Defense of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland, Treatise (2 of 3)

Defense of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland · Treatise (2 of 3)

p. 19§. 23. Another thing whereby he endeavoureth to vilifie his Adversary (for that is the professed scope of this part of the Apology) is, he is for the divine right of Presbytry. If he, or any of his party, could disprove this Opinion (which I have not yet seen, nor expect to see) yet I think few, except this Author, will think this sufficient to render a man contemptible: Many with whom the Vindicator will not compare, and to whom I think the Apologist is not equal, are of the same Opinion: And have strenuously maintained it; and if it be so ridiculous to assert the Divine Right of Presbytry, what is it, to write and think so of Episcopacy? as the Apologist doth p. 23. where he calleth it the Apostolical Government: if it be Apostolical it must be Divine; for the Apostles were guided by a Divine, and infallible Spirit. If our Authour would have made us ridiculous on this h…ad; it might have been expected, that he should have refuted this opinion, and answered what is sa…d for it, with such strength and evidence, as was able to captivate the understandings of all men, except they were Idiots, as he seemeth to reckon the Presbyterians; but that was too hard a task for him; and therefore he wisely forbeareth to meddle with it. What he bringeth to prove the absurdity of …his Opinion, is far short of what others of his Party have said, and a very weak bottom to found his confidence upon. The first Presbyterians held Church Policy to be variable; and for this he citeth the Confession of Faith inserted in the Oath of the Test (it seems he knoweth the Confession of Faith of the first Scotch Protestants under no other designation) It is evident to any who readeth that Confession, …hat there is nothing said in that place of Government, whether Parity, or Prelacy; but of Policy, and order of Ceremonies; and Ceremonies here must needs be taken in a large sense, for External Rites common to other publick actions, beside Church Administrations. For they expresly condemn Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship. If another person had reasoned at this rate, it would have been improved by our Author, as a part of the Character of such a Writer. He taketh it very ill p 25. That the Presbyterian Church will not own themselves as Delegates of the State: As if they acted against the Sentiments of the whole Nation, and against common Sense; which do determine that they could have no power over the Episcopal Clergy but what they derived from the State: Our Author doth little consider w…om he disobligeth, by his loose talk. Even that part of the Church of England, to please whom, this and most of their Pamphlets are calculated: Tho' he will not read the Books of the Presbyterians, because they stir his Choler; I wish he would read a late piece about Christian Communion, on behalf of the deprived Bishops; where it is asserted and strongly pleaded, That the Church in matters purely Spiritual (and such the Government of the Church; is by him asserted to be, as much as the Administration of the Sacraments) is altogether independent on any other Power whatsoever: Wherefore there are other Men, as well as Presbyterians, so ridiculous, in this Writer's Eyes, as to deny Church Assemblies for Government to be Delegates of the State. For the Presbyterian Churches power over Episcopal Men, they have it by their office, over all the Members of the Church of Scotland; whatever be their opinion about Government: Tho' we own it, as the favour of the State, that we have its countenance in p. 20the exercise of this Government: Another of his wise reasons is, Calvin said, Honour and Reverenc… is due to Prelates, etiam hoc nomine, if they embrace the Reformation: Ergo. His Disciples are absurd, in being loath that any other Policy should prevail. Here is no shadow of consequent. Calvi… was as unwilling as we are, that Episcopacy should prevail; whatever respect he, or we, might have to the person of a Bishop, who embraceth the Truth. That it is in any part of the Vindication said, or insinuated, that they who are not for Presbytry, or the Divine Right of it, are not acquainted with the Spirit of God, is most false; and injuriously hinted, by our Author: He might have seen in the page that he citeth, it is said of some, on a quite different account. If he can, make it appear that his Antagonist doth thus write at random, let him Characterize him as he pleaseth.

§. 24. Another thing whereby he thinketh to make his Antagonist absurd and odious, is, hi… Rudeness and Vanity. p. 25. I hope he looketh on these two qualities as distinct: And is obliged to prove them both; whereas I find nothing that looketh like an attempt to prove the latter. But it will not be difficult to retort it on himself, by any who considereth the Supercilious strain of his writing, and his contempt of his Adversary: For the former, his proof is, The Vindicator representeth his Adversary as a Liar, and Villain: Tho' he cannot prove that the Author of the History of the General Assembly wrote one Lie: If his Informations were not exact, he is not to blame: But it cannot be proved that any information he got was false. A. He should have shewed where he was represented as a Villain, for I do not remember it, and no place is cited, unless he take a Liar and a Villain for the same. It is a pleasant Vindication from being his Information was not exact: Our Author here would shew his Critical Skill; but do we not in ordinary Speech call gross Falsehoods, Lies, not considering the knowledge or intent of the Speaker; And all that was said was, that the things wrote were Lies. Which was abundantly made evident, and is known to most in Scotland: Tho' our Author hath the brow to say, that it cannot be proved. To impute so absurd th…ngs to so publick a meeting, where were so many Witnesses to attest the Falsehoods of them, and to transmit these to Posterity in Writing; let every one judge by what softer term it could be called: Whether he, or his Informers be the Liars, we are little concerned: But Wise Men will think that neither can be excused, Beside, are there not many things instanced by the Vindicator, as asserted by his Adversary, in which it is hard to think that the Mans Mind did not contradict his Thoughts: As p. 36. They (the Presbyterians, and no exception or distinction made) divide from the Catholick Church in all Ages, they pervert and alter the nature of the Gospel, and teach another Gospel than what is to be found in Scripture. And p. 64. If you will take their (the Presbyterians) word for it, they are the only true Godly, and who only have a sense of Religion, and the practice of it. I hope he hath not these Assertions by Information; and therefore must bear the blame himself of such notorious Falsehoods, which it is impossible for any intelligent Man, who hath long conversed in Scotland, not to know to be such. What is said of the Councils leaving the Case of the Clergy to the determination of the Parliament, is strangely improved, viz. That it is the Vindicator's Doctrine, that the Council may stop, and dissolve the Laws. He would think it Vanity indeed, If I should impute the making of such an inference to his Ignorance in the due way of Arguing; wherefore I leave the Reader to ascribe it to what he thinketh most probable: Only I may adventure to say, it is absurd to infer the approbation of a Fact, or the asserting of a Legal Power for doing that Act, from a bare Narrating that such an Act was done: Which is all that the Vindicator can be Charged with, about that deed of the Council.

§. 25. Tho' our Author is pleased to take no notice of the most material passages in the Book that he refuteth, and which most directly promote the design of it: Yet he is very exact in picking up, here and there, a word dropt on the by, tho' of lesser importance, which himself reproacheth in his Antagonist; and which might more deserve the imputation of a creeping Genius then any thing he taketh notice of p. 55. to fix it on another. When one of the Pamphleteers refuted by the Vindicator, had called out Church Meetings for Discipline, Presbyterian Clubs, in Contempt; he is told we have us Clubs for drinking: Hence the Apologist wisely inferreth, He insinnateth that the Clergy had Clubs for drinking: Which yet he doth not endeavour to disprove; There might be proof enough of Clubs p. 21for drinking among some of them: It was never said, nor thought by us, that all of them are guilty that way. When a matter of Fa…t is denied, that Dr. Robison and Mr. Malcolm made application to Presbyterian Judicatures, to be received to a share of the Government: He will not affirm the truth of that passage; but he confidently averreth, as certainly known, that if he (Dr. Robison) had so done, he had been rejected; because he was one of the Ministers of Edinburgh. And he telleth us what I (nor I think none else) never knew, That the Party had determined to break through all Obstacles of Justice and Decency rather than suffer any of the Episcopal Clergy, or any who had made any advances of complyance, to continue in Edinburgh: And proveth this by the case of Mr. Willkie. This Diviner (by a kind of scientia media) can tell not only what hath been, and what should be, but what will be in futuris contingentibus, & conditionatis: Yea, he taketh upon him to tell of some resolutions taken, that never were so much as moved, or determined, in any Church Assembly. The instance he bringeth doth overturn and falsifie all that he here saith: For Mr. Willkie, who once complyed, is to this day preaching in Edinburgh, hath a publick Church, and a Congregation in it, is received by the Presbyterian Church to a share of the Government; and sitteth constantly in the Presbytry, and other Meetings. In the very next p. 27 he chargeth the Vindicator with that which hath all the marks of a deliberate and willful Lie, because he misrepresenteth, as is alledged, a matter of Fact, that he might have known. What then must we think of this Author, who not only affirmeth what every one knoweth to be false in matter of Fact, but magisterially determineth contrary to manifest and known Truth, about Mens purposes and inclinations: He would do well to be more sparing of his Censures, lest they recoil on himself.

