd  under  the  Character  of  Wife,  Sober  and  Virtu- 
ous Gentlemen,  two  Youths  of  great  Hope,  lays  Spotpvcod,  at  whops 
Hands  no  Man  cotfd  have  expecled  fuch  an  Attempt,  Was  it  any 
Wonder  then  if  Mr.  Bruce,  and  the  other  Minuiers  of  Edinburgh 
who  demurr'd  a  little,  cou'd  not  at  firft  Dafh  be  perfwaded,  that 
they  had  all  of  a  fudden  become,  the  One  of  'em  a  Devil,  t'other 
DiftraSed?  'Tis  plain  there  was  a  Difficulty  here:  And  this  is 
more  than  enough  to  vindicate  the  Presbyterian  Minifters.  Quod 
Slat  Faciendum* 

I  go  on  with  Mr.  Rhind,  and  proceed  to  confider  His  Charge 
«.of  Rebellion, 

Thirdly ',  In  K.  Charles  1's  Time,  I  believe  there  is  no  wife  Man 
*will  undertake  to  juftify  all  that  was  done  on  either  Side  during  thofe 
Troubles.  The  only  Qyeftion  is,  who  were  the  firft:  Authors  of 
them,  and  who  gave  the  greateft  caufe  of  them  ? 

Was  it  the  Scots  Presbyterians?  My  Lord  Hollis  has  aflblzied  'em. 

*  'Twas  propofed,  faith  he  (I)  that  our  Brethren  of  Scotland  might 
"f  be  called  in,  who  were  known  to  be  a  wife  People,  Lovers  of 
9  Order,  firm  to  the  Monarchy  ;  Who  had  twice  before  gone  through 

'  the  Misfortune  of  taking  up  Arms,  and  wifely  had  laid  them 
'  down  again;  ftill  contenting  themfelves  with  that  which  was  ne- 

*  cejjary  for  their  Security,  avoiding  Exrremities.  Their  Wifdom 
'  and  Moderation,  as  was  prefumed,  might  then  have  delivered 
c  us  from  that  Precipice  of  Mifery  and  Confufion,  into  which  our 
6  Charioteers  were  hurrying  us  amain.  But  thefe  Men  would  none 
■£  of  it  at  that  Time.    Thus  his  Lordfhip. 

Were  not  the  Scots  Prelates  the  firft;  Authors  of  thofe  Troubles  ? 
Did  not  they  raife  the  Fire  ?  Yes.  (Gilbert  Burnet  has  exprefly  loaded 
them  withit  (m).  'Tis  true,that  Perfon  has  made  a  vigorious  Appear- 
ance thefe  twenty  or  thirty  Years  bygone  againfl:  Popery  and  in  Behalf 

S  f  2  cf 


£  1  J  Memoirs  p.  u,         [  m  ]  Memoirs  of  the  Houfe  of  Httntijfw  p.  a?.  3°«  &c> 


324  Defence  of  the  Chap  V. 

of  the*  P  rot  eft  ant  Intereft,  which  is  a  Fault. never  to  be  forgiven,  in 
this  World  or  in  the  next,  if  fome  Mens  Doom  hold:  And,  on  that 
Score,  any  Teftimony  he  cou'd  give  *<?>»,  fince  he  was  Btfhop  oi  Sa- 
r«wxouM  be  of  no  Weight.  But  this  Te  Itimony  he  gave  when  he  was . 
plain  Gilbert  Burnet,  and  was  asthrough  pae'd  in  the  Principles  of  Paf. 
five  Obedience  and  Non-refiftance  asevzv  Vlr  Qodxvdl  was,  or  Mr  Lfly  is. 
Plainly  he  tells,  That  the  Scots  Bifhops,  bv  reflecting  on  the  Reformer^ 
commending  the  Perfons,  and  mollifying  the  Opinions  of  Pap>Hsy  de- 
fending the  Arminian  Tenets,  advancing  a  Liturgy  without  Law, 
provoking  the  Nobility  by  engroiTing  the  King  s  Favour,  crying 
down  the. Morality  of  the  Sabbath  and  prophaneing  it  by  their  Practi- 
ces, making  themfelvesunfupportable  to  the  Miniftry  by  Simon iacal 
Pactions  and  encroaching  upon  their  Jurisdictions,  by  relinquifhing 
their  DiocefTes and  medling  inallfecular  ArTairs,and  by  advifingthe 
King  to  introduce  Innovations  into  the  Chutch  without  Confentof 
the  Clergy.  By  thefe  and  fuch  like  Things,  faith  he,the  Scots  YtQ- 
Utesraiftdthat  Fire  in  the  Nation  which  was  not  foeafily  extinguished, . 

Is  there  any  other  Account  to  be  brought  from  England  ?  No. 
Thofeofthe  greateft  Character. and  mod  unfhaken  Loyalty  have 
told  the  Story  as  to  that  Kingdom  the  very  fame  Way.  I  (frail  pi  a. 
duce  two  of  them  for  the  Purpofe.  The  firft  is  the  Lord  Falkland  \xx 
his  Speech  before  cited  before  the  Houfe  of  Commons,  than  which  a 
more  exacl  Piece  of  Eloquence  with  fuch  rigid  Truth  even  An- 
cient Rome  Hetfelf  cannot  boaft  of.     '  Mr.  Speaker,  faith-He,  He 

*  is  a  great  ftranger  in  Ifrael  who  knows  not  that  this  Kingdom 
?  hath  long  laboured  under  many  and  great  Oppreflions  both  in 
'Religion  and  Liberty.     And  His  .Acquaintance  here  is  not  grear, 

*  or  his  Ingenuity  lefs,  who  doth  not  both  know  and  acknowledge 

*  that  a  great  if  not  a  Principal  Caufe  of  both  thefe.  have  been 
4  fome  BtJJjops  and  their  Adherents.-*— The  Reader  may  perufe  the 
Reft  at  His  Leifure.  To  Him  let  us  add  My  Lord  Clarendon,  an  a- 
vowed  Enemy  to  the  Presbyterians,  an  Author  who  -hardly  ever 
allows  Himfelf  to  fpeak*  one  good-  Word  of  any  Scots  Man  ;  and 
who,  even  when  He  has  the  brighteft  Characters  of  our  Nation 
a  drawing,  yet  lays;on  the  Shadowing  fo  thick,  that  she  Piece  ap- 
pears but  a  very  indifferent  one:  Even  this  Noble  Hiftorian,  Ifay? , 
lias  exprefly  charged  the  Troubles  of thofe  Tim.es upon  the  unac 

couo.  tabled 


CBap.  V,         Presbyterian  Sprit*  325 

countable  and  fiery  Meafures  of  the  Court  and  High-Church  Party. 
^  No  lefs  urjjufi  Proje&s  of  all  Kinds,  faith  He  ('»),  many  ridicu- 
1  lout,  many  Scandalous,  all  very  grievous  were  fet  on  Foot.  The 
*'' Council-Chamber- and' Star-Chamber  held  for  Honourable  that 
c  which  pleafed,  and  for  juft  that  which  profited ;  and  being  the 

*  fame  Perfons  in  feveral  Rooms  grew  both  Courts  of  Law  to  de- 
1  termine  Right,  and  Courts  of  Revenue  to  bring  in  Money  to  the 

*  Treafury.     The  Council-Table  by  Proclamation  enjoining  to  the 

*  People  what  was  not  in  joined  by  the  Law,and  prohibiting  what  was 
'  not  prohibited;  and  the  Star  Chamber  cenfuring  the  Breach  of 
'  thofe  Proclamations  by  very  large  Fines  and  Imprifonment.  And 
p.  223.  That  'there  werevery  few  Perfons  of  Quality  who  had 
f.  not  fuffered  or  been  perplexed  by  the  Weight  and  Fear  of  theie 

*  Judgments  and  Cenfures  \  and  that  no  Man  cou'd  Hope  to 
4  be  longer  free  from  the  Inquifition  of  that  Court  than  he  refolv- 
f'ed'to  fubmlt  to  extraordinary  Courfes.     So  much  for  the  Court,  • 

Was  High  Church  more  Innocent?  No,  on  the  contrary  She 
was  the  great  Spring  of  all.  The  fame  Lord  Clarendon  owns  (o) 
That  '  when  Laud  was  made  Archbifhop  (  which  was  in  1633) 
'  it  was  a  Time  of  great  Eafe  and  Tranquility  :  The  King  had 
'  made  Himfelf  Superior  to  all  thole  Difficulties  He  had  to  contend 
€  with,  and.  was  now  reverenced  by  all  His  Neighbours ;  the  ge- 
<4neral  Temper  and  Humour  of  the  Kingdom  little  inclined  to  the 
1  Papitt  and  lefs  to  the   Puritan,  —The  Church  was  not  repined 

*  at,  nor  the  leaft  Inclination  fhewn  to  alter  the  Government  or  Dii- 
'  cipltne  thereof,  or  to  Change  the  Doclrine-.  nor  was  there  at  that 
'Time  any,  considerable  Number  of  Perions>  of  any  valuable  Con- 
e:  dition  throughout  the  Kingdom  who  did  wifli  either, 

'  "*'And  the  Caufe  of  fo  prodigious  a  Change  in  fo  few  Tears  ■    %  N,  Be  - 
( 'after  ivas  too  vifible  fom  the  Ejfebls.     The  ArchbifhopV 

*  Heart  was  fet  upon  the  Advancement  of  the  Church  &c— He  ne- 

*  ver  abated  any  Thing  of  His  Severity  and  Rigour  towards  Men 

*  of  all  Conditions  or  in  the  Sharpnefs  of  His  Language  and  Ex- 
J  'preifions,—  And  that  He  entertain'd  too  much  Prejudice  to  fome 

Perfons  > 


£  P  2  »ft»  Rebefl.  B.  i.  p.  /4.  ss,         f  0  j  ubi  Supra  p.. Si.  7u 


3^5  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V. 

~c  Perfons  as  if  they  were  Enemies  to  the  Difcipline  of  the  Church, 

*  becaufe  they  concurred  with  Calvin  in  fome  Doctrinal  Points, 

*  when  they  abhorred  His  Difcipline,  and  reverenced  the  Govern- 
;*  ment  of  the  Church,    and  prayed   for  its  Peace  with  as  much 

*  Zeal  and  Fervency  as  any  in  the  Kingdom,  as  they  made  mani- 
'  fell  in  their  Lives  and  in  their  Sufferings  with  it  and  for  it.  Thus 
He,  and  a  great  deal  more  to  the  fame  Purpofe,  for  which  any 
Body  may  confult  the  Hiftory  it  felf.  Say  now,  Good  Reader,  who 
were  the  firft  and  greateft  Caufes  of  the  Troubks  in  K.  Charles 
I'sTime? 

