The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 1 · Section 7

The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved · Treatise · Part 1 · Section 7

p. 30Section VII.

No Diocesan Bishops in several Ancient Churches.

THo' their Argument brought from Antiquity, be already satisfi'd, we shall yet give some Instances of Churches, which, for several Centuries, were really without Diocesan Bishops. St. Patrick, the Irish Apostle, is commonly said to have ordain'd several hundreds of Bishops in Ireland, who, I'm sure, could not be Diocesans. Dr. Maurice, aaDefence of Diocesan Episcopacy. Page 153.being displeas'd with this Instance, rejects Nennius, the Author from whom we have the account of St. Patrick's ordaining 365 Bishops, as fabulous. But it's not in their accounts of the numbers of Bishops, but of the Deeds and Miracles wrought by Bishops, and others of their Saints, that the fabulousness of the Writers of these times is commonly to be observ'd.

He next quarrels with the common reading of that Author, alledging that He speaks only of the Bishops in France and Britain, in communion with St. Patrick, not of his Irish Bishops. But, I think, we may, in such critical Learning give Bishop Vsher the Preference, whobbOf the Religion of the Irish. Page 59. neither judg'd this Book fabulous, nor its common reading to be suspected. p. 31And this account of the great number of Ancient Irish Bishops, is strongly confirm'd by what Clarkson ccPrimitive Episcopacy. Page 40.cites out of Bernard and Baron, shewing that there were well nigh as many Bishops as Churches. This the Doctor passes over in silence, which was scarce fair enough dealling. Neither can the Doctor's ordinary salvo, viz. that the Practice was not generally approv'd, nor of primitive Constitution, here serve them; for whatsoever differ'd from the Roman Model, was presently made a Novelty. And tho' Bernard and Lanfranc dislike the Practice of having so many Bishops, yet they adventure not to instance any time wherein the Irish had been rul'd by a few Diocesans. And lastly, the Authors most regardable herein, inform us that this Practice of having so many Bishops had place even in St. Patrick's time, and meer infancy of the Irish Church.

§. 2. Most visible footsteps of this also appear in the African Church, during the time of Cyprian; for in that Council of Carthage, where he presided, there was no smal number of Bishops conveen'd, tho' doubtless there were many moe Bishops in Africk, who could not be all Diocesans, seeing few then were Christians in Africk, save a small part of the Roman Colonies only. Yea the hamlets and villages, these Bishops had for their Jurisdictions, are so obscure, that the learn'd Pamelius is at a stand where to place them. And, long after, in the time of the Vandalick Persecution, as Victor Vticensis relates,ddLib. 1. Vnde factum est ut post obitum Carthaginis Episcopi Zeugitanae, & procensulari Provinciae, Episcopos interdiceret ordinarios quorum erat numerus 164. there were in the Zeugitan or proconsular Province alone 164 Bishops: others reckon moe. Now this was but a small part of what the Romans possess'd in Africk, and few, beside the Roman Colonies, were at that time Christian; for the Moors, or old Africans, who, beside what they had in the Cities, possess'd almost the whole Country, are by the same Victor without exception, call'd Gentiles; and many of the Romans themselves had not yet imbrac'd Christianity. Now subduce, from that small number of the Zeugitan Province who were Christians, the many Arrians, and other Hereticks, and Schismaticks, whom these Bishops did not reckon as a part of their Flocks, and surely there shall scare be found so many as to make up above 164 Parishes. Dr. Maurice tells useePage 164. that all the African Bishops in Cyprian's time, could not have suppli'd the Dioceses of one Province, in the V or VI Century. Which, if true, is a strong Confirmation p. 32of what we plead for, viz. that they then were nothing less than Diocesans: seeing as is now evident, there were, even in the fifth Century, but a very small number of Christians in Africk, compar'd with the rest of the Inhabitans. And in Cyprian's time, it may well be judg'd that there were some hundreds of Bishops in the Roman Africk. But in such Cases, not the extent of Bounds, but number of Souls is to be considered. Wherefore he should be a wild Reasoner, that should conclude from Africa's having a dozen, or such a number of Bishops, or Pastors, for surely there were but few at the entry of Christianity, that there needed be no more afterward, and so make that number the Standard to discern how many Bishops, by primitive Right, were to be plac'd in all Africa.