§. 26. He will omit the Clownish buffoonry in the 4th page; and it was wisely done: For nothing of that kind can be instanced. But he telleth us p. 26. of Epithets given by the Vindicator, to his Adversary, impudent Slanderers, Villains, (this he often observeth, but pointeth to no place, nor do I remember it) Successours of Judas Iscariot, Rabshakes: And mocking is all the observation that he maketh on what he is offended at. If he had pleased to point to the places, I should have considered them; but I am confident to say, that where the Reader meeteth with any such words, he will find, that they are occasioned by some Story told, or some imputation laid on Presbyterians, that is either openly false, or sufficiently disproved; and there is no harm in giving things their true names: But if he can shew that ever I g…ve such Names to Episcopal Men, in commune (as he often doth to the Presbyterians) I shall bear all the blame that he shall please to load me with. Is it not strange that he speaketh with such Commotion, and Indignation, on occasion of such words used on just grounds; while this is his own ordinary Dialect: And that against his Adversaries in general. I shall give instances in particular parts of his Book (which he thought not fit to favour us with) Vanity, Partiality, Sophistry, are imputed to his Adversary as the Ornaments of the Title Page of this Apology. Enthusiastick pretences, ad page of the Contents. They have made Lies their refuge, p. 1. Truth doth not please their, unless it be dressed up in all the Colours of Falsehood, ibid. Presbyterians never forgive any Injury, p. 5. The body of the people in the West are Cunning, Avaritious, and Dissembling, beyond measure, ibid. In their (the Presbyterians) Divinity, things lawful in their nature, yes, things necessary, become unlawful when once commanded by lawful Authority, p. 6. Sullen and desperate Incendiaries, p. 12. They think that they who act against them, act against their own light, ibid. They justifie one Crime by another: And justifie their Tyranny from Success, as the Turks do, p. 13. They date their Conversion from the time they forbear to hear the Curates, p. 15. It is insinuated, that we think Snivelling necessary to make a great Saint: Many of the Ministers are Scandalous: Some Adulterers: Some Fornicators: Some Blasphemers: Whole Families Incestuous, ibid. No sin was preached against but Malignancy; and the Kings Prerogative Royal was possessed by the Kirk, p. 17. Sub finem, They fancy the Covenant to be the Tenure by which Kings hold their Crowns, p. 19. Margine. They who defended the Convention of Estates are called Vagabond Russians, p. 26. A Presbyterian had rather be accused of Adultery, Sodomy and Incest, then to be thought Ignorant, p. 31 ad finem: The Spirit of Contradiction eats out the Vitals of his Soul; and ever and ano… puts him upon silly and extravagant Impertinencies, p. 36. p. 22Pedling little Reformers p. 37. It is rare, in the West, to find a Presbyterians Child that can repeat the Creed, or ten Commandements, p. 42 Spite and Ill Nature, is ascribed to his Adversary. These are a few of the Flowers of his Rhetorick. I must transcribe much of his Book if I should mention all that is o… this strain. Now let the Reader judge where the Imputation of Rudeness, Ill Nature, False Accusation, and Lying, may be most justly fixed.

§ 27 He telleth us, p. 26. (in despight of the Instances to the contrary, that his Book is bespangled with) that he had rather prove the Vindicator a Liar than call him so. His proof is, The Vindicator said that the Viscount of Dundee, and others, had gathered together two thousand of the late Kings disbanded Forces at Edinburgh. He will have this to be no less than a willful and deliberate Lye; according to his usual Modesty, and Charity▪ He seemeth to suppose that the Vindicator will have them believe that the number was just so many and not one more or fewer: Otherwise his questions who saw them Mustered, and where? were impertinent; which were a Crime to surmise of one who looketh down from such a height on other Mortals, as this Soring Author doth. I was not in Edinburgh, nor in the Nation when this was acted, but had information from persons of as good Intelligence, and as much Veracity as any in the Nation: And not only (what he denieth) but 50 or 60 in Edinburgh will affirm; that there were then gathered together at Edinburgh, and about it, a great number of King James's disbanded Forces, which by a modest and rational estimate, might be reckoned to two thousand: And there was as great evidence as the thing was capable of, that Dundee, and others were upon a design to employ them against the Convention, and this was the ground of that prudent Care that was used, to call in some from the West, to guard the Convention: All this our Author laboureth not to disprove only, but to ridicule (beside the Topicks above mentioned) by others, as weighty. Is it like (saith he) that Dundee, at the head of two thousand, could be forced to retire from Edinburgh. A. He was no other way forced than that his designs were disappointed: And he thought he could effect them better in the Highlands: Whether he straight went; and gathered a greater Force than these two thousand: Many of whom it is like followed him thither▪ Again, when he went from Edinburgh he had not above thirty or fourty to attend his person. A. Doth this prove that he had no more in Edinburgh who were Friends to him, and his Designs? It was not yet time to appear in his full strength. The Vindicator might not give a check to Mr. Morer's confidence of the event of the High-land War, if Dundee had lived; but the Apologist must have a harangue on this, as if we judged all the Episcopal Men to be Atheists. We disown such a consequence. What he farther chargeth me with, about Dr. Canaries, is fully answered in a Letter to the Doctor, in answer to one that he had written to a Person, whom he supposeth to be the Author of the Vindication. It is there shewed that the Doctor gave advice, that they should apply to the Presbyterian Church; that it was evident to all, that their Application was on terms that they could not once dream could be satisfying: And this is called Feigned Obedience; which words are put in Italick Letters, as being a noted Word in Scripture, and contained the substance of what was to be expressed. The Apologist, I perceive, hath seen this answer to the Doctor's Letter; and yet is not pleased to answer what was brought to prove, that the whole of this Address was a Sham; and the obedience that they gave was Feigned Obedience. Some fancy they may triumph over their Adversaries, if they can discourse a little on a word or two of what is said while they leave the substance untouched.