But  fays  Mr.  Rhind,  They  betrayed  Him  into  the  hands  of  his  £- 
nemies,  when  He  had  entru (ted  them  with  His  f  acred  Per/ on.  Let  US 
hear  my  Lord  Holies  upon  this  p.  68.  *  The  Wifdom  of  the  Scotijb 
'  Nation  forefaw  the  Inconveniences  which  muft  have  necefTarly 
'  followed  had  they  been  positive  at  that  Time,  how  they  had  play- 
'  ed  their  Enemies  Game  to  their  own  Ruin,  and  even  Ruin  to  His 
i  Majefty.  Therefore  they  made  for  him  rue  beft  Conditions  r hey 
'  could,  that  is  for  the  Jafty  and  Honour  of  His  Perfon,  and  to  avoid 
'  greater  mifchiefs  were  neceffitated  to  leave  Him  in  England  and 

*  fo  march  away.  Here  then  the  very  Mouth  of  Iniquity  was  ftopt, 
'  malice  it  felf  had  Nothing  to  fay  to  give  the  ieaft  Blemifb  to  the 

*  Faithfullnefs  and  Reality  of  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland.     Thus  he. 

Mr.  Rhind  urges,  that  They  entered  into  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant,  and  in  Purjuance  of  the  defign  thereof  brought  Matters  to 
that  Vafs  that  the  Kjn£s  Death  was  unavoidable.  That  the  Engliffj 
Sectarians  intended  the  Solemn  League  for  Nothing  elfe  but  a  Decoy 
I  firmly  believe.  'Tis  plain  that  They,  with  Cromwell  their  Ring- 
Leader,  were  as  very  Villains  as  ever  trode  God's  Earth,  fince  the 
Days  of  Judas.  But  that  the  Scots  entered  into  it  upon  the  mod 
Sincere  and  laudable  Defigns,  thefaid  Lord  Holies  has  amply  teftify- 
ed.  And  that  it  was  not  the  Scots  entering  into,  but  the  Englifi 
breaking  of  that  League  that  was  the  Caufe  of  the  King's  Death  is 
manifeft  as  Light.  And  therefore  the  Scots  juftly  reproached  them 
with  Breach  of  Covenant  in  all  that  they  Intended  or  a£ted  againfl: 
the  King's  Perfon. 

Thus,  in  the  Paper  of  the  5th  of  July,  1648,  which  was  given 

ia 


GHapi  V4  1?re$bytemn]Sprit.  327 

In  to  the  Speaker  of  the  Houfe  of  Commons  the  Commiflioners  foe 
the  Kingdom  of  Scot  land  declared  '  that  they  wou'd  endeavour 
4  that  the  Rights  and  Priviledges  of  Parliament  may  be  preferved, 
e  that  there  be  no  Change  in  the  Fundamental  Government,  and 

*  that  there  be  no  Harm,  Injury  or  Violence  offered  to  His  May.ff*s 
'Perfon,  the  very  Thought  whereof  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland  hath 
e  always  abhorred,  as  may  appear  by  all  their  Proceedings  and  De« 
'clarations:  And  the  Houfes  of  Parliament  have  often  upon  fe- 
'  veral  Occafions  expreffed  a  Deteftation  thereof  in  their  Declara- 

*  tions.  Wherefore  we  do  expect  that  there  fhall  be  no  proceed- 
ing againfl:  His  Perfon,  which  cannot  but  continue  and  increafe 
f  the  great  Diftraclions  of  thefe  Kingdoms,  and  involve  us  in  ma- 

*  ny  Difficulties,  Miferies  and  Confufions.  Thus  They.  And 
according  to  this  Declaration  they  made  their  Protefi.     Again 

The  Comiifioners  of  the  General  Affembly  Jan.  \6.  1649.  emit- 
ted their  Neceffary  and  Solemn  Tefi imony  againrl  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Se6raries  wherein  they  have  thefe  Words.  '  If  after  fomany 
6  Publick  Profeffions  and  Solemn  Atteftations  to  the  contrary, 
'the    Foundation   fhall    be    razed,      Monarchy     be     deftroyed, 

*  and  Parliaments  fubverted  by  an  Imaginary  and  preten- 
f  ded  Agreement  of  the  People  :  As  it  wou'd  deftroythe  League  and 
6  ^Covenant,  and  caufe  the  Adverfary  to  Blafphemeand  infult,  fo  k 
-'cannot  but  be  the  Caufe  of  many  Miferies  and  Calamities  unto 

*  'thefe  Kingdoms,    Thus  they.  Once  more. 

Upon  the  18  of  January  1649.  The  Efi&tes  ofTarliament  gave  a 
Return  upon  the  faid  Teftimony  wherein  we  nave  thefe  Words. 
4  Therefore  the  Eftatesof  Parliament,  after  diligent  Enquiry  at  all  ^ 
6  the  Members  of  this  Court,  upon  their  put/lick  and  folemn  Oath  both 
'concerning  themfelves  and  others,  do  declare  andean  allure  their 
'  Brethren  of  England ,  that  they  cannot  find  that  either  this  King- 
6  domor^j  Perfon  thereof  had  any  Knowledge  of  or&cceffion  unto 
6  the. late  Proceedings  of  the  English  Army  in  Relation  to  the  King's 

*  Perfon  or  the  Houfes  and  retrained  Members  thereof,  but  are  very 

*  Confident  there  is  #0  Ground  for  fuch  Afperfions.Thus  they  .And  ac- 
cordingly they  Inftantly  inftrutted  their  Commiflioners  that  they 
fhould  enter ith  the  Name  of  this  Kingdom.their  Diffent  8r'Proteft,TW-- 
&s  this  N-aiion-- is  free  from  all  Kjtgwledge  of  and  Accejsjon >  to  thefe;  Defigns  ■ 


528  Defence  of  the  Chap,  VY 

and  Practices,  fothey  may  be  free  of  all  the  Calamities,  Miferies  and  Confa- 
fions  which  way  follow  thereupon  to  thefe  Diffracted  K^ingdoms. 

Thefe  are  the  moft  Publick  and  fubftantial  Evidences  that  po- 
fTibly  can  be  brought  to  document  any  Matter  of  Facl,  and  will  I 
hope  be  allowed  to  be  of  fomewhat  more  Weight,  than  the  furi- 
ous Declamations  of  Mr  Rhind  and  fuch  others  of  the  like  Veraci- 
ty, who  ftickto  aiTert  Nothing,  and  yet  cite  not  to  prove  anything. 
So  much  for  K.  Charles  Fs  Time. 

Fourthly  in  K.  Charles  IPs  Time  .  After  the  Englifh  had  mur- 
dered the  Father,  the  Scots  proclaimed  His  Son  King,  invited  him 
Home,  crown'd  and  fought  for  him.  And  what  thanks  got  they  ? 
Why  the  Cavillers  were  glad  that  They  had  left  fo  many  of  their 
Carcafes  at  Dumbar  and  fVonefter.  And  Mr.  L — ly  fpeaking  of 
the  Sectarians  (p)  *  Theybang'd,  faith  he,  the  Presbyterians heart- 
'  ily  at  Dumbar  whofe  Word  that  Day  was  The    COVENANT 

*  the  beji  Victory  ever  the  Kjng  loft.  Yet  fo  obftinate  were  they  in 
their  Loyalty,that  when  the  King  had  fled  beyond  Sea,and  they  were 
opprefsd  with  a  raging  Enemy  in  their  Bowels,yet  they  ftillcontinu- 
ed  to  own  him,  their  Minifters  prayed  for  him  even  intheFaceof 
the  Englifjj  Forces,  and  encouraged  and  afTifted  General  Monk  to 
bring  him  home;  and  all  this,  notwithftanding  they  might  have 
had  their  own  Terms  from  Cromwllwhen  he  was  in  Scotland^  Cafe 
they  wou'd  have  fubmitted.  So  untrue  is  it  what  Mr  Rhind  fays, 
XheLtThey  were  ferving  their  own  private  End*. 

But  fays  he,  They  made  the  Act  of  the  Weft  KJrk,  wherein  they  de* 

*  Glared,  that  They  wou'd  not  own  him  nor  his  Intereft  otherwije  than 

*  with  a  Subordination  to  God,  and  fo  far  as  he  own*  d  and  profecuted  the 
'  CaufeofGod,  and  dif claimed  his  and  his  Fathers  OppofitiontotheWork 
'  of  God  and  the  Covenant.  Well.  And  was  this  a  Caufe  why  Mr 
Rhind  Should  fepar  ate  from  the  Presbyterians?  With  what  Confcience 
then  cou'dhejoin  with  the  Church  of  England?  4Tis  within  the  Me- 
mory of  Man  that  the  Prince  of  Orange  cameover  to  Englandia  Op- 
position to  K.  James  }and  that  upon  the  Invitation  of  the  Lords  Spiritu- 
al as  well  as  Temporal.  He  fent  his  Declaration  before  him  containing 

the 


£  p  j    C»fia:ulra.  Numb.  I.  p.  60. 