And this is a Kin to what he saysffPage 185. elsewhere, that tho' there were Bishops in small Towns, this was not the primitive State of the Church; it may be indeed; nor yet, at the first entry of the Gospel, were there Bishops in most part of the great Towns: but was this for fear of Multiplication of Dioceses? no surely; but these few were all could be then gotten. The substance of his Answer here is, that Africa was most large, fertile, popolous. The first of which is readily granted, but the second not so easily, much of these Regions being more fertile of sand and Serpents than of Corn and Wine: and this in part discredits the third; seeing so much as was barren, is not to be suppos'd Popolous; wherefore it's surprising to find him making the Old Roman Africk more Popolous than France is now. HeggPage 165. supposes that Africk had but 500 Bishops, and yet might have 40000 villages. But I answer, that if the villages were considerable, and had Christian Inhabitants, for otherways this is nothing to this purpose, then had Africk 40000 Bishops: for H. Thorndick hhRight of Churches, review Page 153.acknowledges that Bishops in Africk were so plentifull, that every good village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church. Which words of H. Thorndick are cited by Clarkson but dissembl'd by the Doctor. In the mean while, I can find nothing which can shake what I have said above, or overturn, as for example, what I have noted from Victor's words, and oblige me to lessen my substraction. Add to what is said the words of Dr. Burnet. In St. Augustin's time (saith heiiConferences. Page 348.) it appears from the journals of a Conference he had with the Donatists, that there were about p. 33five hundred Bishopricks in a small tract of ground. But we need not cross Seas in pursuit of ancient Churches free of Diocesans, seeing our Country Scotland affords us so luculent a proof of our Assertion. The words of Prosper Aquitanicus, in his Chronicle annex'd to that of Eusebius and Hierome, are most clear and cogent. Palladius (saith hekkAd Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur à Papa Caelestino, Palladius & primus Episcopus mittitur.) is ordain'd by Pope Coelestine for the Scots that had already believ'd in Christ, and is sent to them to be their first Bishop. Never was a passage of any Historian more universally believ'd, than this of Prosper, which Beda… llEdit. Lovan. Fol. 15., and a MS. Chronicle of Scotland in the Library of Glasgow, yea the whole stream of Historians repeat and approve: but none more amply and plainly, than Cardinal Baron mmAnn. 429. numb. IV. Primum verò eam gentem à Coelestino Papa Episcopum habuisse Palladium omnes consentiunt., whose words are, All Men agree that this Nation (viz. Scotland) had Palladius their first Bishop from Pope Coelestine. And againnnIbid. Ex his autem habes quibus redarguas asserentes Sedulium Christianum Poëtam quem tantopere Gelasius laudat habuisse praeceptorem Hildebertum Scotorum Archi-episcopum: Etenim cum ipse Sedulius ad Theodosii Imperatoris tempora referatur quo modo usus esse potuit Hildeberto Scotorum Archi-episcopo Paerceptore, si nullus adhuc ordinatus erat in Scotia Archi-episcopus & Palladius absque controversia primus dicatur ejus Gentis Antistes. thus you are instructed how to refuse these who alledge that Sedulius the Christian Poet, whom Pope Gelasius so much extolls, had for his Master, Hildebert the Arch-bishop of the Scots: for, seeing even Sedulius himself lav'd in the time of Theodosius the Emperor, how could he have had, for his Master, Hildebert the Arch-bishop of the Scots, seeing there was no Arch-bishop yet ordain'd in Scotland, and Palladius is without debate affirm'd to have been the first Bishop of that Nation. This is yet more plainly express'd by the most learn'd Antiquaries of our Country: all of them agree in this, that before Palladius, the Church was rul'd and guided without any Diocesan Bishops. For, as Fordun hath itooLib. 3. Cap. 8. Ante cujus (Palladii sc.) adventum habebant Scoti Fidei Doctores, ac Sacramentorum Ministratores, Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos, ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitiva. before the coming of Palladius the Scots, following the Custom of the primitive Church, had Teachers of the Faith and Dispensers of the Sacraments, who were only Presbyters or Monks. And Iohannes Major ppDe gestis Scotorum. Lib. 2. Per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis Scoti in fide erudiebantur.saith, the Scots were instructed in the Faith by Priests and Monks without Bishops. And Hector p. 34BoethiusqqFol. 132. Erat Palladius primus omnium qui apud Scotos sacrum egere Magistratum, à summo Pontifice Episcopus creatus: quum antea Populi suffragiis &c., Palladius was the first of all who exercis'd any Hierarchical Power among the Scots, being ordain'd their Bishop by the Pope, whereas before, their Priests were, by the suffrages of the People, chosen out of the Monks and Culdees. Add hereto the known Testimony of Buchanan; and of Sir Thomas Craig, To pass over (saith he rrScotland's soveraignty asserted. Page 134.) that most silly' Fable of the three Archflamins, and the twenty eight Flamins; it's plain that there was no Bishop in Britain before Palladius, who is by the English themselves call'd the Bishop of the Scots; or if either the Brittons or English have any, let them name them, and at what time they flourish'd.

§. 3. Yea so clear is this Truth, that the most learn'd of our Adversaries have found no better way to elude, when they cannot clide it, than, as Torniellus in another case said of Bellarmine, to endeavour the penetrating of a most firm wall, and cast the History about fourty of our ancient Scotish Kings, as a forg'd legend. Among these is Loyd Bishop of St. Asaph: but both he and Dr. Stillingfleet are nervously refuted by the learn'd Sir George M…kenzie Advocat; and that their main purpose and undertaking was utterly desperat, he makes soon appear. And tho' (saith he) this Author could prove, that we were not settl'd here, before the year 503 yet that could not answer the Argument. (viz. that is brought against Episcopacy from the Scotish primitive Church-government for the Culdees might have been settl'd before that time. And thus, in a few syllables, he demonstrats that the Bishop, as to his ultimat design, had only his labour for his cost. But Sir George being too sagacious not to foresee, that, from the mutual strugglings between himself and the Bishop, any man might easily conclude, that Presbytry was the primitive Government of the Church of Scotland: and having been one of the prime Instruments to put in execution the prelatical Fury, judg'd himself concern'd, in credit, to say somewhat in favours of Episcopacy, and attempt the stoping of such an Inference. Wherefore, to this purpose, in a Letter to the Earl of Perth, prefix'd to the defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland, He makes several assayes: The first whereof is,