§. 28. His Vindication of Mr. McMath, p. 28, 29. cometh next to be considered: Whom he saith; the Vindicator injures most atrociously. If it be so, he ought to crave pardon, and will do it: But I see no proof of any wrong done him. 1st. Saith our Apologist, he chargeth him with drunkenness. All that is said of that is, No sickness was seen on him, but what was the effect of his being drunk over night; which all that know him affirm was very customary to him. This the Apologist consureth (according to his solid and concludent way of reasoning) because two Gentlemen saw him that very night before he came from Edinburgh, without appearance of being drunk. Might not he drink to excess, after he parted with these Gentlemen? And this is no conjecture, for he was seen drunk, by the way going home, that night. What remains of his discourse about Mr. McMath; for answer to it, I give the very words p. 23of an Information I have from Leswade; attested by the subscription of one whose Veracity none that knoweth him will question. The Woman (whom the Apologist saith was hired by the Presbyterians, to say that Mr. McMath made Love to her) was never hired by the Presbyterians, nor perswaded by any Person, which she wi…l upon Oath declare before any Judge. The Man who ript up his own Belly had never any concern with Mr. McMath; he was a Man, destitute of Piety, and of a fretful disposition. John Clare, who was killed with the fall of a Tree, never beat Mr McMath, with Musket, nor any other Weapon. Mr. Borthwick, is yet alive and in his right mind, nor was he ever distracted in the least. Mr. Finlanson adhereth to what he said, and saith no greater Injury can be done him then to say that he denieth it. For the Certificate: Tho' the Apologist seemeth to lay such weight on it, as able to silence what hath been, or can be said, against Mr. McMath; Wise Men will judge that there are many places in which the worst of Men will get as great a number to own him in so large a Parish: And these are all who did own Mr. McMath, of 300 or 400 Adult Persons, of which that Parish consisteth. Other Objections might be made against it; but enough is said p. 30. he is angry with the Vindicator for saying, That the Episcopal Party made all the Essays they were capable of, to carry the Elections for the Convention. And this he refuteth solidly, after his manner: For in several shires the Episcopal Gentry declined to be Elected, particularly in Ross, where the Presbyterians cannot carry the Elections. If he had read the Book that he refuteth, with a more indisturbed mind, he might have seen, in p. 12. which he citeth, that all this, and more is yielded, viz. That they carried the Elections in some places. Neither do we deny, but that some of the Episcopal Party might shun to be Elected (as some did shun to sit when Elected) for the Shire of Ross; I do not pretend to know it so well as the Apologist doth: But one Instance will not infringe the Assertion, which speaketh only of many, or most part, and doth expresly except some. When he findeth, that the Instances he hath scraped together may prove too weak to prove the Vindicator so horrid and so empty a Person as he would represent him; he bringeth as strong an Argument, as any yet mentioned, and that is, he saith it positively and boldly: To be short (saith he) his Book is every where interspersed with the silliest shuffling and Tergiversation. Yet another Instance of the Vindicators rudeness, and flying in his Adversaries Fa…e, and giving him the Lye, when it were enough to say that he is not acquainted with the Matter of Fact; Mr. Morer had asserted, that some sat in the Convention who were not infest in their Estates: This he denieth (these are the Apologists words) and telleth us, this was a sufficient answer because no Person was named. Is not this a formidable Argument to prove this Assertion? Who can stand before a Man of such a Talent? Where is the Rudeness? Where is the flying in Mr. Morer's Face? And giving him the Lie? The Vindicator's Inconsistencies is the Ta…k he next undertakes p. 30, 31. He finds (or fancies) three or four of them in that Book: One is, he hath treated his Adversaries as Brethren; yet he insinuateth that such Disputes with the Episcopal Party is but struglings between the Seed of the Woman, and the Seed of the Serpent. A. Where is this insinuated? Here is mention made indeed, of that struggle: But is it any where hinted that he debateth against the Episcopal Party? Is it not rather evident from the whole strain of the Book, that it is some Writers of that Party, that had filled their Pamphlets with Lies and Railing, that many Sober Men of their own side are ashamed of: And it is shewed, in the same place, that he citeth, §. 6. of the Preface; how consistent the sharpness that sometimes he useth is with that Brotherly respect that is due to such unfair Dealers: Our Lord did not disown Peter, tho' he called him Satan to reprove his Errour: Yea, we may treat even them as Brethren, who are justly Excommunicated by the Church. Another inconsistency is, He is acquainted with but few of the Matters of Fact: Yet he taketh not things on hear say, or common talk. This is pure trifling: Where one hath a Matter of Fact on the Testimony of two or three Persons of known Veracity; and, may be, witnessed upon Oath, before a Judge: Is not here a Medium between Personal Knowledge, and Common Talk: Wherefore there is here no Inconsistency, nor Contradiction, which any one can imagine; except such a one as the Authors of the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence; who objecteth the same. That the Materials of the Vindication are but the Testimonies of them who were the Actors, or Abettors of the Western Villanies (the civil word that this severe p. 24Censurer of Rudeness useth) is most false. The story about Mr. George Henry was not built on common talk only; but on the Testimony of one who pretended personal knowledge, and if it were a mistake, it can no way disparage the other Historical Passages, because it tended no way to reflect on Mr. Henry, but rather to vindicate him, and no stres… of any thing in debate did lye on it. Another mighty Inconsistency; He telleth us they do not look on King William as an Idolater, and yet some Preach that the Church of England is Idolatrous: It is pity to trouble the Reader with such stuff, but some Mens mouths must be stopped. Here is no Inconsistency, unless he could shew that either the Author hath said both these: Or that all Presbyterians hold them both. If farther answer to this were needed, it should be brought. Lastly, He will not allow that the Clergy who addressed the Commission had any wit (I know not where that is said or hinted; tho' I am sure they did not act wisely, in that matter) and yet their Contrivances were founded on deep Consults. I will not impute to this Reveverend Author that ignorance of a Contradiction, that some will gather from this passage. May not some who have much wit, be far from using it, in some cases? Again, may not Men who have little wit, have what they are to act concerted for them, by them who have more wit? We know also that all deep Consults are not wise Consults. I hope our Author hath much more Wit, and Learning too then he useth in this and several other passages of his Book: And yet I am far from thinking (whatever dirt he is pleased to cast on others) that he is destitute of either.

§. 29 Our Authors next work from p. 31. to the end of 37. is to disparage Mr. Rule, whom he treateth with a great deal of insolent Contempt. Some may think this whole discourse impertinent, and wide from the m…ter in hand. For the Vindication may contain solid Reason, and hard to be refuted; yea, the Presbyterians may be generally, Men of worth, tho' Mr. Rule were as bad, or as Ridiculous, as our Author can call him, or wish him to be▪ And if Mr. Rule, have said any thing absurdly in a piece he wrote against Dr. Stillingsleet, what is that to make either the Histories incredible, or the Reasons unvalid, which are contained in the Vindication. This Conduct will readily make some to guess at what moved this Author so to digress: That either he had little to fill his sheets with (tho' he often brags of plenty) or that he is glad of any occasion given, or that can be snatched, to meet with a Person whose place he envieth, whatever thoughts he have of his Principles. I shall say nothing in answer to the civil words he frankly bestoweth on him; such as Proud and Supercilious, p. 33. Nothing so palpably ignorant and foolish, ibid. Resenteth the least contradiction to his Nonsence, with Bitterness and Indignation. Thrasonical boasting, p. 34. Silly and extravagant Impertinencies: A Mormo of a Scholar, p. 36. Arrogant and Presumptuous, p. 37. I neither incline to resent these, nor may safely do it, considering in what a fit of Passion (above Indecency) it put him, when a very modest Apology was made against some such Defamations before; and that not against one Man, but against all the Presbyterians: That (p. 31. ad finem) a Presbyterian had rather be accused of Adultery, Sodomy, or Incest, than to be thought Ignorant: If these be the words of Truth or Soberness, the Reader will judge. I shall also say but little of the things that he chargeth my Friend with: Nor will I trouble the Reader with a Vindication of him, or of my self; farther than the interest of Truth doth acquire. The first thing he quarrelleth (as also his Friend the Author of the History of the General Assembly had done) is, That Rational Defence of Nonformity, p. 164. he had expounded a passage of Jerome, contrary to the Sense that commonly it is taken in: And this he insulteth upon, as a sign of the most unparalelled Ignorance. But as wise as he will think (even supposing it to be a mistake and that it cannot be defended) that it is consistent with more Learning than ever Mr Rule pretended to, or than our Apologist is Master of. Some Learned men have had odd apprehensions of some things, and which easily might be refuted. Grotius the wonder of his Age for Learning and for Critical Skill in particular, yet will have foreign 1 Cor. 12.28. to be Diocesan Bishops: So also Dr. Hammond, but he giveth a ground for his Opinion; that is very singular, foreign (saith he) Significat curam rei alicujus gerere: And so also he expoundeth that word Luke 1.54. which is contrary, or at least without Countenance from, all Lexicographers, Criticks, and other Expositors: If such a great Light may have a Spot, why may not also Dim Tapers; without being a meer Snuff. Again, if Mr. p. 25Rule were answering for himself, it is like he would say, that, Veneration for this Learned Father, did drive him into that untrodden path; who cannot otherwise be defended from contradicting, by that expression, the whole of that Epistle, in which it is found: For if Ordination of Presbyters be not in the power of Presbyters, but only of the Bishop, as the sentence now in debate doth plainly import if it be expounded in the ordinary way: This destroyeth the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters: Which he had been largely, and of purpose proving: Or we must say (which is also mentioned in the place cited) that Jerome wrote sometimes his own Opinion, and sometimes that of others: and that so intermixed, as that it is hard for the Reader to discern them, as himself confesseth in a passage there also cited: And if he use such Liberty in matters of Opinion, why not, in taking the same word in divers significations? And it is certain, that not only all Lexicographers give the signification of ordinare; but in the Scripture foreign is turned, ordino, 1 Cor. 7.17. And that signification of it is not unknown in Antiquity, Cent. Magd 1 lib. 2. c 4. p. 205. Edit. Basil 1564. Evangelium non tollit politicas ordinationes, per se non impias. I hope this is not meant of ordaining Persons to Office, but ordering and appointing the due management of Affairs. The Reasoning by which he maketh Mr. Rule's Exposition to be inferred is ridiculous enough: But it is none of his, but the Apologist's own. From what is said, all the instances of the use of that word for potestative mission, appear to be inconcludent; for they only prove that that is the more usual signification of it: Which none deny: And the Ridiculous Sense that he putteth on this place of Jerome, from the use of the Word elsewhere, is Inconsequential: For the Sense given may, and doth, quadrat here, tho' it do not in some other places. Ye may either take Jerome's word Ordinatio in the more Grammatical, and proper, tho' less usual Sense; and make the passage Congruous to the whole of his discourse, in which it is: Or in the more frequent, but less proper Sense, and look on this Sentence as none of his own, but what others said, and he had set down in his Adversaria: And so it cannot derogate from his Opinion about Bishops, expressed in that Epistle. The Reader hath his Option▪ The Cause that Mr. Rule pleadeth, and his Reputation, are safe either way.