Chap  V.  Presbyterian  Spirit ,  329 

theReafons  and  Intent  of  his  coming.  TheKingforefaw  what  a 
Storm  was  brewing,  and  how  heavy  it  was  like  to  fall  on  his  Head, 
He  called  ftr  the  Biflwps,  and  defired  of  'em  a  Paper  under  their 
Hands  in  Abhorrence  of  the  Prime's  intended  Invafion.  Did 
they  comply  with  this  Defire  ?  No.  They,  even  the  Loyal  and  after- 
Wards  Nonjuring  Bifhops,  the  Bifhops  who  had  carried  the 
Doctrine  of  Loyalty  to  fuch  an  extravagant  Height  as  had  delud- 
ed the  King  into  all  thofe  falfe  fteps  of  Government  which  ruin'd 
Him,  even  They,  I.  fay,  flatly  refufed  his  defire  ;  Yes,  They  re- 
fufed  it  when  He  be  fought  them  in  the  Anguijh  of  his  foul.  The  Epif- 
copalians  are  defired,  always,  when  they  tell  the  Story  of  the  Weflkirk 
A£t,  to  tell  this  too  as  a  Counterpart  to  it.  Salmafius  wrote  falfe 
in  the  Cafe  of  King  Charles  I.  when  He  wrote  that  the  Presbyteri- 
ans bound  and  the  Independents  killed  the  Sacrifice.  Even  Milton  His 
Adverfiry,  tho,  a  bitter  Enemy  of  the  Presbyterians,  has  obferved 
(  £ )  that,  in  faying  fo,  He  has  contradicted  Hirafelf,  having  elfe- 
where  wholly  loaded  the  Independents  with  it.  But  'tis  plain  beyond 
Denial,  that  in  the  Cafe  of  K.  James,  the  Episcopalians  bothbound  and 
killed  the  Sacrifice.  For,  To  be  depo/ed  and  after  live,  is  fomething  worfe 
than  Death.  I  am  fully  peri  waded  that  what  they  did  was  absolutely 
neceflary  for  preferving  the  Proteftant  P^eligion.  But  then  'tis  a  very 
immodeft  Thing  in  them  to  upbraid  the  Presbyterians  with  fuch  A&s 
as  themfelves  were  guilty  of.  But  to  go  on  with  K.  Charles  IPs 
Reign. 

'Pis  true  that  a  fmall  Handfull  of  People,  enraged  with  the 
moft  horrid  Oppreiion,  made  an  Infurre&ion  fir  ft  in  the  Year  1666 
at  PentUnd,  and  afterwards  in  the  Year  1679  at  Bothwell,  But 
firft  to  exafperate  Men  with  Cruel  Ufage, and  then  to  upbraid  them 
for  refenting  it,  is  the  utmoft  Barbarity  the  moft  fpitefull  Na- 
ture can  be  guilty  of,  and  that  they  were  thus  exafperated,  fimply 
upon  the  Account  of  Nonconformity,  before  the  Rifing  at  Pentland, 
I  referr  for  Proof  to  a  {mall  Tracf  entituled  A  fhort  Memorial  of  the 
Grievances  and  [ufferings  of  the  Presbyterians  in  Scotland  [wee  the 
year  1660.  But  indeed  we  need  not  referr  to  any  Book,  there 
are  many   Thoufands  yet  living  who  remember  it  to  their  Coft. 

T  t  So 


£  q  j     Deienlia  pro  Fopulo  Anglicano.  Cap.    X. 


5  30  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V« 

So  much  for  K.  Ch Aries  IPs  Time,  and  as  much  as  is  neceflary 
for  K.  James  VIPs  Time. 

In  the  Prefent  and  Preceeding  Reigns  Mr.  K^/^Himfelf  cannot 
charge  them  with  Rebellion ;  but  He  falls  a  Prophefytng  that  they 
wou'd  Rebell  if  put  to  the  Trial,  and  if  their  Intereft  did  not  ob- 
lige them  to  live  in  Peace.  This  is  one  of  His  Vtfionary  Flight  s9 
fo  neceflary  to  make  up  Drydenh  Character  of  the  Englifh  Corah 

Some  future  Truths  are  mingled,  in  His  Book, 
And  where  the  Witnefs  failydy  the  Prophet  Spoke, 

But  if  Mr.  Rhind  acl  the  Prophet  upon  the  Presbyterians,  may  not 
I  aft;  the  Hiftorian  upon  the  Epifcopalians.  I  gave  a  Hint  before  of 
their  new  Liturgy.  Now  hear  their  Interctffion  in  it.  We  pray  Thee 
to  be  Gracious  to  our  Prince,  who  for  the  Sins  bo  fh  of  Priefts  and  Peo* 
pie,  is  now  kept  out,  •—  Rai/e  Him  Friends  abroad,  convert  or  confound 
the  Harts  of  bits  Enemies  at  Home.  —  And  by  the  Jeer et  Windings  and 
Powerfall  Workings  of  thy  Providence,  make  the  Stone  which  the  fa  foolifb 
Builder  h  have  rejected,  the  Head  Stone  of  the  Corner.  Was  not  this  a 
very  lovall  Prayer?  And  has  not  their  Pra&ice  been  agreeable? 
For,  whence  all  thelnfurreftions  under  Dundee,  Cannon  and  Buciianf 
Whence  the  Jjfjfinatton  Plot  againit  K.  William}  I  doubt  not,  but 
They'll  affirm  all  thofe  Efforts  were  aftsof  Loya!ty,and  fo  i'mfurethe 
word  or'Rebdls  generally  Excufe  tbemfelves.  Even  Satan  hirofelt  does 
sot  ufually  fhew  His  Horns  or  pur  forth  his  cloven  Foot.  But  enough  of 
this  part  of  the  charge.  And  to  conclude  it,'tis  very  true,  the  Presbyte- 
rians do  not  afcribean  unlimited  Power  to  any  I  rinceon  Earth.  And,, 
for  my  own  Parr,  I  freely  declare,  that  an  unlimited  Power,  without? 
an  unlimited  Wifdom  to  diretf  it,and  an  unlimited  Goodntfs  to  qualifie 
it,  raifes  a  more  frightfull  Idea  in  Me  than  is  that  of  the  Devil  himfehv 
Let  the  Epifcopal  Party  make  as  much  of  this  as  they  ever  can. 

VIII.  He  charges  Them  p.  216.   with  a  Spirit  of  Divifion,  which,. 

faith  He,  drives   them  from  the  Communion  of  the 

Not  a  Spirit  of    Church,  and  cuts  them  off  from  the  ordinary  Comma* 

Divifion  meat  whs '  of  the  HolyGhosi  *.    For  Anfwer,  'tis  true 

it  drives  them  from  the  Communion  of  Mr..  Rhm£t 

Church ;  And  I  hope  aMercituM  God  Will  flillkeeg  Them  and  every 


Chap;  V.         Presbyterian  Sfiriu  33 1 

good  Chriftian  ft om  fuch  a  Communion  ;  a  Communion,  as  I  have 
fhewen,  fo  abfolutly  void  of  the  Spirit  of  Charity,  that  we  are  as  fure 
^cis  not  the  Spirit  of  Chrilt  by  which  they  are  a&ed.  as  we  are 
fure  that  Chriit  the  Son  of  God  taught  Charity.     And  *  better  it 

*  were  fas  Archbifbop  Twdtfen  has rriol  truly  taught  )(rj  there 

*  were  no  reveaPd  Religion,  and  that   Human   Nature  were  left 

*  to  the  Conduct  of  its  own  principles  and  Inclinations,  which  are 

*  much  more  mild  and  mercifuil,  much  more  for  the  Peace  and 
<  Happinefsof  Human  Society;  than  to  beaded  by  a  Religion  that 

*  infpires  Men  with  fo  vile  a  Fury  and  prompts  them  to  commit 

*  fuch  Outrages.  This  then  is  the  only  Anfwer  needs  be  given, 
That  the  more  the  Spirit  of  Presbytry  drives  People  from  Mr.  RhwePs 
Church,  the  more  it  drives  them  into  the  Church  of  Chrift. 

He  adds  further  Thar,  this  their  Spirit  throws  them  (like  the  De- 
woniack  in  the  Gofpel}  fometimes  into  the  fire  and  oft  into  the  Water, 
By  this  I  fuppofe  He  means  that  they  are  fometimes  divided  among 
themfelvesjwhich  indeed  in  the  former  Times  of  Presbytry  was  too 
true,  and  I  believe  They  all  defiretobe  humbled  for  it  before  God  ; 
and  I  hope  the  prefent  Generation  will  make  fo  good  a  Ufe  of  the 
Failings  of  their  Fathers  as  to  keep  united  among  themfelves  hence- 
forth, as  they  have  done  hitherto  to  the  great  Mortification  of  their 
Adverfaries.  The  beft  of  Men  will  differ  in  fome  Things  both 
as  to  Judgment  and  Pra&ice.  But!  hope  we  fhall  never  differ  fo 
far  as  to  divide, 

Non  eadem  fenfire  Bonos  de  rebus  ijsdem 
Incolumi  licuit  femper  AmicitU. 

In  the  mean  Time  it  is  fhamelefly  immodeft  in  a  Man  that  pre- 
tends to  have  join'd  the  Church  of  England,  to  upbraid  the  Presby* 
terians  with  their  Divifions.  For  pray  what  has  Low-Qhwch  and 
High  Church  been  doing  thefe  Score  of  Years  bypaft,  but  damning 
each  other,  and  feparating  from  other  ?  What  have  ihe  Upper 
and  Lower  Houfes  of  Convocation  been  doing,    but  managing  a 

T.  t  2  Civil 


£  r  }    Tillotfon's  Serai.  Vol.  III.  p.  15. 


35a  Defence  of  the  Chap.  K 

Civil  War  in  the  moft  furious  Manner,  the  latter  accufing  the  for- 
rnerof  Treachery^  and  the  former  upbraiding  the  latter  with  Eccle- 
fiafticall  Rebellion}  If  Mr.  Rhind  knows  Nothing  of  this,  I  reeom: 
mend  to  his  PerufaL  the  Books  cited  on  the  Margin  Q/ 

— -  Tantane  animis  ccelejlibus  ir&  ? 

IX.  In  the  lad  Place,  He  charges  the  Presbyterians  p.  216,  217J. 
with  an  Unneighbourly,  Cruel  and  Barbarous  Spirit, 

Not  an  '  That  they  (lander  their  Catholick  Neighbours,  ex- 
Vnwigh*  *  ert  their  ill  Nature  in  a  fpecial  Manner  againft  their 
bourly£ru»  *  Ecclefiaftical  Superiors,  pry  into  their  Lives,  and  ag- 
e/or Barba-  c  gravate  their  Frailties,  gladly  hearken  to,  readily  be- 
rous  Spirit.  '  lieve,  and  zealoufly  propagate  the  moft  idle,  falfeand 
'  malicious  Stories  of  them.  I  know  no  other  Anfwer 
this  needs,  but  that  it  is  an  idle,  falfe  and  malicious  Reprefentation  : 
And  when  he  fubjoins  his  Proof,  it  will  be  Time  enough  to  make 
a.  more  particular  Reply. 