That this is one of the meanest Arguments, that ever were us'd by a Presbyt…rian:— And that it is a weak Argument, (saith he) appears from this, that I have met with very few Laicks in all our Countrey, who had heard of it; nor with one, even of these few who had valu'd it. But be it so that p. 35the Argument seem mean, we gain notwithstanding a most sufficient Argumentum ad hominem, seeing our ablest Adversaries value it so much; yea, Sir George himself clearly acknowledges this, while he saith, and what can the Presbyterians think of their other Arguments, which they value much? since this, which they valu'd so little, is thought of such force by a learn'd Bishop, as to deserve a whole book, the cutting off of 44 Kings, and the offending a Nation of Friends. But it's nothing tho' the Laicks had neither valu'd nor heard it, seeing, as himself grants, Blondel, with whom join the rest of the Presbyterian Writers, urg'd it. Hence appears, that this Argument is, by both Parties, judg'd to be of great force and consequence: for the solution whereof, the Advocat brings nothing save what is altogether unworthy of any ingenous man. As for example, since (saith he) it cannot be deni'd, but that these who ordain'd our Presbyters were Bishops; it necessarly follows, that Episcopacy was settl'd in the Christian Church before we had Presbyters or Culdees. Wherein, as to the solution of our Argument, which was the scope of his Letter, he only begs the Question, and gives us what is impertinent thereto, and contradicts, moreover, these our Historians, whose credit he so excellently vindicats, seeing, as we heard, they plainly tell us, that our ancient Anti-diocesan practice was the very custom of the primitive Church. And, when our Historians say that the Abbots of Icolm-kill had Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of the Province, that is to be understood, as Beda observes, more inusitato; after an unusual manner. And yet he compares this practice of the Abbot to that of a King who makes one a Bishop, and to the practice of a Mother who makes her Son a Church-man: now if it be any strange or surprising thing for a King, by his Congé d'eslire, to make one a Bishop, or for a Mother to educate her Son in order to be a Church-man, and procure some place for him, let any man judge. And, later Historians (saith the Advocat) meeting with these ambigous words in our Annals Designatus, Electus, Ordinatus, were, by a mistake, induc'd to appropriat these words to the formal Ceremony of Ordination and Imposition of hands. As if any man in his wit could take these words to mean any other thing than Ordination, providing they be, as they are in our Annals, spoken of one Church-man in relation to another. Moreover, he knew sufficiently that the best Records of our Country expresly say, that our Church was rul'd by Presbyters without Bishops, and so leave not the least room for tergiversation. Bede is one of these Authors who creat them so p. 36much vexation; for speaking of Icolm-kill, the Isle (saith hessLib. 3. Cap. 4. Habere autem solet ipsa Insula Rectorem semper Abba…tem Presbyterum, cujus Juri & omnis Provincia & ipsi etiam Episcopi ordine inusitato debeant esse subjecti, juxta exemplum primi Doctoris illius qui non Episcopus, sed Presbyter extitit.) still uses to have for its Rector an Abbot, who is a Presbyter to whose Jurisdiction the whole Province and even the Bishops themselves, after an unusual manner ought to be subject according to the example of their first Teacher, who was no Bishop but a Presbyter. Hence it's clear, that even in Bede's time, Bishops were but of smal note here, and their power much less than in other Churches. They are therefore much pain'd with Bede's words, and chiefly St. Asaph, who, amongst other odd things he excogitats, tells us, that the Superiority this Presbyter had over the Bishops, was only in respect of the royalty of the Isle which the King gave the Abbot. As if ever Bede, or any man else could have mark'd such a Superiority as strange and unusual, it being nothing but what every Prince or Lord of any place still practises; who, altho' he subject himself to a Bishop in Spirituals, yet in respect of Temporals and the Royalty, uses to retain the Superiority. But, which 'utterly spoils the Bishop's comment, BedettIbid. Vnde & praefatam Insulam ab eis in possessimem Monasterii faciendi accepit. Neque enim magna est, sed quasi Familiarum quinque &c. tells that all Columbanus got, was the possession of a little Isle, able to sustain about five Families, for building of a Monastry, without the least mention of his being invested with the Royalty thereof, or any other Island: and yet to him were all the Bishops of the whole Province (all the Bishops of Scotland, saith the Saxon Chronicle, cited by the Bishop himself) subjected, so that this pretended Royalty of Columban over the Island, becomes a vain dream, & tho' 'twere real could do him no kindness, the whole Prouince being certainly a far other thing than any such Island; wherefore the Superiority this Presbyter had over these Bishops, must needs have been in Ecclesiastick affairs; and this was really remarkable and unusual. But of this enough; for, whosoever believes that the errand of this most ancient Preacher and Propagator of Christ's Kingdom, was to win an earthly Kingdom to himself, and that the King shar'd with him his Soveraignity and Realm, may as soon swallow the whole legend of Constantine's Donation to Sylvester.