§. 30. He lasheth the Vindicator, very severely, with all Rods that his Invention, and the help of Latin Authors that he had read, can afford, because when his Adversary complained of the Desolations of Colledges by the late Change, and of the Insufficiency of them who were put in the room of such as were Ejected; he very modestly denied that they had any thing to brag of; did appeal to the esteem of Impartial Men; and to the Indicia of Learning any had given, this is wound up to the high degree of Thrasonical Boasting: As if his Party were Modest and Humble Men, when they Monopolize all Learning to themselves, and would make the World believe that it will dye with them: But Presbyterians are proud if they Mutter; and do not tamely assent when they are trampled on with the greatest Insolency. I doubt not but the Apostle's Enemies said the same of him, when he maintained his Zeal, and Diligence: nor that Job's angry Friends did the like, when he pleaded for his Wisdom, and Understanding▪ He should also have considered that there was no Comparison made of any one Man with another, but of one Party with another; and that he cannot fix Self Commendation on any Man (so that his Citations to that purpose are wholly impertinent) but one Man commending those of his way. And I am still confident to say (let him make what use of it he will) that tho' the Person he sheweth his great displeasure against, were as insignificant as he imagineth; yet the rest who enjoy Places in Universities in Scotland need not be ashamed of their Sufficiencies, whether considered with respect to their Work, or with comparison to their immediate Predecessours. His three Instances of Mr. Rule's speaking false Latine, as himself calleth them Impertinencies p. 36. so do I judge them: If they were all true they are nothing to the determination of the debate between the two Parties of the Church, now in Scotland; and tho' he doth not think himself above a possibility of such escapes; and hath heard some who pretend to more Volubility in the Latine, and in the English too, and value themselves upon it, lapse into as sensible blunders (for foreign) yet he doth positively deny that, to his knowledge, or what he hath ever heard from any Person, there is truth in any one of these Instances; and that this Apology gave him the first p. 26notice of them. Beside, it is evident that the Apologist's Eye and Ear Witnesses have misinformed him, as to the first Instance. For he having had Praelections, for some time, de Idololatria; hath insisted on the Idolatry of the Heathen, of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times, and of the Papists … but hath not meddled at all, either with the Superstition or Idolatry of the Church of England ▪ Only the Contriver of the Story was pleased thus to circumstantiate it. For the other two Instances, our Apologist sheweth as little Skill in Critical Learning as he thinketh others to have in speaking of Latine: (tho' he could not forbear the pedantry of trying it, by a sought occasion) For if he consult his Lexicons he will find that Requiro doth signify to require, or demand: Whatever it signify beside, tho' I deny not, but he who is accused might, and I am perswaded did, express the thing in other terms more common than this. His Criticism on the third Instance is also Childish; For Statum Regni, signifieth the state and condition of the Nation; or the present constitution, or settlement of it. And can no ways be put for Ordines Regni: But that our Author, or his Informers, knew the Speaker's mind, that he so intended it, as they would have it: But of this too much. He mentioneth also the same Author asserting a docretum praeteritum & praedamnatum, which I confess, were it truly chargeable upon him, he ought to be ridiculed for Nonsence; and censured for Blasphemy: But because our Author, fond of this occasion of triumph over his Adversary, insisteth again, and more fully on this p. 51.52. I shall reserve my answer to this Charge, till I come at that place of his Book. Whether he hath shewed that good nature and Christian Modesty, that he speaketh of p. 37. in hiding and extenuating the weaknesses of others, or the contrary temper, in false accusations, in needless exposing, and aggravating these supposed defects; and in most bitter lashes of his Pen, on occasion of this his apprehension; let the Reader judge.