Iu  the  mean  Time  he  hints  at  Five  Things  which  are  to  be  taken 
fome  Notice  of  viz.  lft,  the  Conduct  of  the  General  Jjfembly  in 
1638.  2dlj9  The  Attempts  made  upon  the  Lives  of  Bifhops.  \ty9  The 

bar> 


f  s  J  Rights  of  an  Englifi  Convocation.  Reflections  on  that  Book.  The  Authority  of  Chriflian  Princes 
over  their  Eccleiiaftical  Synods.  Appeal  to  all  the  true  Members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Behalf  of  the 
Kings  Ecclefiaftical  Supremacy.  Ani'wer  to  that  Appeal.  The  Rights,  Liberties  and  Authorities  of. the  Chri- 
fti*n  Church  afiei ted.  Ecclefiaftical  Synods  and  Parliamentary  Convocations  in. the  Church  of  England  hifto- 
rically  ftated.  The  Principles  of  Mr.  lAtfohury'-s  Book  confidered.  Remarks  upon  the  Temper  of  the  late 
Writers  about. Convocations.  Occafional  Letter  on  the  Subject  of  Englijlj  Convocations.  A  Letter  to  a  Friend 
i»  the  Country  concerning  the  Proceedings  of  the  .prefent  Convocation.  The  Power  of  the  lower  Houfe 
of  Convocations  ad/otun  it  felt  vindicated  from  the  Mifieprefentaticns  of  a  late  Paper.  Narrative  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  lower  houfe  of  Convocation  relating  to  Prorogations  and  Adjournments.  The  Right  of  the 
Archbifbop  to  continue  or  prorogue  the  whole  Convocation.  Vindication  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Members 
oftheiower  Houfe.  with  Relation  to  the  A:  chbifliep's.  Prorogation  of  it.  Letter  to  a  Clergy  Man.in  the  Country 
concerning  the  Choice  of  Members  &c.  The  Cafe  of  the  Premunioites  confider'd.  Third  Letter  to  a  Clergy 
Mau  in  the  Country  in  Defence  of  what  was  faidin  the  two  former  about  the  Entry  of  the  Parliameat  Wric  m 
The  Journals  of  the  Convocation  &c  Hiftory  of  the  Convocation  1700.  Hiflory  otthe  Englif}  Councils  and  Con- 
vocations; and  of  cheClergys  fitting  in  Parliament.  A  taithfull  Account  ofwhat.paifed  in  thtCon-vocatioij 
in  three  Letters.  An  Expedient  propofed.  Narrative  of  the  lower  Houfe  vindicated  from  ihe  Exceptions  of 
a  Letter intit-  Tire  Right  Oi  the  Archbifhop  to  continue  or  prorogue  the-  whole  Convocation.  Vindication 
continued.  Reconciling  Letter  upon  the  late  DiiFeier.ee  about  Convocational  Rights  and  Proceedings.  Faithiult 
Accounts.  The  prefent  State  of  Convocation  .  in  a  Letter.  The  Cafe  of  the  Scbe dule  ftated.  The  Schedule 
reviewed.  The  Parliamentary  Original  and  Rights  of  the  lower  Houfe  of  Convocation  cleared.  Synoius 
Anglican*.  The  New- Danger  of  Fresbytry.  A  ihort  State  of  fome  prefent  Queitions  in  Convocation.  ..A 
Summary  Defence  of  the  lower  Houfe  of  Convocation.  A  Letter  from  a  Convocation-Man  in  Ireland  to  a 
Convocation  Man  in  England.  The  State  of  the  Church  and  Clergy  of  E»gl*nA  imlieir  Councils,  Synods,  Co.gp 
vacations  £\C.    Cum  multis  *iiif> 


Chap.  V.-  Presbyterian  Spirit;  3  5  3 

barbarous  Murder  of  that  Venerable  old  Man  the  Archbifhop 
of  St.  Andrews,  qthly,  The  Rabbling  fo  many  Miniftersat  the  Revolu- 
tion. Andlaftfyi  The  Depofing  fo  many  of  them  by  the  Church 
Judicatories.  Thefearethe  particular  Grounds  of  his  Charge,  and  I 
fhall  confider  eachof'em  in  Order. 

FhH.  As  for  the  Conduct  of  the  General  Jjjembly  Anno  1638. 
He  complains  that  They  trode  under  Foot  the  Bi^fjops  of  the  Church,  and 
pretended  to  excommunicate  them,  while  they  were  without  the  Communion 
of  the  Church  themfelves.  To  which 'tis  anfwered  ift,  Thatthey  them- 
felves  cou'd  not  he  wit  bout  the  Communion  of  the  Church  even  by  Mr 
Rhind'sown  Principles:  For,  they  were  generally,  if  not  all  of  'em, 
Epifcopallyov&a'm'd,  and  no  Sentence  had  as  yet  paftagainMlhemde* 
daring  them  Schifmaticks^  when  they  Depofed  all,  and  Excommuni- 
cate the  moft  Part  of  the  Bifhops.  idly,  That  they  had  juft  Reafon 
todepofe,  and  upon  their  Obftinacy  to  Excommunicate  them,  Gilbert 
Bumet  has  allured  us.  For,  if  they  were  guilty  of  crying  down  the 
Morality  of  the  Sabbath,  and  prophaning  it  by  their  Practices  ;  if  they 
were  guilty  of  Simoniacal  Pactions,  of  relinquifhing  their  DiocefTes 
and  introducing  Innovations  without  Law,  without  Confent  of  the 
Church;  who  can  be  loharden'd  as  to  deny  that  fuch  Perfonswere 
juftly  dealt  with  ?  How  cou'd  they  be  Governours  of  the  Church  who 
were  not  worthy  to  be  Members  of  it? 

Secondly ,  As  to  the  Attempts  made  by  them  upon  the  Lives  of  Bifhops. .  I 
fuppofe  he  means  by  this  Mitchells  wounding  the  Bifhop  of  Orkney  in 
the  Arm  with  a  Piftolfhot  Anno  1668.  It  was  no  doubt  a  moft  unjufti fin- 
able A.£h  But  is  the  Body  or  the  Presbyterians  to  be  charged  with  it  ? 
Hear  himfelfhi  hisLetter  after  he  was  fentenced  to  die.  '  ladven- 
1  tured  on  it,  faith  he  (*,>,  from  my  own  pure  and  proper  Motion  with? 
6 '-  out  the  Iniiigation  dfmyy  yea  without  fo  much  asthe  Privity  of 'any 
6  of  that  Party ;.  whom  therefore,  I  earneftly  defire  thatnone  may 
'  charge  with  it.  And  if  any -fhall,  I  do  with  Confidence  averr,  that 
4  they  deal  with  them  moft  unjustly.  Thus  he.  This,  I  hope,isfuf-* 
ficient  to  vindicate  the  Presbyterians. .  Mr  Rhind  is  defired.  to  vindi-. 
Gate.  the.  Epifcopaliam.  in  taking  his    Life     upon  his  Extrajudicial 

Coo. 


£  t  2  NapthaiL.p.-4ie, 


334  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V; 

ConfefTion,    after  he  bad  emitted  it    upon  the  publick  Faith  that  it 
fhouldnot  be  brought  in  Judgment  againft  him. 

Thirdly,  As  to  the  Murder  of  that  venerable  old  Man  the  Archbiftjop 
of  St  Andrews.  'Tis  acknowledged  that  the  killing  of  him  (  who- 
ever did  it,)  was  Murder,  and  a  moft  barbarous  Murder.  But  I  crave 
Leave  to  put  in  a  Word  firfl  upon  the  Bifhop's  Character.  Secondly, 
Upon  the  Weight  of  the  Argument,  fuppofmg  Presbyterians  had  been 
the  Murderers.  And  Thirdly  upon  the  Truth  of  that  Allcdgance. 

As  for  the  Fir  ft  viz.  The  Bifhop's  Character.  'Tis  true  he  was  an 
Old  Man  :  There  is  no  denying  of  it,  and  therefore  the  Fact  was 
the  more  inexcufable.  Nor  {hall  we  grudge  him  i be  Stile  of  Ve- 
nerable. In  T it nlis  Honor arijs  nonefi  Falfttas.  Why  may  not  even 
a  Feftusbc  called  Moft  Noble  ?  But  then  as  to  the  Moral  Part  of  his 
Character,  I  fuppofe  his  beft  Friends  cannot  deny  but  that  he 
was  guilty  of  the  greateft  Perfidy  a  Man  cou'd  be  guilty  of.  The 
Queftion  now  is  not,  Whether  'Prelacy  or  Presbytry  be  the  righter 
Government ;  but  whether  Treachery  under  Trufl  be  a  Vice  or  a 
Virtue,  a  Crime  or  Commendable  Practice,  If  Mr  «S^/>  was  under 
Convictions  that  the  Presbyterians  were  wrong,  and  thereupon  had 
defign'dto  revolt  from  them;  as  no  Body  cou'd  have  hindered 
him,  fo  no  Body  cou'dhave  blamed  him  any  further  than  fome 
Hundreds  of  his  Brethren  who  did  the  fame.  But  to  undertake 
the  Management  of  the  whole  Presbyterian  Intereft  which  was 
then  lying  at  Stake,  to  give  the  moft  folemn  Promifestoberaithfull 
in  it;  yea,  to  take  their  Money  for  bearing  his  Charges  in  that  Ser- 
vice ;  and  yet  after  all,  inftead  of  managing  that,  to  mmage  over 
the  Yrimacy  to  himfelf ;  this  was  fc>  very  Foul  an  Aci,  that  as  I'm 
fine  it  cannot  be  juttified,  fo  I  doubt  if  it  can  be  paralleled. 

Whether  he  was  guilty  of  other  Things  which  were  afterwards 
laid  to  his  Charge,  I  fhall  not  fay  :  But  I  hope  I  may  be  allowed 
to  tell  a  Story  which  Church  of  England  Men  have  publifhed  to 
the  World.  Mr  L^ly  has  given  the  World  an  Account  (v)  of  a 
certain  Hiltoryyet  unpublifhed,  and  therefore  called  by  him  The 
Secret  Hi (lory ,  but  by  the  Author  himfelf  The  Hijlory  of  his  own  Time. 
This  Secret  Hiftorian,  who    was   no  Presbyterian,  but  of  an  eminent 

Cha- 


[  v  ]    Caflaadra     Numb.  II.  p.  29. 