But to return to the Advocat, as, in the things that he touches, he wholly prevaricats, so he never handles our main Argument, which is taken from what is related of our Churches practice, preceeding the p. 37coming of Palladius. He only refers to Spotswood who saysuuHist. Pag. 7. Buchanan is of opinion, that before Palladius his coming there was no Bishop in this Church;—what warrant he had to write so, I know not, except he did build upon that which Joannes Major saith, speaking of the same Palladius; —The Scots (he says) were instructed in the Christian Faith by Priests and Monks, without any Bishops. But from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith to conclude, that the Church after it was gathered had no other form of Government, will not stand with any reason. For be it as they speak, that by the Travels of fome pious Monks the Scots were first converted unto Christ; it cannot be said that the Church was ruled by Monks, seeing long after these times it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with matters of the Church, nor were they reckon'd among the Clergy. But it's strange how he can alledge Buchanan to be supported by no Authors, except Major, for Palladius his being Scotland's first Bishop: he could not but know, that not only Major, but also Fordun, Bede, with many others within the Isle; Prosper, Bergumensis, and, among the later Historians, the Magdeburgenses, Baron, with many other Transmarines, assert it. And this last affirms that none can deny it.

§ 4. It's true, Spotswood saysxxHist. Page. 4. that Boeth out of ancient Annals reports that these Priests were wont for their better Government to elect some one of their number, by common suffrage, to be Chief and Principal among them, without whose knowledge and consent nothing was done in any matter of importance; and that the person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus, a Scots Bishop, or a Bishop of Scotland. But they reap little advantage here, for in Boeth's words (y) there is no mention, as the Bishop without book affirms, whether these Annals were ancient or modern. But whatever they be Hector gives ground to believe that he had Annals declaring the contrary, as appears by his words above cited, where he homologated that common sentiment of Christians, and told us that Palladius was our first Bishop, and that none before him had any Hierarchical Power in Scotland. To alledge therefore Boethius as espousing their cause here, is ony to set him at variance with all Christians, and by the ears with himself. But grant it were as Spotswood says, yet there should no small dammage accreu to their Cause, seeing, on supposition hereof, it follows, that the Episcopal Ordination was altogether wanting in the primitive Church of Scotland; it not being supposeable that this one man could p. 38Ordain all the Pastors in Scotland, yea, that even this their great Bishop had no other Ordination himself, but what he receiv'd from Presbyters.

§. 5. The Bishop's following words, from the instruction of the Scots in the Faith &c. are altogether void of reason. For it's granted that after the coming of Palladius (which is the time whereunto he must refer the gathering of the Church) she then indeed began to have another Government, and never man yet pleaded, that, because the Church of Scotland was not govern'd by Bishops before Palladius, therefore 'twas not really govern'd by them after his coming; which is the Inference the Bishop's words seem to deny. But I believe there is more in them, for they are abstruse: and judge their meaning to be, that tho' we had no Bishops before Palladius, yet this can be no ground to conclude that we ought to have none afterward, our Church being then rude and in her infant state. The Advocat is of the same mind, saying, that before Palladius his time our Church was constituenda or unsettl'd. But who can believe it? For, first, it's generally suppos'd that Palladius came to free this Church from Pelagianism, and not to establish Church-government.

Secondly, Is't credible that the Church of Scotland, after so long a continuation and flourishing of Christianity, had been, rather than any other Churches, without any certain form of Government? This is certainly a thing unparalellable, even according to our Adversaries, who tell us that every Church very soon after its beginning had its Diocesan Bishops, and so a certain form of Government.

Thirdly, Yea altho' many other Churches had been without all Government for such a tract of time, there is ground to believe that Scotland could not; they lying most of this time under the persecuting Sword, whereas we read of no persecution in our Church, even while our Kings were Pagan; and our King Donald the I, the first crown'd Head in the World that ever subject'd it self to Jesus Christ, very much encourag'd the Christians, and was seconded herein by severals of his Successors. And altho' some of 'em were vitious, and their Reigns short, or vex'd with Wars, yet such trouble never struck directly against Christianity, like the fury of the Pagans throngh the rest of the World: and others were both excellent Men, and had longer and peaceable Reigns, as Findochus, and Cratilinthus, but especially Fincormachus, an excellent man and a great promoter of Religion, and therefore, as is most presumable, was a great Instrument under God, for the settlement of our Church-affairs.

p. 39Add to all this, Fourthly, That the terrible Storm of Persecution through the Roman World, drove then from the Brittons, and other places, no small number of excellent Men to Scotland, who doubtless did no small service to God therein, and especially in the time of Fincormachus, when, as all observe, a great many fled hither who were famous both for Life and Doctrine, yea long before this even in the time of Tertullian, our Church was well known to much of the Christian World, as appears from his clear Testimony. The places of Britain (saith heyyContra Judaeos. Cap. 7. Loca Britannorum Romanis inaccessa, Christo tamen subdita.) to which the Romans could not yet pass, are notwithstanding subject to Christ. And if any have called Scotland barbarous, or not well reform'd before the coming of Palladius, Sir George learn'dly refutes them; and names severals, and among them even Stannihurst, otherways an enemy to our Nation, who have done it: and he well observes, that the reason why some speak of us as then not well enough reform'd, was because of our want of agreement with the Church of Rome.