§. 31. He charge…h his Adversary most injuriously, p. 37 with apparent Shufflings and Tergiversations: And for proof, bringeth this Instance, That when some of the Clergy were beat on the Head, and Legs, and others made to go through deep Waters, in the midst of Winter; he looketh on these as no great Injuries. If he had pointed the Reader to the places where these Histories are mentioned; his own Eyes might have informed him that this is not true: It is neither said, nor insinuated, that these were no great Injuries: Tho', may be, some of the aggravating Circumstances, with which they are told, are said to be false. Another thing in the same and the next page, he maketh a hideous outcry about, viz. That Ecclesiastical Judicatories that enquire into Scandal are not obliged to follow the forms of other Courts. This is not fair dealing (to say no worse) my Assertion was neither so Universal nor so Positive: The words were; For the former two, it is questionable whether these things, viz. Telling who was the Accuser and hearing the accused before the Validity of the Libel be sustained) be required in a Process about Scandal, before an Ecclesiastical Judicatory: But whether it be so or not, I am sure it was otherwise done, for the most part, then he affirmeth. As I then spake doubtingly of this matter, so I am not like to be determined by the force of the Apologist's Arguments: That forms are appointed to prevent Forgeries, and Combinations: That they are the External Fences of Justice and Equity: That this is the most intolerable slavery of the Inquisition. There are indeed some forms which may have such use: But that all the forms of Civil Courts are such, or that these mentioned are of that consideration, he will find it hard to prove: Without which nothing is said to the purpose: If the Crime charged on any person be indeed of weight to infer a Censure; and if it be sufficiently proved: I see not how Forgery, Combination, or the Slavery of the Inquisition (where a Man must be his own Accuser, and Witness against himself) can have place. That this is no singular Opinion of the Vindicator (he had given opinion about it) nor of the Scotch Presbyterians, he may see, …ho will read Synodic in Gall reformat: Discipline: cap. 5. Can. 12. All possible care shall be taken that these Formalities, and terms that are used in Courts of Law, may be avoided in the exercise of Church Discipline. One may often meet with this same Principle in the History of these famous Churches▪ There are some modes of managing Affairs which are built on Reason, common to all Societies: These, no doubt, the Church also is obliged to observe: Others, tho' Reasons may be alledged for them, yet these are such as respect especially the preservation of Mens Civil Rights; and of these I understand p. 27the above mentioned Canon: And these, many Judge needless, if not unfit, to be used in Church Discipline: Where the design is, to convince the Sinner, and preserve the Purity of the Church. If a strict adherence to Law forms were necessary in Church Discipline; it were needful that all Ministers and Elders should study a Stile Book and the practick of Civil Courts: Which I think few will averre. Next p. 38. He layeth to the Vindicator's charge, shameful shuffling (a Metaphor taken from playing at Cards, which he useth ad nauseam) because he saith p. 50. That they (the Presbyterians) expressed, as much as they were capable, their disl…ke of the Toleration granted by King James to the Papists, when mean while their Agents at Court wrote Books for repealing the Penal Statutes against Papists. This were indeed blame worthy, if he could make it appear, that any who wrote such Books were Agents for the Presbyterians; or had allowance from them for what they did: But the Vindicator and Presbyterians too, are clear, if it appear (as it is certainly true) that this was generally disliked by the Presbyterians ▪ What he addeth out of p. 6. of requiring, that they to whom we will allow Toleration can shew as good warrant for their way; is disingeniously, and lamely represented: For it is not said, we will allow Toleration to none else: And no more was meant but that there are some ways so apparently absurd, and unreasonable, that we think they should not be Tolerated: It was also added, Who use their liberty with the same moderation and peaceableness: On both which accounts we think Papists ought not to be tolerated, to exercise their Idolatries, and teach their Heresie. He concludeth this part of his Book, with the same Charity and Civility that hath often been observed in it, viz. He (the Vindicator) is so deeply tinctured with the sullenness of his Faction, that he'll rather question whether the Body of the Sun be Luminous, than admit the least scruple concerning the Divine Right of Presbytry. I have no answer to such talk, but leave it to the Reader to judge whether this be Disputing or Railing.

§. 32. The next thing that the Apologist thinketh fit to take notice of is, the Theological Reasonings that he findeth, here and there, in the Vindication, not insisted on but occasionally touched: And that as occasion was given by the Adversaries. If he had pleased to argue closely and fairly on these heads, I should like better to enter the Lists with him, on such subjects, than on what he hath hitherto led me into. The venemous Squibs that he blameth me for, I should have examined whether they deserve that name; and have craved pardon for them if they indeed were such: But neither of these I can do; for he hath neither told us what they are, nor where to be found. The first Controversie that he engageth in, is about the observation of Christmass, p. 39. on which he discourseth to p. 41▪ The most difficult part of my task in answering him, is to pick out of his long Harangue, what hath any shew of Argument: For I have seldome read so many words, on a controverted point of Divinity, in which there was less of Argument, and the Reasons that are hinted, are so confusedly interlarded with what is little to the purpose; and so distinct one from another, and there are so many little digressions, and some of them false History, that it is not easie to follow him: But I shall endeavour to overlook nothing that hath any seeming weight against what we hold. I had denied, that the Court of Heaven celebrated the Anniversary of Christs Nativity. This he ridiculeth: Because the Angels (Luke 2.23.) Celebrated the Nativity of Christ, and the Church, in imitation of them, do yearly Celebrate it. A. The question is not, whether we ought to thank God for the birth of Christ, as the Angels did: But whether a day should be separated from the rest of the days in the year: And made Holy by Men, when God hath made no day Holy but one in a week, which the Angels did not do. Another strong Argument he hath is, Might not the Church take care that this glorious mystery should never be forgotten. A. No doubt but she might, and should: And the Lord hath appointed a way how this should be done; while the History of this Glorious mystery is written in the Scripture; which the Lord hath appointed to be read, and explained, and applyed, by his Ministers to the end of the World: But hath not injoyned it to be done by observing a Holy day for it: The question is not about the Commemoration of it, but whether this Commemoration should be by an Ordinance of God, or by an Appointment of Men? We know that Christ hath appointed his death to be Commemorated; and therefore we Celebrate his Holy Supper for that end; because he hath instituted p. 28it: But we do not keep Good-Friday in remembrance of Christs death, because he hath not injoyned it. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo. Judicoque (saith Danaeus) quotidie nobis, in Evangelii praedicatione, nascitur, circumciditur, moritar, resurgit Christus. Another Argument, or what he pleaseth to call it, is, Could the Christian Church take more effectual methods to preserve the memory of it than by this Anniversary Festival. A. Yes, viz. By reading and hearing the word: For I am of opinion (and must be so till I see stronger Reasons than any here produced) that Christs Institutions are more effectual methods toward attaining what they are appointed for, then mens devices can be. His next Argument is from the Antiquity of this usage: And indeed herein lyeth the strength of his Cause, such as it is: And therefore we have this over and over again; his Pages are full of the Universal Church, the practice of all Nations, &c. I have not met with an Author who useth to hard words (both for the confidence and for the bitterness of them) and so soft Arguments; but seing his Weapons are so blunt, he doth well to put to the more strength. If the Church (saith he) did not use it from the days of the Apostles we desire to know when it began▪ A. This is iniquum postulatum: Nor are we obliged to pitch on the precise time of its beginning: Both because of the obscurity and defectiveness of the History of the first Ages of the Church; and because most of these Superstitions had no solemn, or observable beginning, to be universally used; but crept in by degrees: Being first used by some Churches and after by more: And being first an Embrio, and in process of time, lickt into the form that they now have. Again, we can prove, by the silence, both of Scripture, and of other Church History, that this Festivity was not used for three hundred years after Christ, and a notable confirmation of this Argument may be taken from the notice that is taken of Easter in these times; and not a word of Christmass. The reason was, because many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs (one of which the observation of Easter was) but had not then begun to devise new Holy days of their own. Cent. Madg. 7. ca. 6. p. 136. edit Basil 1564. De festis aliis praeter pascha, pentecosten, & diem Dominicum neque in Asianarum, neque in Africanarum Ecclesiarum Historiis aliud quicquam reperies. Spanhemius Epitom. …ag. ad Hist. nov. Test. Saec. 2. sect. 4. pag. 30. Citeth Valesius, confessing nec omnes nec ubique Christianos convenire solitos aliis diebus praeter Dominicam. And Saec. 3. sect. 4. p 364. Festi dies (Inquit) nondum alii Christiani ex Tertulliano, Origine, & genuinis monumentis, praeter Dominicam, pascha & pentecosten. The first mention which that diligent Searcher into Antiquity findeth of Christmass is, Saec. 4. sect 4. p. 404. Festum (inquit) Theophaniae, vel Epiphaniae, id est. Nativitatis Christi, celebratum nunc omnibus ecclesiis orientis ad 6 Januarii tesie Epiphan. in occidentali vero ecclesia ad 25 Decembris, qui mos, circa aetatem Chrysosiomi in oriente quoque obtinere caepi…, ex ejus homilia in die Nativ. to. 5. And it is observable, how saintly Spondanus, the Epitimator of Baronius, speaketh of this observation; anno Christi 58. Sect. 36. Apostolici viri reliqua festa addiderunt (viz. besides the Lord's day) but bringeth no Vouchers for what he saith, but August. and Faustus In whose time we deny not that many of the Holy days were in use: He addeth, Quamvis haec ipsa ab Apostolis instituta & legatur in qualiscunque authoritatis constitutionibus Clementis, & precredate ▪ In Scotland this Festivity was not observed till after Palladius had brought in Bishops. A grave Author informeth us, that it began in King Arthur's time; about 521 when he wintered at York, they thought fit to put off the Melancholy time of Winter in Feasting and Mirth: Which is the Celebration of Yule that is most observable at this day. And even when the Holy days were observed, the Church bound no man to that observation: As the Magdeb. shews out of Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5.