Cha  p .  V4  Presbyterian  Spirit.  335 

Character  in  the  Church  of  England  tells  us,  *  That  one  of  the  Mur- 
1  deref  s  fired  a  Piftol  at  the  Bifhop  which  burned  his  Coat  and  Gown, 
1  but  the  Shot  did  not  go  into  his  Body,  upon  which  a  Report  was  af- 

*  ter  wards  fpread, that  he  had  purchafed  a  Magical  Secret  for  fecuring 
6  him  again  ft  Shot,  and  his  Murderers  gave  it  out  that  there  were 
'  very  (ufpicious  Things  found  in  a  Purfe  about  him.  This  was  the 
4  difmal  Fate  or  that  unhappy  Man  who  certainly  needed  a  little  more 

*  Time  to  have  fitted  him  for  an  unchangeable  State.  But  I  wou'd 
4  fain  hope  that  he  had  all  his  Punifhment  in  that  terrible  Conclufion 

*  of  his  Life.    Thus  far  the  Secret  Hiftorian  as  reported  by  Mr  L~lj. 

idly,  Suppofing  Presbyterians  had  been  the  Murderers,  Of  what 
Weight  would  that  Alledgance  be  againft  the  Body  of  that  Commu- 
nion,or  a  gain  ft  the Presbyterian  Principles?  How  many  ill  Things 
are  done  every  Day  in  every  Nation  by  ProfefFed  Chriftians?  But 
were  it  ju ft  to  load  the  whole  Chriftian  Church  wiih  them,  or  to 
impure  them  to  the  Spirit  of  Chriftianity  ?  It  is  equally  unjuft 
to  lo^d  fresbytry  with  the  Bi Chop's  Murder.  And  fo  much  the 
more,  that  the  Secret  Hiflorian  ju  ft  now  cited  tells  us,  that  the  Mur- 
derers (  who  ever  they  were )  had-  not  refohed  on  doing  this  any 
Time  before  j,  but ,,  feeing  His  Coach  appear  alone  in  the  Moory  they  took 
their  Rtfolutwn  all  on  a  fudden..     But 

^dlh  *s  lt  true  tnat  Preshteri'ws  were  the  Murderers  ?  Mr  £--  fy 
sells  us  (jc) of  a  Narrative  that  was  publifhed  (hortly  after  commit- 
ing  the  Fao,  wherein  it  is  fa  id  '  That  Five  of  their  Accomplices* 
'  Cora  plotters  and  Abettors  of  the  fV  luder  chofe  to  die,  end  to  be 
4  hungup  in  Chains  upon  the  place,  rather  than  confefs  the  Sinfull« 
6  nefs  of  the  Action  by  acknowledging  it  was  Murder  or  a- Sin* 
This  1  fuppofe  is  the  beft  Evidence  for  charging  the  Fad  upon  the 
Yreshyteriansy  and  Mr  L*-  ly triumphs  upon  it.  Now, 'tis  very  true 
there  were  Five  Men  put  to  Death  on.  Magus-  Moor  (where,  the 
Bsfhop  was  Murdered  )  on  that  Account,  and  ail  the  Five  own'ct 
themfcves  Presbyterians,.  But  now  let  us  hear  them  in  their  Salt 
Words,  while  they  were  upon,  or  at  the  Foot  of  the  Ladder,  juft  a 
Hepping  mo  Eternity. 

Andrew  Sword.      *   The  BiOr>p  of  St  Andrews  Death  I  am  free 
J  ol>  having  lived  four  or  Eve  Score  01  Miles,  irom  this,  and  t-mer- 

was 


I  x.  3,    Ibid,  abi  iupra. 


55^  Defence  of  the  Chap.  V; 

*  was  in  this  Place  before  :  neither  did  I  ever  fee  a  Bifhop  in  the 
Face  that  I  knew  to  be  a  Bifhop. 

James  Wood.     *  As  for  our  coming  here  upon  the  Account  of  the 

*  Bifhop's  Death:  For  my  own  Parr,  I  was  never  in  this  Place  of 
1  the  Country  before  ;  neither  ever  faw  I  a  Bifhop  in  my  life,  that 
I  cou'd  fay  there  was  the  Man. 

John  Waddel.  '  As  for  my  Acceflion  to  the  Bifhop's  Death  where- 

*  fore  we  are  fentenced  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  Bifhop's  Death,  and  that  I  was 
'  acceflary  thereunto.  But  I  muft.  tell  you  as  to  that,  that  I  was 
f  never  in  this  Country  before  this  Time. 

John  Clyde.   '  I  fhall  fay  no  more  but  only  two  or  three  Words 

*  anent  the  Thing  I  was  accufed  of  by  thofethatpurfued  me,and 

*  that  was  the  King's  Advocate  and  Bifhop  Sharp's  Brother,  anent 
c  the  Bifhop's  Killing.  -.—  I  wifh  the  Lord  may  not  lay  it  to 
c  their  Charge.  For  I  never  faw  that  \  an  whom  They  called 
f  the   Bifhop  of  St  Andrews  that  I  knew  by  another  Man. 

Thus  thefe  Five  Men  who  ventured  their  Eternity  upon  their 
Innocence  as  to  the  Bifhop's  Death.  Whether  the  Epijcopalians  can 
purge  themfelves  of  their  Innocent  Bloc  d,  I  leave  it  to  their  oun 
Confciences.  So  much  tor  the  Presbyterians  Barbarous  Ufage  of 
Bifhops. 

But  can  High-Church  purge  Her  felf  of  ufing  Bifhops  Barbaroufly  ? 
Who  then  were  they  that  affaulted  the  Bifhop  of  Worcefler,  broke 
His  Coach  Windows,  pelted,  abufed,  and  put  him  in  Danger  of 
bis  Life?  Does  not  the  forecited  Mr.  BiJJet  tell  us  p.  8.  that  it 
was  High  Church.  Who  was  it  call'd  Archbifhop  Grindall  a  per- 
fidious Prelate  from  the  Pulpit.  Is  Dr.  Sacheverell  a  Presbyterian  ? 
Who  was  it  wrote  all  the  fcurrtlous  Lampoons  againft  Bifhop  B«r- 
net  viz.  Salt  for  the  Leach.  Sham  Sermon  directed.  Good  old  Caufe. 
Proper  Defence.  Evil  be  Thou  my  Good  i  Is  Mr.  L~ly  Presbyterian? 
Who  is  it  affirms  That  the  Spirit  of  Grace  is  conferred  in  Bapt if m  after 
a  Manner  which  neither  Bifbop  Burnet  nor  the  Author  of  the  Dialogues 
between  the  Curate  and  the  Country-Man  knows  any  Thing  of? 

Is 


Chap,  V.         Presbyterian  Spriu  33  7 

Is  Mr.  Barclay  Presbyterian  (y)l  Who  fays  that  all  that  Wjhop 
Burnet  preached  in  1688.  was  not  Go/pel?  JsMr.G---»  Presby- 
terian? But  I  fliou'd  never  come  to  an  End,  fhou'd  I  touch  upon 
every  Thing  High-Church  has  both  faid  of,  and  done  to  Bifhops 
thefe  Score  of  Years  bypaft.  Had  Mr.  Rhindthznno  Shame  to  charge 
us  with  the  Abufing  of  Bifhops  ?  Let  fuch  as  have  abufed  them 
be  all  reckon'd  Presbyterians,  and  I'm  fure  we  {ball  be  fifty  tboufand 
ftronger  than  we  are  ordinarly  reckon'd  to  be.    But  I  proceed. 

Fourthly,  As  to  the  Rabbling  fo  many  of  their  Clergy  in  the  Be- 
ginning of  the  Revolution.  'Tis  true,  fome  of  them  were  Rabbled 
out,  and  no  Man  can  or  ought  to  undertake  to  Juftify  the  Rabble 
in  doing  fo.  But  had  not  the  Clergy  exafperated  them  to  the  great- 
ell  Height?  How  often  had  the  Government,  upon  their  Dela- 
tion, or  by  their  Inftigation,  driven  the  poor  People's  Cattle,  fliut 
up  their  Shops,  fpoil'd  their  Goods,  imprifon'd  their  Perfons,  fqueez- 
ed  the  Marrow  out  oi  their  Bones  with  Boots  and  Thumbkins, 
Hang'd  up  their  Husbands,  Fathers,  Brothers,  and  other  Relations, 
and  all  this  upon  the  Account  of  Nonconformity  '{  5Tis  true,  the 
People  ought  to  have  forgiven  them  all  thefe  Injuries,  as  indeed 
generally  they  did.  But  was  it  to  be  expected,  but  that  Corrup- 
tion in  fome  of  'em  wou'd  prevail  over  Principle^  or,  that,  upon  a 
Turn  of  Affairs,  their  Refentment  wou'd  not  vent  it  felf  againft  the 
Authors  of  thefe  Injuries?  I  don't  talk  without  book  when  I  fay 
the  Clergy  were  the  Authors  of  thefe  Injuries.  No.  Dr.  Canaries  will 
Juftify  me  beyond  the  need  of  other  Documents/which  yet  might  be 
produced  by  Hundreds.  The  Doctor^  wheniately  return'd  from  Rome, 
Publifbed  in  the  Year  1684.  a  Book  entituled  A  Dijcourfe  reprefenting 
the  Sufficient  Mamfeftation  of  the  Will  of  God  & c,  which  He  Dedi- 
cated to  the  Earl  of  Perth  then  Chancellour :  Therein  p.  187.  He 
draws  the  Presbyterians  in  all  the  odious  Characters  that  Malice 
cou'd  devife,  as  light  and  wild  Extravagants,  the  very  Dregs  and 
Feculency  of  Mankind,  on  the  Account  both  of  their  Birth  and  Breeding^ 
but  efpecialy  fo,  becaufe  of  their  very  Souls  and  Immoralities;  as  being 
fuch  a  Herd  of  dull  and  untraceable  and  whineing  and  dtbaucht  Ani- 
mals as  fcarcelygo  bejond  thqfe  of  the  Hogs  and  Goats,  which  ever  any  of 

U  u  them 


L  7  1  See  BarcUj's  Pe  rAiafive  p.  14.9.  ijo. 