§. 6. As to the last part of the Bishop's discourse, saying, that it was not permitted to Monks to meddle with the matters of the Church &c. And wherein he is seconded by St. Asaph, who falls foul on Presbyterians on this account, as if they were darkners of all Church History &c. They should know, that as our Historians call'd these Monks, they also call'd them Priests, sometimes Presbyters, or Bishops, or Doctors, and frequently Culdees. Our people (saith Boeth zzLib. 6. Fol. 95. v. 40. Coeperi & nostri eo temp…re Christi dogma acuratissimè amplexari Monachorum quorundam ductu & adhortatione qui quia sedulo pr… dicationi vacarent, essentque frequentes in oratione, ab incolis Cultores Dei sunt appellati: invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum ut Sacerdotes omnes ad nostra pene tempora vulg… Culdaei; i. e. Cultores Dei, sine discrimine vocitarentur.) also began most seriously at that time to embrace the Doctrine of Christ, by the guidance, and exhortation of some Monks; who, because they were most diligent in Preaching, and frequent in Prayer, were call'd by the Inhabitants, Worshippers of God: which name took such deep root with the common People, that all the Priests, even to our time, were commonly without difference call'd Culdees, i. e. Worshippers of God: Elsewhere this Author call'd these Teachers and Guides indifferently Priests, Monks, and Culdees. Thus also speaks the best of our Historians, some of whom we have heard calling them Presbyters, and Admistrators of the Sacraments. Hence 'tis clear, that when they call them Monks, the word is not to be taken in the later Popish sense, for a Layhermite; p. 40for these our primitive Pastors were only call'd Monks, by reason of their strictness of life, and frequent retirement to Devotion, when the publick work of the Ministry did permit it, and perhaps also divers of them abstain'd from Marriage, that they might keep themselves free from the World, and its care, without urging this on others, as was the practice of the famous Paphnutius in the council of Nice: From all which I conclude, that before the coming of Palladius, we had a settl'd Church without the least umbrage of their Hierarchy.

§. 7. I add, that long after that, it had but very slender footing here; seeing, according to Spotswood, they had no distinct Titles or Dioceses, whose wordsaaHist. Page. 4. are, neither had our Bishops auy other Title (then that of Scotorum Episcopi, or Scotish Bishops) whereby they were distinguish'd, before the days of Malcomb the III, who first divided the Country into Dioceses, appointing to every Bishop the limits &c. Yea, after most strict search,bbBook 1. for a long time posterior to Palladius, he can scarce find the least footsteps of Episcopacy. And again, long it was after the distinction of Dioceses, before they were admitted to any civil Places or Votes in Parliament, Hence nothing is more certain than that, for many Ages, the Church of Scotland knew nothing of their Hierarchy: the first Rudiments whereof were bronght from Rome, which was sent packing thither again, when we renounc'd our obedience to Anti-christ.

§. 8. Take but one other particular, and I take leave of the Advocat: he's much displeas'd with St. As…ph terming him a Caresser of Fanaticks, for affirming that in consequence of this our Argument taken from the confess'd Practice of our primitive Church, we might reasonably conclude, that when we covenanted against Episcopacy, we had only us'd our own right; and thrown out that which was a confess'd Innovation; in order to the restoring of that, which was our primitive Government. A notable and never to be forgotten Concession of so learn'd an Adversary as is this Bishop. Let's hear what the Advocat returns him. It will not follow (saith he) that because our Church in its infancy and necessity was without Bishops for some years; therefore it was reasonable for Subjects, to enter into a solemn League and Covenant, without, and against the Consent ef their Monarch; and to extirpat Episcopacy settl'd then by Law, and by an Old Prescription of 1200 years at least. But this most unfair Representation of our Arguments antecedent is, I trust, now sufficiently discover'd: wherefore, I have nothing p. 41to do here with it, not yet am oblig'd to evince the consequence he denies, seeing 'tis not to be accounted ours but his own, who made the antecedent. Of the Grounds why the Nation entred into a Covenant, I also discours'd already. In the mean while, I can't but take notice of his settling Episcopacy by Prescription; a Romish Argument, which, whatever it may do in Law, has no place here. His Prescription, I'm sure, essentially differs from that of Tertullian against the Heresies of his time, seeing he liv'd in a very early Age, when especially, if ever, Prescription could have place in the Church, and the Doctrines which he defended were generally and uninterruptedly held by the Pastors, even from the Apostles times, and more ancient than the Heresies, against which he prescribes, whereas in the present case all things are clean contrary. For, as the Advocat himself here supposes, the original of Scotish Episcopacy is several Ages posterior to that of the Apostles; so that if the Argument could militat for either Party, it serv'd well the Church of Scotland against Prelacy, and not at all e contra. But tho' things had been quite otherwise, there had been no fear of harm from their Prescriptions; seeing, as Vincentius Lerinensis admonishesccCap. 39. Caeterum dilatatae & inveteratae Haereses nequaquam &c. In refutation of inveterat Errors, we must recurr to the sole authority of the Scriptures. And Optatus Milevit. plainly asserts that Christ's Testament abundantly suffices to determine all, and every particular Controversie among Christians. Thus we see how pleasant a spectacle these two Champions afford us; the Bishop forms the Major Proposition, and asserts, on supposition of the Antiquity of our Royal Line, and veracity of our Historians, that our Church acted with reason enough, and was only recovering her own Right, when she cashier'd Prelacy. The Advocat, in attempting to disprove this the Bishop's Proposition, has only giv'n such prevarications and elusions, as most strongly confirm all the dis-interested of the truth thereof. As for the Minor Proposition, that our ancient Royal Line is not forg'd but real, and our historical Monuments most true and credible, the Advocat himself, to the conviction of all the unbyass'd, in both his Books, makes appear. It remains therefore as a conclusion of undoubted verity that our Church was acting most rationally, and only recovering her own Right, when at any time she expell'd Prelacy, together with all its Innovations.