§. 33. Our Author goeth on in his proofs. And (saith he) tho'it had not been from the beginning, the Christian Church may continue the practice of it, on the best Reasons. When we hear these Reasons, we shall consider them; but instead of them he diverteth into answering an objection. If he can shew good Reason (much more if he bring the best Reason) why the Church should either begin or continue this Solemnity, we shall cheerfully yield the Cause. The objection he taketh notice of is: It is asked (saith he) if our Saviour was born on the 25 of December. His answer is, This is Childish and Impertinent; and pleadeth, that it was not needful to determine whether it was the day of Christs Nativity. Against this I argue first; Was it ever heard of, that the Birth day of any person was kept, p. 29but on the day on which the Person was born. Will this Author say, that it is in the power of the Church to appoint any day in the year for this Commemoration, as she may certainly do, if she did appoint December 25 at first? They who plead for Anniversary Holy days, use to reason with more apparent Cogency; that the providence of God by chusing such a particular day for some eminent work, such as the Birth of Christ, doth lay a Foundation for the Churches …etting apart that day for commemorating that work. So Hooker Eccles. Polit. lib. 5. § 69. Christs extraordinary works (saith he) have sanctified some times, and advanced them, so that they ought to be, with all Men that honour God, more holy then other times. And afterward, as Christs extraordinary presence sanctifieth some places, so his extraordinary works sanctifie some times. And if so, the Church in chusing another day, doth act without Warrant, and Arbitrarily; as she doth also absurdly, in neglecting the day that was so signalized. And it is, at least, a probable Argument, that the Lord would not have a recurrent particular day, observed on the account of Christs Birth; in that he hath concealed from us what day it was, on which Christ was born. He hath instituted, that the day of the Week on which our Lord rose from the dead, should be kept holy; and therefore hath not left us to guess what day he rose upon; but expresly told us that he rose the first day of the Week. Another objection he answereth is, the Vindicator thinks that such an Anniversary day is not to be kept by Gods appointment. His answer is, Hath not God appointed us to obey the Apostles, and their Successors, our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers, to the end of the World? Here is shuffling with a witness: The Apostles, and they whom he is pleased to call their Successours, are confusedly put together, to hide the nakedness of his Answer. I confess we are commanded to obey the Apostles, because they were infallibly guided: And so their Commands are the Commands of Christ; but I deny the Apostles instituted the Holy days that he pleadeth for: For their Successours (real or pretended) I deny that we are commanded to obey them farther than they bring Divine Warrant, (either positive, by Institution, or natural) for what they teach, or injoyn. It is pleasant to observe, that our Learned Apologist is forced to use the same Argument for Christmass, that the Papists use for blind Obedience to all that their Church injoyneth. For farther answer, he asketh, May not they order the publick Solemnities, and Returns of Gods Worship. A. If by ordering, he meaneth determining the Circumstances that are needful to be determined, and are not determined in Scripture; we grant they may: Such as appointing what hour we should meet for publick Worship: or what day to meet for Fasting, or Thanksgiving, when providence doth, in a special manner, call to that Work: But if he mean, that they may appoint days not appointed by the Lord, to be perpetually recurrent; we say they may not: Because we see no such power granted to the Church: And this were a Power to make some days so Holy, as they could never be applyed to civil use: Such discrimination of days the Lord hath reserved in his own hand.

§. 34. That this Regulation hath a tendency to preserve and propagate the great Truths of the N. T. is neither true (it is often seen to have the contrary effect; to propagate Prophaness and Atheism) nor can it inferr any thing to our purpose: for it is not the natural tendency of a thing, but the Institution of Christ, and his blessing following on that, which can make any thing conducive to Religious ends: We must preserve and propagate Christs truths by his own means; not by Mens devices. He telleth us, If all Ecclesiastical Constitutions had been written in the Bible they could not have been read in a thousand years: And that either immediate revelations behoved to be continued, or the ordering of publick Solemnities must be left to Reason: A. The distinction above used doth take off the strength of this Argument: Ordering all Circumstances could not be written, they are so various, therefore they are left to Reason; but perpetual sequestring a day from Civil use, is more than a Circumstance: And surely a short Chapter in the N. T. might have contained all the Holy days that the Popish, or Episcopal Party have thought fit to make universally binding to all Christians; as the 23d. chap. of Leviticus containeth all that the Jews were obliged to observe. The Vindicator is severely lashed p. 40. Sub finem, For bringing a Latine Sentence (tho' out of Augustine) to excuse from not observing any Holy days, save what are injoyned in Scripture: As if (saith the Apologist) Nonsence could change its nature by being put into Latine ▪ It seems we poor Mortals may not meddle with Latine; himself p. 30and some others have the Monopoly of it, and often he bringeth Latin Citations out of Authors less to be regarded than the excellent Augustine: If we cite a Greek Author out of a Latine Translation, that offended him p. 35. And now when Augustine is cited in the Language he wrote in, here is still matter of quarrell. We know not how to please him, and the ordinary effect of such difficulty is, to make one regardless of pleasing them who are so humoursom. If this Sentence be Nonsence. either in it self, or as applyed. Augustine must answer for it: For he useth it to the same purpose▪ But the Nonsence lieth in this: The question is not (saith the Apologist) about Articles of Faith, but concerning the Constitutions of the Universal Church: If it might be said, without provoking him to the Indecencies of Passion, it is Nonsence indeed to apply this Sentence to the Articles of Faith; which are not the Jussa of Religion; but the observation of Holy days belongeth to that head if to any thing that can be called Religious. It is not a day being Anniversary (as he dreameth) that is the ground of our Scruple: For we do not disallow Anniversary days for any Civil work or Solemnity: But that Men should separate, by their own Authority, one day of the year from the rest, by sequestring it from Civil use (for which the Lord hath allowed us all the six days of the week) and dedicating it to Religious imployment, we think this belongeth to God alone. It is a strange fancy that Christmass, and such days, are needful for Educating our Posterity in that Faith which we believe: As if Gods Ordinances were not sufficient for that end, without the addition of Mens devices. It is as wild an apprehension, that it is Enthusiasm to be against such days. I will not vilifie him so much as to question whether he understandeth what is Enthusiasm: (tho' he is not sparing in shewing such respect to others) but I hope it may be said, he did not consider what it is, when he put that Epithete on this Opinion; and on being for the Jus divinum of Presbytry. For we do not pretend to any knowledge in these, but what we build on Scripture, and Reason; we plead no immediate Revelation. If he can prove our Grounds to be insufficient, he may conclude our Opinions false; but not that they are Enthusiastick: All the Divines that I have read on that subject take Enthusiasm for a pretension to immediate Revelation, or Inspiration, or Instinct, or Afflatus, of things that they who pretend to it can give no other ground for: And even Plutarch calleth it Instinctus divinus: de defect; Oracul. c' 67. If he can either prove that we pretend to this, or that we bring no other grounds for what we affirm, let him brand us with Enthusiasm at his pleasure: That all the subdivisions of Dissenters in England are for Anniversary Holy days, is so well known to be false, that I wonder he should insinuate so much, without blushing▪ That the Anniversary day for the burning of London, is observed by them all with Fasting and Prayer, is not true, for any thing that I know. And if it were true, will he also say that they have sequestred that day from all Civil Employment, and dedicated it to Religion: If he say not this the Case is not paralell to what we now debate about.