33  8  Defence  of  the  Chap   V, 

them  ms  ever  for  n  for  to  a  tend.  Thus  He.  Now  when  he  had  thus 
d  relied  them  (sp  in  tie  Skins  of  Brutes,  was  it  not  natural  that  the 
next  ftep  fhou'd  be  to  lei  the  Dogs  at  'em  to  worry  'em  ?  Yes, 
that  He  does  with  a  Wirnefs.  He  is  atfo  much  Pains  to  Smooth 
over  all  the  Severities  of  the  Government  againft  them,  that  he- 
reckons  Hanging  it  (elf  but  a  Triffle.  'I  he  Worfl,  fays  he  p.  192, 
is  to  be  flung  over  a  Ladder,  or  for  one's  Neck  to  be  tyed  to  a  Beam 9 
and  then  to  have  a  Sledge  driven  out  under  Him.  Was  there  ever  a 
clearer  Comment  than  this  upon  Solomons  Words  The  tender  Mercies 
of  the  Wicked  are  Cruel?  Was  it  any  Wonder  that  People  were 
Irritated  againft  fuch  Furies?  As  the  Clergy  then  excited  the  Go- 
vernment to  thofe  Severities,  lb  they  have  juftifled  shum  ever  fwee^ 
and  complain'd  that  our  Princes  were  too  Mercifull.  Thus  Mr.  Rhwd 
in  His  Sermon  on  Loyalty  Preached  and  Printed  1711.  fpeaking 
of  K.  Charles  I.  Others  again  (faith  he  p.  49,  ^o  )  find  Fault  with 
Hts  ton  great  Clemency  and  Indulgence  ;  and  truly  I  mufl  own  that  THIS 
was  his  Fault  :  And  indeed  there  is  TOO  MVL  H  of  it  in  the 
Blood  of  his  Family  -  ;  Of  fuch  a  Gofpel  Strain  are  the  EpiJ copal  Ser- 
mons / 

But  why  are  the  Presbyterians  alone  charged  w\\\\  Rabbling  ?  Do 
the  Epijcopalians  know  nothing  of  that  Trade?  Did  Mr  Rhind 
never  hear  of  Sacheverellys  Mobs,  and  the  burning  doun  the  Difi 
/enters  Meeting-Houles  ?  Did  he  never  hear  of  the  Rabbling  Mr 
TuHidztfzi  Errol  May  10,  1691  ?  Did  he  never  hear  of  the  Rabble  at 
Old-Deer  (<£.)?  Did  he  never  hear  of  the  Eptfcopd  Treatment 
of  Mr  Chfjhalm  in  March  17 1 1  fent  to  read  the  Preslytrfs  Edict  for 
planting  the  vacant  Church  diGearloch  (4)  ?  No  Pagan  Hiftory  can 
furoifh  fuch  an  Inftance  of  Barbarity.  But  why  do  1  infift  on  Parti- 
culars ?  :  Even  under  K-  WtlliarrSs  Reign,  their  Rabblings  were  fo 
frequent,  that  the  Parliament  found  itneedfull  tom?ke  a  very  drift 
J0  againft  them  (J?)  And  even  notwithstanding  that,  They  are 
ftillcontinutd  with  the  greateft  Infolence,  wherever  they  can  hope 
!0  make  any  Hand  with  them.  Is  it  notmodeft  then  in  the  Epijcopa- 

Itans 


l  z  j    Seethe  prefenc  State  ofPaities.  p.i$x.    [  a  j    SeeSuts  of  Panics,  p.  171..    £  bj  SesAft 
ii,  Sefc.  7.  Pari.  K.  William*, 


Qiap  V,  Presbyterian  Spirit:  339 

/w#.uo  objeel  Rabling  to  the  Presbyterians  ?  In  the  Epifcopalians,  I 
fay,  who  perfecute  while  they  are  in,  and  Rabble  when  they  are  out. 
Lafily,  As  to  the  Depofmg  fo  many  of  their  Clergy  by  Church 
Judicatories.  Let  us  hear  Or  Edwards  an  Eminent  Divine  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Vnion,  concerning  the 
prefent  eftabhffrd  Church  of  Scotland.  '  They  have,  faith  he,  with 
6  the  Patience  of  Confeffors  and  Martyrs  (and  fuch  a  great  Num- 
<  ber  of  them  were )  born  the  fufferings  which  the  High-Church 
'Men  brought  upon  them,  and  now  when  they  are  able  to  reta- 
liate, they  ftudy  not  Revenge,  but  let  the  World  fee,  they  can 
6 '  forgiv?  as  well  as  f offer.  This  Teftimony  is  of  feme  more  Weight 
than  Mr  Rhino's  malicious  Infinuattons.  I  fuppofe  the  Presbyteri- 
ans will  be  able  to  defend  themfelves  upon  a  Condefcendence  on 
Particulars.  In  the  mean  Time  the  difference  between  the  Epif copal 
and  Presbyterian  Conductin  this  is  pretty  remarkable.  In  the  Year 
1662,  three  hundred  Presbyterian  MiniPters  were  Turned  out  of  their 
Churches  (imply  upon  the  Account  of  Nonconformity,  beoaufe  they 
wou'd  not  receive  Collation  from  the  BiOiop  (upon  a  Prefent at ion 
from  the  Patron)  without  any  other  Fault  proven  or  alledged  a- 
gainft  them.  At  the  Revolution  there  was  not  one  Man  of  the  E- 
pifcopal  Clergy  either  deprived  or-  depofed  upon  the  Account  of  his 
Principle  concerning  Church  Government.  Say,  Good  Read- 
er, which  of  thefe  two  Ways  of  acting  was  the  more  ChrUlian 
and  accountable  .?  At  the  Reftauration,  not  one  Man,  that  I  can 
hear  of,  was  left  in  PodefSon  of  any  Church  in  Scotland,  who  either 
had  not  EpifcopalQrdQrsy  or  at  lead  received  Collation  from  the  Bi- 
fhop.  At  the  Revolution  above  two  Hundred  of  the  Epifcop.il  Clergy, 
were  frill  continued  in  their  Charges,  many  of  which  are  alive,  . 
and  in  f  ofleffion  at  this  Day,£ho'  in  many  Places  Infolent  to  the  laft 
Degree  in  their  Behaviour  againft  the  Eftablifh'd  Church.  -  So  that, , 
if  thofe  who  were  Ml  kept  in,  thofe  who  voluntarily  -dimmed , thofe 
who  were  deprived  by  the  Council  upon  the  Account  of  their  DiC 
loyalty,  thofe  who  wereouted  by  Act  of  Parliament  April.  25,1690' 
Restoring  the  <  Presbyterian  M&ijters  wh^were  thru  ft.  from  -their  Charge^ 
fime  the  firfl  0// January  ■  1661 :  when  all  thefe  I  fay  are  deduced, 
with  thofe  that  complyed,  and,  upon  doing  fo,  were  aiTumed,  I  fup- 
pofe the  dumber  of  the  Depofed  will  -appear  very  fniall.      And  if 

Mr 


340  Defence  of  the  Chap.    V. 

Mr  RhinA  can  prove  them  to  have  been  innocent,  I  doubt  not  but 
He  will  oblige  them  and  his  whole  Party.  Let  me  only  add, 
that  a  fevere  Treatment  of  Minifters  is  the  Thing  in  the  World  a 
Church  of  England-Man  fhou'd  be  moft  loath  to  upbraid  orhers 
witb,as  knowing  how eafie  it  is  to  reply.  Were  not  three  hundred  Mi- 
nifters depofed,  deprived,  excommunicated,  imprifon'd  or  banifhtd 
in  two  Years  Time  after  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court  1603  {Im- 
ply for  Nonconformity  to  the  Liturgy,  thoc  otherwife  they  were 
Epifcopally  ordain'd  (c  )  ?  Were  not  two  Thoufand  Minifters  eject- 
ed at  once  by  the  Bartholemew  Acl  1662  (d)?  All  the  Yrotellant 
Churches  in  Europe  put  together  cannot, I fuppofe,  furnifh  fo  many 
Inftances  of  Minifters  deprived  or  depofed  on  any  Account  what- 
lbever,  as  England  can  for  fimple  Nonconformity  to  Prelacy  and  paul- 
try  Ceremonies.  Tho'  then  thedepofing  or  depriving  of  Clergy- 
Men  might  have  tempted  Mr  Rhind  tofeparate  from  the  Presby- 
terians, yet  had  not  his  Affection  been  much  more  partial \  than  his 
Confcierjce  was  nice,  He  had  never  been,  on  that  Account,  fway'd 
to  the  Epifcopal  fide,  which  has  been  vaftly  more  guilty.  So  much 
for  the  Vn  neighbourly,  Cruel  and  Barbarous  Spirit  of  the  Presbyterians. 

ThusI  have  gone  through  all  the  Particulars  of  Mr  RhincPs  Charge, 
wherein  he  efTays  to  make  the  Presbyterian  Spirit  diametrically  oppofite 
to  thatoftheGofpel.  Every  Reader,!  fuppofe,  will  eafily  drfcern  the 
Difference  'twixt  his  Accujatton  and  my  Defence.  The  Accujation 
(  tho'  that  is  always  an  odious  Part  )  is  neither  qualified  nor  proven. 
The  Defence  is  made  good,  and  the  Charge  difproved  from  the  very 
Books  the  Accufer  appeals  to,  or  by  the  Teftimony  of  the  moft  emi- 
nent Epi/copalians, 

And  now  to  cometoan  End,  who  can  but  pity  Mr  Rhind  ?  Who,1 
befides  thzSCHlSM,  HERESY,  wdSVPERSTlTIONhe  has  run 
into,  has  brought  himfelf  under  the  crying  Guilt  of  the  moft  wretched 
PROPHaNENESS  and  IMPIETT  againft  GOO,  and  the  moil: 
HEjaliciGus  CALVMNT  againft  his  Neighbours  and  Benefactors.    I 

heartily 


[  c  J  Vide  Ale.  Daraafc   Prefac.    £  d  J  See  Dr.  CaUmfi  A«ounc% 


resbytenan  raim  341 

heartily  wifh  be  may  Repent  of  this  his Wkkedmfs,  and  pray  GOD9   if 

perhaps  the  Thoughts  of  his  Heart  may  be  for  given  him, 

UPON  the  whole  I  conclude,  that  the  PRESBTTERIAN 
GOVERNMENT  is  of  Divine  Inftitmion.  Their  AR- 
TICLES OF  FAITH  taught  by  the  Scripture,  and  believ- 
ed by  the  Catholick  Church,  Their  WORS  HIP  Pure  and 
Perfeft  in  all  Etfentials.  And  their  SPIRIT  and  Pratike  a£ 
leal!  as  becoming  theGofpel  as  that  of  their  Neighbours. 