p. 42§. 9. There is yet another Advocat of the Party, whose look is more stout than his Fellows. We shall try if his reason be answerable to his confidence. I mean A M. D. D. (I shall design him D. M.) The Author of a late Book call'd, An Enquiry into the New Opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland. Who,ddPage 227. Et sequentibus. in opposition to the Defender of the Vindication of the Church Scotland, handles the same Argument at large, and supposes, as a main Ground of his Discourse, that his Antagonist denies, that there is any force in Argumento negativo. To require (saith D. M.) that a matter of Fact be attested by competent Witnesses is, in the language of our Author to raze the Foundation of all History. He spends therefore about 14 pages, to prove that a negative Argument in some Cases may have place. But vainly, seeing the Author of the Vindication does not once insinuateeDefence of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland. Page 36. that a negative Argument can in no Cases be us'd, or that to require competent Witnesses in a matter of Fact, is to raze the Foundation of all History. Yea he believ'd that there were Witnesses so competent for his Assertion, that no Argument, whither negative, or of whatsoever kind else, shall ever be able to darken their Testimony, and that we have as good ground for our ancient Church, her being without Bishops, as for any other part of our Nations Antiquities. And indeed the Argument the Apologist, whom D. M. would vindicat, us'd, levels at all parts of our ancient History, no less then at the thing under debate. The Argument was, There were none that lived near that age that wrote the History of it, and the Monks who wrote any thing were extreamly ignorant. Now this, if it do any thing to the Author's purpose, equally shakes and overthrows all parts of our ancient History, seeing with the like force and success it may be brought against any of 'em. Justly therefore repones the Defender of the Vindication, that this is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation, and that of most others: and to make them all to be Fools, who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation, and others: such as Fordon, Major, Beda, Usher &c. whereto, all, D. M. rejoins, is, that many collateral proofs may be brought from the Roman Historians, that the Scots inhabited that part of Britain, long before the imaginary period of his Presbyterian Church.—And the manner of reckoning the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages, their Births, and other remarkable Solemnities, p. 43was an infallible conveyance of true, constant and perpetual Traditions. Their Bards whose Science it was to repeat those Genealogies upon solemn Occasions, & to celebrat their greatest Atchievements in verse, could not add one to the number of their Kings, but upon the Death of his Predecessor. But in all his Discourse, there is wrapt up a concession of all the Defender of the Vindication charg'd on the Apologist; seeing he evidently intimats, that unless it be assertin'd some other way, nothing in any of our Countries Historians merits any credit. And to confirm this, I except, (saith he) against all the three, (viz. Fordon, Major and Boethius) that none of 'em, could be a competent Witness in Affairs of that nature at so great a distance from their own time, unless they had named the Authors and Records upon whose Testimony their Relation was founded. As to his mentioning of collateral Proofs &c. it is a meer Sham; seeing, if once we yeeld with him, that no credit is due to any of our Monuments now extant, except what is confirm'd by some exotick Records, how sorry an account have we of any of our Antiquities of whatsoever kind? which forraign Testimonies notwithstanding may, if compar'd with our Writers, give light to our Histories.

I'm sure moreover, notwithstanding of whatsoever old Traditions, or Bard's verses are mention'd, all or surely most of these now being lost, or, tho' extant, mostly unintelligible, our Royal Line could never be asserted without ascribing to our Writers, both the reach and integrity of able and faithfull Historians. And yet D. M. is not afraid to compare his Apologist negative Argument to another of Eusebius lib. 3. Where (saith D. M.) by this very Argument, he overthrows the authority of several Books that some would impose upon the Church, meerly because they were not duely attested, and none ef the Ancients brought any Testimonies from them. But Eusebius saw and perus'd these Ancients, who either directly or occasionally mention'd all the Canonical Books, and so justly their silence overthrew the Authority of the Spurious, and baffl'd the credit of their Imposers: but has D. M. or his Apologist, seen or perus'd all the Monuments from which our Historians took their materials, and which were lost long before either of them were born? Can they from these Records, tho' they would fain do't, rub shame upon all the Historians of our Countrey, as a creu of lying Forgers? seeing then, that this is impo…ible to be done, and that, as the Advocat has solidly made out, they were men of sufficient Candor and Reputation; seeing they us'd many ancient Reeords now lost, and were of sufficient Discretion and p. 44Knowledge to distinguish genuine from fictitious, seeing they relate what we plead for with no less unanimity and concord than they do any thing else, and either profess, or sufficiently enough intimat, that they brought all their Composours from ancient Records, seeing that their Judgement is confirm'd by unsuspected Forerunners both ancient and modern, yea and suffrages of all mankind, who had ever any occasion to speak of this matter, seeing what they relate is so far from being fabulous, that our ancient Church-government they mention is sufficiently attested and acknowledg'd by the fiercest of our Adversaries to be truly Apostolick, and seeing, lastly, as we have heard, Prelacy, for a long time after Palladius, was of far less bulk and power in Scotland, than in other Churches; the Apologists negative Argument has just as much consanguinity with that of Eusebius, as is between a down-right Paralogism, and a solid Deduction: yea I averr moreover, that considering Prelacy was then at its Ela in Scotland, and none of our Historians at least before Buchanan were Presbyterian, nor could reap any Advantage by disobliging the Prelats, any one of their Testimonies alone might give sufficient ground to believe that what they said was well founded on good and ancient Records.