§ 35. His conclusion of what he had discoursed is, That it is dangerous, if not impious, to separate from the Church, in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning, and in all Countries, where the name of Jesus hath been worshipped: Such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles, or Apostolick times. Here are big words: If the strength of his forgoing Reasons were but proportioned to the confidence of his Assertion; our Cause must fall to the ground. But the Reader will judge whether any one word of this Thras…nick triumph be true, or have sufficient foundation, in what he hath proved. He telleth us (but I know not to what purpose) that the knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the light of Reason: Therefore such Constitutions (as the reason of all Mankind is agreed in) have nothing in them contrary to the purity of our Religion. It is tedious to refute, or to read such loose Arguings, of which the meanest Logician might be ashamed. We deny not the use of Reason in Religion, viz. For understanding what is revealed, and for drawing Native Consequents from these great truths: But that the use of Reason is to appoint new Ordinances, or Means of Grace, that Christ hath not appointed, we deny. And if our Author do not assert that, he saith nothing for his Holy days: And if he do not prove it, his Argument is insignificant. For Holy days are such means, if we may believe this Author, who speaketh of them as the means of propagating the Christian Faith. That these Constitutions are agreed on by all Mankind, is a supposition as far from p. 31Truth, and from Modesty, as any thing can be, He hath not yet done with this subject, but falleth on it afresh, in a discourse two pages long; which he calleth a short digression: Wherein any thing that looketh like Argumentation hath been, many times, to far greater advantage, proposed by others of his way; and as often answered by Men of our side: So that I wonder that so high a pretender, is not ashamed so to tris…: Some things indeed he hath that are new, viz. Some Historical passages which are as far remote from Truth, as Darkness is from Light. Let us hear the particulars: He pleadeth p 41. that Anniversary Solemnities may be used in the Worship of God; tho' they have been abused to the Worship of Idols: A. We have better Arguments against these, and other Human Ceremonies, than from the abuse of them by Papists, and Pagans: But even this wanteth not its weight, only we never used this Argument against the use of things necessary; and therefore the Author doth unwisely mention the Sun and the Seasons; the use of which we must not lay aside, whoever abuse them: But of things that are of no necessity; such as all Human Ceremonies are acknowledged to be, by the most Learned of the Patrons of them. Our Argument hath yet greater strength, if we consider, not only that the Holy day now debated about was kept by the Heathens, in Honour of Julius Caesar; and hence called Yule in Scotland: And is still abused by many Superstitious Fopperies among the Papists: But is generally, by the far greater part of the Protestant Observers of it, spent in Idleness, Feasting, and Playing; and by very many, it is horribly profaned by all manner of Excess and Debaucheries. It is a wonderful confidence: Do we not see (saith he) all Nations agree in this, that Publick Solemnities and Anniversary Festivities, and Fasts, are necessary to the Being, and Beauty of Religion: So p. 41. and p. 42. we ought to remember that the stated Festivals, and Fasts, of the Church, do preserve, and increase our Mortification, ibid. The stated periods of Fasting oblige the most stubborn, and impenitent to think of his Soul; and the visible practices of the Church preach Repentance, more effectually, and make more lasting impressions, then the loose and indefinite Homilies of Self conceited Men. And p. 43 he imputeth to the neglect of Fasting among Protestants, the hinderance of the Reformation of the Grecian Churches. And ibid. The publick seasons of Devotions are the Catechism of the People. A few Remarks, to expose these flights of his Fancy. First, What could be more said of the Word and Sacraments, and other Ordinances instituted by Christ? What greater Elogies are given to them in Scripture? For indeed he saith as much as Christmass and other Holy dayes, are the power of God to Salvation. 2. This is contary to the Sentiments of all that ever wrote on this subject: Who agree, that these Ceremonies are indifferent things: And yet he will have them necessary, and that not only to the beauty of Religion, but to the being of it. 3. Then it seems there was no Religion in the Apostolick Church; nor among the Waldenses; nor in Geneva; and several other Reformed Churches: I add not the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, in all the Ages of it; because he will hardly allow any thing of Religion to be among us. This is his Christian Charity, of which he talketh: He doth indeed damn all them to Hell who observe not Christmass. He is the first of this Opinion, and I hope he shall be the last. 4. If all this were true, it were impossible that Irreligion, Impenitency, or Immorality, could be (at least, be frequent, and abundant) in a Church where these forms are used: Which I hope none will say, who have lived in England, or in Scotland, or in the Romane Communion. It is but suitable to his Genius to vilisie the Preaching of Presbyterians, as the loose and indefinite Homilies of Self conceited Men: But it had been fit to have told us whether there be any Preaching that can equal these forms, in efficacious working on the Soul▪ If this be not what the Pharisees are reproved for; making void Christs Ordinances for Mens Traditions; I know not what can be so represented. 5. If the neglect of Fasting among Protestants, hinder the Reformation of the Greek Churches; why doth not the frequent Fasts in the Popish Church (with which they have more occasion to converse than with Protestants) contribute to advance that Reformation. 6. Seeing he is pleased to digress from Feasting to Fasting; he might know, that real Fasting used to be more frequent among the Presbyterians than among the Prelatists; for their set Fasts of Lent and Good Friday, how few among them do observe them?

p. 32§. 36. He telleth us next, of Anniversary Holy days among the Jews, besides these which God appointed; and yet not reproved p 41. and 42. and he instanceth in the Fasts mentioned. Zech. 7. and the Feast of the Dedication at which Christ was present, Joh. 10.22. That these Fasts were not reproved, is said without all warrant: God disowneth them; if he say they were only disowned, on account of the neglect of seriousness in managing them, this must be proved. Again, Christ, and the Prophets, had so many things of greater moment to reprove and insist particularly upon, that they contented themselves to comprehend such things as these, under general reproofs, which were not wanting; and might, by a thinking Man, be applyed to all such Observations: As when Jeroboam is reproved for devising Holy days that God had not appointed, 1 Kings 12.33. And Christ condemneth Humane Devices in Worship, Mat. 15 9. And the Prophe…s condemned some Worship that was in it self most abominable, on account that it was not commanded, Jer. 7.31. Christ's presence at the Feast of Dedication was no more, but his walking in the Temple, while the People were Celebrating that Feast: Which can no ways be strained to signifie either Joyning, or Approbation. He talketh of shaking off all Externals of Religion, p. 42. and calleth it the Errour of Dissenters. That is palpably false: We have the External administration of the Word, and Sacraments among us: But it seems he will not only have his Humane Devices to make a great Figure in External Religion, but to be the ALL of it: Such loose talk is unbecoming a Divine. That which followeth, is an odd fancy: It is certain that nothing preserveth the knowledge of Christian Religion among the body of the People, more than the Festivals of the Church. What? Not the Word and Sacraments? Whether this looketh rather like raving, than like disputing, let the Reader judge. He saith also, that we teach the People to despise all Forms: That is false; we keep the form of Baptizing, and Celebrating the Lords Supper, that we find in the Scripture. It is another horrid Falsehood (and I know not how it could fall from one who hath regard to the God of Truth) that it is rare to find a Presbyterians Child in the West of Scotland who can repeat the Commandements, or the Creed, and he complaineth; that by this means, Atheism is promoted, and that the Clowns laugh when a Curate recommendeth to their Children, the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the ten Commandements. None are more careful to instruct their Children, in these, and other Principles of Religion, than Presbyterian Parents are; both in the West, and other places. And it is the constant practice of Ministers when they Catechise the People, to examine them on all these three; and to require the People to get them by heart; and to make them understand them. It is also false, that we have no Opinion of a Mans understanding, unless he entertain us with discourses of Gods unsearchable decrees. These are very seldom the subject of our Preaching. But it is beyond all his other reproaches, that he imputeth to Presbyterians, that they Preach Justification before Conversion. I know not a Presbyterian in Scotland that is of that Opinion. If sometimes Ministers instruct their People how the Convictions of Natural Conscience may be distinguished from the Convictions that proceed from the Spirit of God. I think that is not to be exposed to ridicule, nor made a reproach by any who is acquainted with the deceit of the Heart, and the danger of delusion about the truth of Grace in the Soul. What he discourseth p. 43. of the ancient Discipline of the Church, being conducive to Reformation, I heartily close with: But am far from thinking, that that Discipline lay in Festivities or Fasts, appointed by Men, but in censuring of Sin according to the appointment of Christ.