THE    END. 


Xx  THE 


VUWIUWySUJimkUIIWittlUt'r1  I— —  I  -"*   -'  I  '-* M*MLM  }-.tmn.H  ,ji  ..j.u.) 


T    H    E 

GO  NT  E  N  T  S. 

Thfr  INTRODUCTION    P.  i.i 

CHAP     1. 

0 

Containing   Preliminary  Remarks     P.  2. 

S  E  C  T.     I. 

Ontaining  Remarks  on  the  Title  of  Mr  RhincPs  Book.  lb.  Re- 
mark L  That  the  Title  of  an  APOLOGT  was  ill  chofen,  the 
Book  it  felf  wanting  the  Apoftolick  Requifits  oi  an  Apology  viz. 
Meeknefs  and  Pear,  lb.  This  proved  from  his  -.Character  of  the 
Presbyterians,  which  is  fhewn  to  be  Malicious  p.  3.  Falfe  p.  ,3,  4.  . 
Truly  and  indeed  the  Charafter  of  High  Chunk'  p,  4,5. 
Remark  II.  Upon  his  concealing  what  Church  it  is  whofe  Com- 
munion he  has  embraced,  p.  5.  Proved,  That  there  is  no  Church 
on  Earth  whcfe  Communion  he  can  in  Reafon  claim  to.  p.  5— il.  . 

SECT.    II. 
Containing  Remarks  on  Mr.  Rhiadrs  Preface     p.  1 1, 
Remark  I.  On  the  Date  and  Motive  of  his  feparating  from  the  Pre* 
sbyterUni.  lb.  Remark  II.  On  his  oun  Characlerof  his  Book  p.  i'jA 
Its  true  Character,  Vanity  lb.    Dogmaticalnejs.  p.  14.    Projanenefs 
lb.    Remark  III.  Onhis  befpeaking  Civil  Ufage  lor  himfelf  p. 
35.  Remark  IV.  Whether  Mr  Rhind  is  thetrue  Author  of. the  J- 
plogy  lb.  See  alio  the  Preface,  p.  7. 

SEC  T.     IIL 
Containing  Remarks  §n\{\%  Narrative  of  the  Marnier  how  he  fepara- 
fc:d  from  the  Presbyterians  p.  1,6. 

Remark  I.  Demonftrated  that  his  Narrative  is  pure  Poefy  p.  i&»~ 
sa  Remark  II.  The  dreadful  vConlequences  (  upon  his  oun 
Principles  J  of  his  having, been  baptiz'd  by  a  Presbyterian  Mi- 
nifter  p.  21.  Remark  III.  That  he  does  not  afcribe  toGOO 
his  feparating  from  the  Presbyterians  p.  22.  Remark  IV.  On  his 
mentioning  his  Obligations  to  the  Presbyterians  lb.  Remark  V. 

That  i 


The  Contents 

That  be  f  efufed  the  Communion  of  the  Chtirch  of  Rome  on  a  Quarrel 
which  equally  obliges  him  to refufe  Communion  witbthe  Churck 
of  England,  p.  23.  Remark  VI.  Upon  his  charging  the  Presbyte- 
rians with  Want  of  Refpeft  to  the  Fathers  p.  24.  Remark  VII. 
Upon  his  Character  of  the  Epifcopal  Authors  p.  26.Rematk  VI1L 
Character  of  Mr.  Dodwll p.  27.  and  of  Mr. Sage#*  je. 
A  fhort  Digrejfion  on  the  late  Vindication  of the  Fundamental  Char- 
ter of  Presbytry  p.    32. 


Chap  11 

..  R/WsfirftR 
That  they  are  Sc 
P-36 


R.'  Rhind^s  firft  Reafonfor/^^/Vsg  from  the  Presbyterians  vlzl 
That  they  are  Schifmaticks  in  point  of  Government,  Examin'dv 


S-"E  CT.    I, 
His  Principles  and  Corollaries  examin'd.  lb.  They  ar&  not  admitted 

by  the  Presbyterians  p.  57.     Much  lefs  by  the  Church  of  EngUnd 
p.  38-.  Proved,  That  -iitliSr  YresJyter tans  are  Schifmaticks,  eo  ipfo  it 
'will  follow  that  they  are  not  without  the  Church,  p.  41. 

SEC  T.    II. 
His  State  of  the  Debate  ^'twixt    th^f  resb/terians  and ■    EpifcopaUam 
Examin'd.-p.  43.- 

SEC  T.    111. 
His  Arguments  for  Prelacy  funim'd  up.  p.  47;"  - 

STEX'T.     IV. 
His  Arguments  for  proving  that  Chrijlmd  his  Apoflles  were'  under 
a    NeceJJity.  of  Instituting  a  frelaiick  Form  'of  Government  'Ex-- 
aminM.  p.  2f&f. 
A  R  X. .  I.  His.  Argument  Erom  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  for  proving  tha£ 
Neceffity,  Examin'd.  p.  49.  ' 

Proved  that  the  Argument  iff.  is  not  Modefi^.  50.  2^/7, not  Secure* 
lb.  7,dly7  that  it  is  impertinent  as  he  has  laid'  it  p.  51.  His  Irt- 
forcement  .of' chat  Argument  ift*  from  1  he  Bntijh  Monarchy 
p. -5 1.  2%,  from  thcprinciples  of  the  Presbyterians  p.  53.  5^ 
From  their  Practice  p.  55.-  The  Presbyterian  Plat  Form  juftified- 
from  the  Roman  Senate,  the  two  Ho^ks-of' fat lia?nent  and  the 
Court  oi&effion  in  Scotland,  p.  5Q.' 
ART.  II.  The  Argument  from  the  Form*  of  Govern rrfentki  the 
3fe#2?  Churck  tfor  'proving  thar  Ntcejjiiy7  Examined -p.  60 


The  Contents^ 

Proved,  that  as  be  has  laid  it,  it  is  horridly  Impious  p.  6 1 .  that 
his  Managmenr  of  itagainftthe  Presbyterians'^  Ridiculous  p.  62. 
That  it  is  in  itfelf  weak,  and  concludes  Nothing  to  the  Purpofe  in 
this  Controverfy  p.  64.  1  hat  if  it  conclude  at  all  it  concludes  for 
anuniverfal  Papacy  p.  65.  That  it  is  rejected  as  Inefficient  by  the 
Epffcopal  Authors  p.  67. 
ART. III.  The  Argument  from  Political  Considerations  in  Compli- 
ance with  the  Jews  and  Romans  for  proving  that  Neceffltyy  Examin'd. 
p.  69. 

Proved  ift,  as  to  the  Jews  p.  70.  2dlyy  as  to  the  Romans  p.  7 1.  that 
the  Argument  fofar  as  it  concludes  makes  direc~Hy  for  Presbytry. 
The  Defign  of  the  Argument  from  Political  Neceffity  difcovered 

P-  IV 

SECT.    V. 

The  Proofs  for  evincing  that  Prelacy  actually  was  inftituted,   Ex- 
amin'd. p.  7$. 

Tbelnftitution  of  it  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scripture  confeffed  by 
Mr.  Dodwell  p.  74. 
ART.  I.  The  Proof  for  evincing  that  Prelacy  obtain'd  in  ChrilPs  days, 
Examin'd  p.  75. 
Proved  that  then  the  Chriftians  were  under  no  Form  of  Church- 
Government  diftinft  from  the  Jewijh  lb.  That  neither  the  XII  nor 
the  LXX  were  Church  Officers  till  after  Chrift's  Refurre&ion ; 
Or,  fuppofing  they  had  been  fuch,  that  yet  they  had  both 
the  fame  Power,  p.  77. 

The  Text  Matth.  XX.  2  5.  The  Princes  of  the  Gentiles  foe.  largely 
vindicated  p.  79. 
ART.  II.    The  Proof  for  evincing  that  P  /v/^j  obtain'd  in  the  Days  of 
the  A poftles,  Examin'd.  p.  87. 

Proved  that  if  the  Government  which  at  firft  obtain'd  among 
Chriftians  as  fuch  was  unalterable  (  as  Mr.  Rhind  fays  it  was,} 
then  Prelacy  is  ruin'd,  lb.  Mr  Rhino?*  General  Reafonings  from 
the  Aits  and  Epiflles  Examin'd.  p.  88.  A  Succeffion  in  the  A* 
fojlolate  clearly  difproved  p.  90.  Harangues  againft  Parity  how 
ridiculous  p.  98.  The  Civil  War  amongft  the  Epifcopal  Authors 
p.  99.  The  Demonstration  for  Prelacy  from  its  being  confirm'd 
by  Mnack s7  Examin'd  p,  100.  See  alio  p.  95,  94. 

ART 


The  Contents. 

ART.  III.  The  Argument  from  the  Efifcopscy  of  Timothy  and  T*« 
tusi  ExaminM  p,  105. 

Proved  from  Scripture  that  they  were  extraordinary  Officer/  p, 

104.  Mr  Dft&w//confeiTes'ir,  p.  105.    The  Poftfcripts  no  proof  lb. 

The  Ancients   of  the  three  firft  Centuries  perfectly  fiient  of  their 

being  Bzfiops.  p.  106.    Their  Epifcopacy  cannot   be  inferred  from 

any  Thing  in  the  Epiftles  directed  to  them.  p.  107 

ART.  IV.  The  Proof  from  the  Apocalyptkk  Amels  ExaminM.  p,  no. 

Thofe  Angels    not  the  fixed   Bijhops  of    thefe  Churches  p.  1 1  r„ 

Not  numbred  by  Seven  lb.  Not  CharaQerized  as  fingle  Perfons 

confelfed  by  Dr  More  and   Mr  Dodivell  and    proved    at  large 

from  the  II.  and  III.  Chap,   of  the  Rev.  p.    112.    Proved  to 

be  Falfe,   that  all    Ancient  and  Modern  Commentators  have  fup- 

pofed  thefe  Angels  to  be  fingle  perfons  and  the  Governours  of 

the   Churches  p.  118.  Btza  has   faid  nothing  on  this  Argument 

that  favours  the  Epifcopal  Caufe  p.  120.    Dr  Hammond's  Scheme 

intirely  ruins  this  Argument  lb.  as  it  alfo  does  the  argument 

from  the  jemifi  Priefthood,    and  from  the  Subordination  of  the 

LXX  to  the  XIL   This  noticed  and  confefTed  by  Dr  Whitby, 

p.    T2I. 