§. 10. But after a long, and, as himself truly says, needless digression, he comes to examine our Testimonies, and will have Boethius to contradict the rest, alledging that his meaning is not, that Palladius was the first Bishop, but only the first sent from Rome, but of Boethius already.

Here D. M. falls foul on Blondel as a corrupter of Boethius, because he said as out of him that the Presbyters elected and ordain'd their Bishop. There is nothing (saith D. M.) said by Boethius, but that the Bishops were elected from among both the Priests and Monks. And true it is there is no more said in the words D. M. cites, but 'tis as true that elsewhereffFol. 95. Pontificem inter se communi suffragio deligebant &c. Boethius expresly says, that the Pastors, Priests or Culdees themselves by common suffrage elected this Pontificem or Prefect. Add hereto, that, if Boethius have said ought inadvertantly or obscurely, he is to be correct'd or explain'd by the harmonious and most express Testimonies of Fordun, Major, Buchanan, Craig, and other such most learn'd of our Antiquaries, all of whom are, beyond scruple, most positive for what we affirm.

§. 11. Next he assaults Prosper's Testimony, alledging that, according to Baron, Palladius was not sent to the Scots in Britain, Baronius p. 45(saith D. M.) never thought that Palladius was sent by Pope Coelestine to the Scoto-Britanni, but rather to the Irish. And, whatever the Testimony of Prosper be, Spondanus and Baronius leave the Vindicator, for they understood Prosper's words of Palladius his mission to Ireland, and not to that part of Britain, which is now call'd Scotland. To prove this his Assertion he adduces, but, which was his wisdom, untranslated, these words of Baron ggAnn. 431. Numb. 191. Perductum quoque fuisse ad Hiberniam Insulam, sed citò morte subduectum ex hac vita migrasse, ex Probo qui res gestas S. Patricii scripsit dictum est superius, Hibernorum quidem conversionem Deus S. Patricio reservavit.; that he (viz. Palladius) was brought also into the Isle of Ireland, but was soon taken away by Death, is related by Probus, who wrote the Deeds of St. Patrick. Egregiously reason'd! Probus saith that Palladius went once into Ireland; therefore Baron thought the words of Prosper not at all to be understood of his coming into Scotland. Surely this Author may be allow'd a chief place in their next Book of Sports for the Sabbath. Yea these words, that he was brought also &c. seem clearly to hold forth that he was sent to another place beside, out of which he came into Ireland, and what place this was, the immediatly preceeding words evincehhIbid. Hoc eodem anno sub iisdem Consulibus Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos: perductum quoque fuisse ad Hiberniam &c. the same year and in the time of the same Consuls St. Prosper saith that Palladius was sent to the Scots, being ordain'd the first Bishop. That he (continues Cardinal Baron) was brought also into the Isle of Ireland &c. Where 'tis most evident that Baron distinguishes the Scots, to whom Prosper saith Palladius was sent, from the Inhabitants of Ireland. But, to cut off all further debate of this matter, the Cardinal clearly demonstrats what we plead for, while he expresly says,iiNumb. 4.—Magno honore prosequentes ejus Reliquias in Mernia Scotiae Provincia collecatas.Num 4 that they highly honour Palladius his Relicts which are buri'd in the Mernes, a Province of Scotland. And the Cardinal continuing his Discourse of the same Scots, whose first Bishop, in his Judgement Prosper makes Palladius to have beenkkNumb. 5. Porro eandem Ecclesiam nobilissimam hoc nostro saculo Deus tentati permisit, ut Christianae constantiae praeclarissimum specimen ederet, cum inter alios Martyres habere etiam meruit (quod nulla hactenus Christiana Gens habuit) ipsam Reginam, Catholica Fidei eximium Decus & ornamentum diutissimâ consessione in carcere ante probatam, nobiliori coronâ Martyrii auctam.Num 5, saith that their late Queen (viz. Mary) was the Glory of the Catholick Faith, and a Martyr: but I insist not on a matter so evident, the Advocat hath learn'dly made it out, and prevented all such attempts of D. M. and the like Enemies of our Countrey.

p. 46§. 12. He having thus abus'd Baron, prepares next for the depravation of Prosper himself, telling us, that all that can be inferr'd is, that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Roman mission. But Prosper's words are clear and without any such limitation. Palladius (saith he) is ordain'd by Pope Coelestine for the Scots that had already believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be their first Bishop. Behold our very Assertion, and why we should yeeld it, and in lieu thereof imbrace its contrary, I am yet to learn. He adds, that as soon as the Pope aspired to his unlimited and universal Supremacy, there were several Bishops sent to other Churches, already constituted, not to introduce Episcopacy, which was the Government of the universal Church, but rather a subjection to, and uniformity with the Roman See. But tho' all this were as true as some of it is false, it's nothing to the purpose, except he find good Authors, wherein a Bishop sent to a People, who not only were Christians, but also govern'd by Bishops before he came, is called without restriction their first Bishop.

And Boethius (continues D. M.) understood the History of Palladius in this sense, Which tho' 'twere yeelded, stands him in little stead, seeing all the Historians & Antiquaries of our Countrey, and, as we have heard from Card. Baron, with whom joins our learn'd Advocat, all men every-where else understand Prosper in the sense we plead for; believing that there was no Bishop in Scotland before Palladius.