§. 37. He beginneth a new head p. 43. near the end which is a large discourse about the Schism that he alledgeth the Presbyterians to be guilty of. And all this he foundeth on a word, occasionally, and transiently, written by the Vindicator (if our Author cite his words true, which we cannot know, seing he doth not direct us) viz. That he knoweth no Schism but such as was caused by his Opposites. If I knew on what occasion this was said, I could the better judge whether it was well said, or not: But he hath left us here (as often elsewhere) to guess; as he also citeth Scriptures without Chapter or Verse: And it is not easie to find out one short Sentence, which may be hath no more joyned to it on that subject in a large Book: Before I consider his Refutations of this Assertion, I shall shew, in what sense this may be maintained. 1. In England the Presbyterians are not guilty of Schism, nor do they p. 33desert the Church; but are driven away by Her; because she Excommunicateth them, unless they wil practise some Ceremonies that they cannot use, with a good Conscience: This hath been proved against Bishop Stillingfleet, Rational Defence of Nonconformity. And if our Author please to debate …t, his Reasons shall be considered. 2. In Scotland the Presbyterians, who had freedom to hear the Conformists, and yet had Meetings wherein they heard their own Ministers, who were unjustly E…ected, could not be guilty of sinfull Separation: Because they still owned the Episcopal Church of Scotland as a True, tho' Corrupted Church, and did not shun to partake in the Ordinances with Her, but were under no obligation to cast off their own Ministers who were orderly called and settled among them, and not removed from them by any Church Authority; but only by the Civil Power, which (however it might forcibly hinder the publick exercise of a Mans Ministry) could neither make him no Minister, nor not the Minister of that People: And these Presbyterian Ministers and People, were …ately not only by the Gospel, but by the Law, the Church of Scotland; and the ceasing of their Legal Right by the change of the Law, could not take away their Gospel Right: And any thing that might look like Separation, was caused by our Opposites, in that they had violently thrust us from our Places. 3. Even they who did so separate from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, as to deny all Communion with her, and to refuse to joyn with Her, in any Ordinances, could be charged with no Separation, but what was caused by our Opposites: For their overturning the settled, and found Church of Scotland, and driving away the Pastors that those Persons could freely hear, did tempt them to this Course: Tho' I do not approve of their Principle of not Hearing; yet the blame lay not only on them, but on them who had driven them on this precipice.

§. 38. Let us now hear with what weighty Arguments he will refute the Assertion, that he levelleth his Discourse against: A great part of his Discourse is not fit to be answered; such as, That the Universal Church is not to strike Sail to the Novelties of Upstarts, p. 43. This is true, but wholly Impertinent: Unless he can prove that the Scotch Episcopalians are either the Universal Church, or in this maintained the Cause of the Universal Church: And that Presbyterians are Upstarts: Which we maintain have been since the Apostles days: And were in Scotland, since the Reformation from Popery, and before the entrance of Popery: But of this after; That by our Baptismal Vow we are bound to keep the Unity of the Catholick Church; we willingly confess: But at the same time, we affirm, that the same Vow obligeth us, not to tempt others to break it. His Arguments to prove the Presbyterians of Scotland Separatists have this general fault; that they touch not the Conclusion: Nor contradict the Assertion that he would refute: For if I should grant them to be Separatists; yet this Separation may be culpably caused by our Opposites. They have also another Fault; that they make no distinction of the Separation (on whose side soever the Crime of it was) between one sort of Presbyterians and another: Whereas it is certain, that some did live in the Communion of that Church (tho' they did not approve of all her ways) and others did not. His first Argument is p 44. They separate from all Churches Ancient and Modern: Nor is there a Church on Earth, with which they can Communicate, without fear of being polluted. This is false: None of us refused to Communicate with the Churches of Holland, France (when they had liberty) Geneva; and many others: But many of us, did cheerfully Communicate with them. His proof of this his Assertion is, all other Churches have some things we disl…ke. This is not concludent, for we never thought it unlawful to Communicate with a Church which was not as pure as we could wish: What we dislike in any, we abstain from the practice, or approbation of it, but do not for that, deny Communion with the Church, where it is found. He again argueth, p. 44. and 45. That the former Presbyterians did not separate from the publick Worship in the Episcopal Church. A. Neither did all the present Presbyterians; and they who did were tempted, yea driven, into that Course, by his Parties Apostacy, and overturning the settlement of the Church, by force, without either any Act of Church Authority, or indeavour to satisfie the Consciences of the People. I do not approve, more than he doth, of all that is contained in the Apologetical Relation. That Presbyterian Ministers made use of the Lords Prayer, we deny not; nor did we ever condemn it. The same we say of using the Creed in Baptism: Nor did we p. 34ever separate from the Church on these grounds: For the Doxology, we know it was used, but I know no warrant for the constant use of it, when the several parts of the Songs composed by the Spirit of God, to be Sung in the Church, were more seldom used. It seemeth to be too great deference to humane composure, and therefore we think it is better to lay it aside. For the Apostolick Benediction, we have Scripture Examples for it; which is sufficient warrant: If he can bring the same for these that he calleth Christian Forms, we shall use them. It is our Authors strain to talk high on slender Grounds, that the use of these Forms is the Spirit and Practice of the Church; and that tho' th… Canonical and Universal Methods of the Church are tempered with regard to our Infirmities; yet they (the Presbyterians) love to flie in the face of their Mother. We deny the Episcopal or Popish Church to be our Mother, and we deny these forms to be imposed (at least perpetually and universally) by the Catholick Church: So as we flie never in the face of our Mother, by disusing them. After he had taken notice of the distinction of occasional and fixed Communion, p. 44. he falleth on it again p. 46. His Argument against it, is Why may not that fixedly be done which may occasionally; since the common ties of Christianity oblige us? A. That there are ties on us to Communicate with the Episcopal Congregations, we deny; and what may be pretended in favour of such obligation, is above answered. The Reason that be asketh, is plain, because I may have other obligations which hinder me to do that constantly, which I may do sometimes: I may lawfully Preach in another Mans Pulpit, when he calleth me to it, but it is not fit I should do it fixedly, and desert mine own.

§. 39. His 2d. Argument, to prove us all Schismaticks is, If they had lived (saith he) fifty years before the first Counsel of Nice, they behoved to have separated: For then were practised by the Universal Church, all these things they scruple at; many things he nameth: Here were a large Field for Disputation, if he had proved what he saith; but that he confidently asserteth; and we confidently deny: That the Hierarchy was then in the Church: However some of the Names might be; the Church Power and Dominion, that now is signified by them, was not then in being. Argument 3d. is from the Doctrine and Practice of our Predecessors, which he used before, and I did answer before. Arg. 4th. He requireth us to name any Schismaticks in ancient History, to whom that name is more agreeable, than to Presbyterians: If this can be done he is mistaken; The strength of this Argument seemeth to be in his Infallibility: Certainly if we be not the worst Men of the World, he is mistaken. The Donatills separated from the Church, because She admitted the lapsed on their Repentance; and cast off their lawful Pastors, and all Communion with the Church; we do not cast off all Communion with the Church; nor reject we our Pastors; but cleave to them, rather than to Intruders. Arg. 5th. Cyprian's notion of Schism is, when one separateth from his own Bishop: This the Presbyterians do: Ergo. A. All the strength of this Argument lieth in the sound of words: A Bishop, in Cyprian's time, was not a Diocesan, with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination; if he prove that, we shall give Cyprian, and him leave to call us Schismaticks. A Bishop then was the Pastor of a Flock, or the Moderator of a Presbytry; if he can prove that we separate from our Pastors, or from the Presbytry, with their Moderator, under whose inspection we ought to be, let him call us what he will. But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops: We can neither own their Episcopal Authority, nor any Pastoral Relation that they have to us.