ART.  V.  The  Testimonies  for  Prelacy  from  Antiquity  Examin'd.  p, 
121.  Dr  Bedell 'and  Medina  conMs  the  Fathers  to  be  on  the  Presbyte* 
rian  Side  lb.  Dr  Sherlock's  and  Chillingxvorthh  Judgment  of  the 
weight  or  the  Teftimony  of  the  Fathers  p.  122. 
Jgnatiush  Epiflles  difcourfed  p.  123.  Proved  in  four  particulars 
that  they  quite  deffroy  the  Modern  Epifcopacy  and  the  Princi- 
ples on  which  it  is  built.  lb.  Proved  that  as  to  the  main  of  the 
Controverfy  they  contain  nothing  contrary  to  the  Presbyterian 
Scheme,  p.  126.  No  Evidence  that  the  Jgnatian  Presbyters  did 
Preach  or  ad  minifter  the  Sacraments  p.  128.  Proved  that  the  Igna* 
tian  Epiftles  are  either  not  Genuine;  or  at  leaft  are  vitiated  and 
Interpolated,  p.   132. 

Clemens  Romanus  gives  no  Teflimony  for  prelacy  p.  1  44, 
Nor  the  Emperour  Adrian  p  147. 
Nor  Irenaui  p   148. 
Nor  Tertulh&n  p  150. 

ART.  VI.  The  Argument  for  Prelacy  from  the  Impojfibility  of  its 

Y  y  ob- 


The  Contents 

obtaining  fo  early  and  univerfally,  if  it  had  not  been  of  Dim 
vine  Institution  Examin'd  pi^i. 

Proved   that  fuch  an   Impofflbility  cannot  be  inferred  either  i(?? 
From  theP/>ty  and  Zs-doi  the  Primitive  Times  p.  1 52.  Nor  idlyy 
from  the  Vniverfal  fpread  of  Epifccpacy  p  154.  Nor  5^/7,  from  the 
Vigilance  of  the  Governours  of  the  Church  p  1 55.  Nor  qthly$  from 
the  VnparallePdne/s  of  the  Cafe  "p.  156.  Nor  phfo  from  the  No* 
Oppofitton  was  made  to  the  Change  p  1  57. 
Teftimonies  for  Presbytry  from  Antiquity  p   1  59. 
From  Clemens  Roman  us  lb.   Ignatius  p  160.  Pciycarp  p  i6i.jujlia 
Martyrlb.  henaus  lb. Tertullianp  162.  Clemens  Alexandrines,  \b.Origen 
p.  163.    Gregorius  Thaumaturgas.  p.   164.  Cyprian.  lb.  Baftlius  Mag- 
nus p.  165.   Aerius.  Jb.  Ambrofe.  p.   166.  ChryCoftom.  \b.  Augtiftw.  pc 
167.  Theodoret.  lb.  Primaflus.  lb  Sedulius.  p.  168.  Concilium   Hifpale'n- 
ft  2aumJ    lb.  Thecphylacl.  lb.  Oecumenius,  lb.  The  Canon  Law.  p.  169. 
Jerom.  lb. 
The  Exceptions  againft  Jerenfs  Teftimony  examin'd,  p.  171. 
"SECT.     VI. 
Mr  Rhinos  Reaionings  againft  the  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elders  and 

Deacons,  Examin'd.     p.  175. 
.ART.     I.     His  Reaionings   againft  the  Presbyterian  Ruling  Elders 

Examin'd  p.  176 
ART.     IT.  His  Reafonings  againft  the  Presbyterian  Deacons,  Exa- 
min'd. p,   185. 
THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  CHAPTER  CONCERNING 
CttVRCH>GOVKRNMENT.  p.  187. 

An  Addrefs  to  the  Gentlemen  of  Higb'Cburch  Principles  (hewing 
the  Uncharitabienefs  of  them,  and  how  deftruclive  they  are  of  the 
w hole  YrotejUm  Intereft  through  the  World,  p.  188.  Their  con- 
fidence upon  their  Principles  fo  much  the  iefs  tolerable  that  they 
are  Groundtefc.     p.     192* 


Chan-  ///. 

"fa  /J  R  Rhino's  Second  Redfon  for  Separating-  from  the  Vresbyterzansi 
1.  7  1  viz;.  TJtat  their  An  teles  of  Faith  ar.e  fan  dame?it  ally  Falfe  and  ferni* 
w«;?)Examia'd.  .p.  196.- 


The  Contents^ 

SECT.    I. 
Mr  Rhintfs  Objeftiofls  againft  their  Articles  of  Faith  Confider'd 

P»  T97-  .  . 

His  Obje&ions  againft  the  Datlnne  of  the  Decrees  in  General, 

Examin'd,  lb.  His  Objections  againft  their  Dotlrine  of  Pre  deft  inot  ion 

p.   20 1.    Againft  their  Doclrine  of  the  Efficacy  of  Grace,  p.    207. 

fhewed  not  to  be  inconfiftent  with  a  Good  Life  or  unable  to  per- 

fuade  one  to,  R-efofm,  in  a 

DIALOGUE  BETWEEN  a    CJLFINIST  Teacher  and  a  D£- 

BJVCHE  of  the  Party  p.  209. 

His  Objections  againft  the  Doflrine  of  Per  fever  ance^%  214* 

SECT.    II. 
The  Presbyterian  Articles   of  Faith  the  lame  with  thofe  of  the  Chrl- 
ftian  Church,  p.  221. 

Proved  that  they  are  the  Doclrine  of  the  forreign  Reformed 
Churches. lb.  Ofahe.  Epjfcopalians  m  Scotland  p.  222,  Or  the  Church 
of  England  p..  223.  The  Defences  of  fome  Modern  Divines  againft 
this  Imputation  particularly  confiderM  p.  224.  The  Calvinilikk  Dp- 
£fcrines.afTerted  to  be  the  Doclrines  of  the  Church  of  England  ift 
by  the  Englijh  Univerfities  p.  226.  2^,  by  the  Supreme  Ecclefi- 
aftical  Governours  of  the  Church  p.  227.  $dly,  by  the  Court  p.  229. 
Lajlly-,  by.  the  Englijh  Delegates  to  forreign  Synods  Jb.  Proved  that 
the  Doctrines  objected  againft  are  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholick 
Church  p. ,2 3q. 


lap- 

Tfc  M  R  RhindPs  •  Third -Reafon  for  feparating  from  the  Presbyterians 
J_V1  viz.  That  their  Worftnp  is.  fundamentally  'Corrupt  and  Imper- 
feci j  Examin'd.  p.  233;. 

SECT.    I.. 
His  Objeclions  againft  the .  Presbyterians  Prayers  Examm'd.  p.  234. 
ART.   /.  His  Argument  and  Ten  Tn (lances  for  Proving  that 
ihQ-  Matter  oi  them  mull  be  and  is  Corrupt  Examin'd..    lb, 

ART.  IL  His  Exceptions  againft  ihe  Marnier  oi  the  Presbyterians 
Brayers  Examin'd,  p.  248. 

Xhe  ailedged  Dij advantages  of  Extemporary  fray  er  Confider' 'd. 

lb-.  His  Arguments. fot  proving  the.  Excellency  of;  the  Liturgick 

'  Way, 


The  Contents^ 

Way  Examined,  p.  251.  His  Argument  for  it  from  the  Nature  of 

.  the  Thing  lb.  idly  from  Vniverjal  Praclicep.  257.  idly,  from  Hea- 
ven's Approbation  of  it  under  the  O/d  and  NewTeflament.  p.  259. 
^thly,  from  the  Ufage  of  it  in  the  Primitive  and  Ancient  Church 
p.  261.  Laftly  from  the  Pratt  ice  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  p.  262. 
Mr.  Rhwd's  AnCwer  to  the  Objection  againft  reftrifting  Peo- 
ple to  Forms  viz.  That  they  Stint  the  Spirit,  ConfHered  p.  26  j. 
His  horrid  Comment  on  the  Spirits  Helping  our  Infirmities,  p.  264. 

SECT.    IT. 
The  Objections  againft  the  Presbyterian  Do£trine  concerning  the 
Sacraments,  and  Exceptions  againft  their  Manner  ofDifpenfingthem, 
Confider'd  p.  272. 

Thefe   Difcourfed.    ift   as  to   Baptifm.    lb.  idly,  as    to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  p.  279. 

Some  Remarks  on  the  Scots  Epif copal  Liturgy  p.  285. 

Chap.       V- 

Tl  yf  R.  Rhwd's  Fourth  Reafon  for  Separating  from  the  Presbyterians 
J3  i  viz.  That  their  Spirit  is  Diametrically  Oppofue  to  that  of  the 
G  of  pel,  Examin'd.  p.  289. 

The  Meaning  and  Intendment  of  this  Reafon.  lb.  Several 
Things  Charged  on  the  Presbyterians  which  they  not  only  Con- 
fefs  but  avow.  p.  291.  Mr.  Rhino's  Proi  hanenefs  in  Bur- 
lefquing  the  Scripture  p.  292. 
'  This  Reafon  confider'd  as  to  its  Weight,  and  proved  that  tho* 
it  were  true,  vet  it  alone  would  not  Jufhfy  his  Separation  p.  295 
His  Reafon  Examin'd  as  to  its  Truth,  p.  296.  The  Presbyterian 
Spirit  not  EnthufiaHical  p,  297.  Not  an  Animal  or  Mechanical 
Spirit  p.  50  i  Not  a  Partial  Damning  Spirit  p.  30$.  Not  a  Nar- 
row or  Mean  Spirit  p.  304-  Not  a  Malicious  or  Vnj 01 -giving  Spirit % 
p.  506.  Not  an  Vvconverfible  Spirit  p.  311.  Not  a  Dijloyal  or 
Rebellious  Spirit  p.    313. 

A  Short  Dignjjion  on  the  Right  Honourable  the  Earl  of  Cromer- 
tyls  Hiftorical  Account  of    the  Confpiracies  by  the  Earls  of  Go\v- 

V  P-  ? » 7- 

The  Presbyterian  Spirit  not  a  Spirit  of  Divifwn  p.  330.  Not 
sn  Unneighbourly,     Cruel  or  Bar}  arous  jfirJt.  p.    33r.    . 

The  CONCLUSION  p.  340* 


yt^i  ■  ■ 


m 


•**■