But 'twill not satisfie D. M. to wrest Prosper's words, except he also at once overthrow his whole Chronicle, telling us, that it is not thought by the learned to be the genuine Work of Prosper. All he brings for this, is a conjecture of Petrus Pithoeus, fancying that the Chronicle ascrib'd to Prosper, & appended to that of Eusebius & Hierome, is of a different stile from that of a confus'd fragment, which he took for a part of the true Prosper's Chronicle, & wherein there is nothing concerning Palladius. But why the meer conjecture of one man should be enough to discredit that Chronicle so universally ascrib'd to Prosper, I leave to the Judgment of the learned. Vossius llDe historicis latinis. Page 229.indeed mentions this fragment, but if it be preferable to the vulgar Copy, determines not: neither, for ought I know, did ever any save, D. M. embrace this faint Conjecture of Pithoeus, and indeed there must be brought incomparably better Arguments before that confus'd fragment either be preferr'd to, or vye with the universally receiv'd Copy, immemorially, under Prosper's name, affixed to Hierome's p. 47Chronicle. Moreover, seeing this Schred is most disordered, and the words now under debate most universally believ'd to have been written by Prosper, 'tis highly probable, on supposition that this fragment is a part of the true consular Chronicle, that it once contain'd that passage, tho', throw mutilation, and either negligent or malicious transcribing, it hath now lost it: however the matter be, we are at no loss; for never was there a sentence more unanimou…ly ascrib'd to any Author than this concerning Palladius is to Prosper, and is by all, both ancient and modern acknowledg'dmmVide Usserii Brit. Eccles. Antiquates. Page 799.: so that all their endeavours to prove this passage supposititious, and that it belongs not to Prosper, or some else of equall Antiquity, and Authority, are the last efforts of meer desperation,

And indeed had they not in defiance of the whole Christian World and Truth it self, resolv'd per fas aut nefas to maintain that there was never a Church without Diocesan Bishops before the time of Calvine and Beza, they had never adventur'd their skulls on what is so hard, firmly bottom'd, and so universally believed. Have we not already heard fully, how the most knowing and zealous for Prelacy while they sustain'd the truth of our Countrey Histories, and yet labour'd to disprove what we now plead for, gave only, in favours of their latter Assertion, triffles so empty, and prevarications so apparent, that 'tis most presumable they believ'd nothing of what they said, & how the most learn'd of the Episcopal Perswasion acknowledg'd the truth of our Assertion, on supposition that any credit is to be given to our Historians, with whom also joins the learn'd Dr Stillingfleet nnIrenicum Part 2. Ch. 7., So (saith he) if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland, that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time. He gives also instances of other ancient Churches without Diocesan Bishops.

§. 13. It had been more manly therefore and honest for D. M. to have at least attempted a refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet, than to have dar'd his Adversaries to bring but one example of Churches without Diocesan Bishops, seeing he knew there were store already giv'n even by Episcopals, no less than Presbyterians, which hitherto stand unanswered. Let them also chaw their cude on that famous and well known Distinction of a first and second primitive Church acknowledged by Semeca and others, p. 48even Popish Divines, notic'd by Vsher ooAntiq. Brit. Eccles. Page 809.and embrac'd by Stillingfleet ppIren. Part 2. Ch. 6., in the former whereof Diocesan Episcopacy was not yet come in fashion, nor was any such thing as a Difference, either in Name or Office, between Bishops, and Priests or preaching Presbyters, then in Being. From all which judge with what brow D. M compares the account of our ancient Church-government to a supposed Fiction of the King of China, and his Presbyterian Lady.

And by this dealling of D. M. I am put in mind of another piece of his Art, whoqqPage 39, & 40. averres that all brought by Salmasius and Blondel to prove that Hierome was for the Scriptural and Apostolick Identity of of Bishop & Presbyter, and whatsoever is said by them, for Presbytry is refuted by D. Pearson in his Vindic…ae Ignatianae. I must not (saith D. M.) transcribe the acurat and unanswerable Dissertations of several learned Men, who have sufficiently exposed the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this head, particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester (vind▪ St. Ignat.) But no where did ever Dr. Pearson ingage with these Authors on this subject, nor does he any such thing, only he has some few excursions which touch not the marrow of the Controversie, and therefore is nothing to D. M's purpose, whether the advantage be yeelded to Salmasius and Blondel or to Dr. Pearson. He abuses also some passages of Hierome to prove him self-repugnant, but all such depravations had been by Iunius and others against the Papists, and by Stillingfleet in his Irenicum clearly discover'd, & the places unanswerably vindicated, even before he wrote his Vindiciae, which their vindications of Hierome, as also many other defences of the same Author brought by Salmasius and Blondel, he scarce once adventures to handle. But he has vindicated Ignatius, they will say, and this is enough. But suppose that he had as really evinced these Epistles to be the genuine Work of Ignatius, as he's groundlesly pretended to have don't, yet so far is their inference from being good, that as we shall hear, the quite contrary follows, viz. that in the Ignatian age, Bishops were all one with the Pastors of single Congregations. Hence it appears that this was one of D. M's pious Frauds to skarr his vulgar Reader (for others he could not hope to catch thereby) from the New Doctrine of Presbytry.