The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 11

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 11

p. 265SECTION XI.

Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland.

ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in, wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is, what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed; whether by Bishops, or the Pastors of the Church, acting in Parity? We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way, in this Matter, because of the Silence, and Defectiveness of the History of these times; and therefore, it is a Mis-representation when he saith, that we hold that they were Presbyterians; if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense, as made up of Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General-Assemblies; we suppose they had a Government in that Church; and that it was Managed by Church Officers, and directed by the Word of GOD, as they then understood it; for this we can bring no other Proof; but that they were Christians, and we owe them that Charity, having no cause to think otherwise of them: and I think this will not be Contested between him and me. All the Question that remaineth is, whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power, and Ruled in Parity, or had Bishops set over them, who had the Power of Ruling the Church; the rest having only Power to Teach. We are for their Equality of Power; my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been, even then, in the Church of Scotland. I do agree with him that this is questio facti, and must be determined by Testimonie; and that of Credible Witnesses, who might know the Truth of what they Assert. I have brought Credible History for what we say; all which he Rejecteth as fabulous; some of his Party (particularly Spotswood) bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland, at that time, without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth. Which of us, then, go on the best grounds? Our Author had in the Apology (which I take to be his) pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head; First Vindic. Question. 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology, I Answered; Deff. of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me, endeavour to Answer part of what was said (as he had also done in the Apology) overlooking what he thought not fit to touch. I shall now Consider what he here saith; omitting nothing that is Material: He p. 266hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church, from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks, Boetius and others, or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan; nor any Monk save Fordon, who was far removed from his Age; wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated, nor Answered, by any thing said in this, or his former Book. It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought, as incompetent Witnesses, was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation, which he Answereth, by shewing that it is the Establishing, not Razing of History, to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe: This is to divert into another Question; what was blamed in him was not, that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive, must be Competent; but whether these adduced by me, in the Debate, were such. I only Mark here; not Examine (being aside from our present Debate) what he saith, p. 230. that if History be Destroyed, and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony (he must mean Humane Testimony) then the Authority of Revelation falleth, and Atheism is Introduced; at least boundless Sceptecilm, and uncertainty. Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture, and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony, let it be Considered. If the Vindicator said, that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence, let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent; he Pleaded that Buchanan, Boetius, Major, Fordon, Usher, the Centuriators, Baronius, Beda, and Prosper, had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church, and if none of these be Competent Witnesses, our Historie is lost; and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians, who spake of our Affairs obiter.

§ 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains, from p. 231. to Prove, that no History is to be Believed unless it be …ttested by sufficient Witnesses, who had occasion to know what they Affirm; I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this; he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body, so far as I know; nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits; I mean, without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses, which are thus incompetent; for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact, done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved; as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian, and Postdiluvian, Passages, by Consequences drawn from Scripture, in his Excellent Book, Historia Patriarcharum; Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work, de Authoritate p. 267Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti, to be of good use, and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused. I confess also, that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius, because not sufficiently Attested. Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse, though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it, viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested: and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History, a little more clearly than he hath done. And, 1. I observe, that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined. The contrarie of which I have already shewed, viz. that it may be Determined in some cases, by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact. Next he saith, ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate, about our ancient Church-Government; this is Questionable, if it be not downright a Mistake: it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time; the Question is either, whether they were Bishops, or not; we hold the Negative; or if he Word it thus, whether they were any more than Presbyters, we say, no: or, whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees, or not; we are still for the Negative; wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative. I further Object, that, in the end of the same page, he insinuateth, that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded. We do not so with any thing of Moment; far less with all things. Yea, we do not so in the Case now under Debate. Another Remark I make on what he hath, page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said …o have happened, it is to be lookt on as a Fable: and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further; and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise, he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China. This may suffer a little Correction; and must not be taken as a Principle, neither on his Authority, nor Du Launy's; more than a Storie of 200 years old can be. 1. It is hard to fix a Period, how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie; especially, if it be not about the Credenda of Religion: If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old, from a grave and wise Author, whose veracity I do not Question; I know not why the Addition of 50, or a 100 years more, should make it incredible, if it come from the same hand. Wherefore this is too peremptorie a p. 268Decision: there are on the other hand, many cases in which, Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than 200 years. 2. If this Doctrine be received, what shall we think of the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, and others, which our Author, as well as others, Citeth often and Considently? It is true, they give us Vouchers out of ancient Writings; but many of these may be Proved to be Fabulous, by this same Argument: and this they do not always. 3. He forgetteth and contradicteth himself, in the very next page; while he sheweth, out of Sir George Mackenzie; that the Bards repeated the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages, Births, and other Solemnities, and calleth this an infallible Conveyance of true, constant, and perpetual Tradition: here is but Oral Tradition; and it went beyond the Limits of 200 years; otherways, it could not be a sufficient Evidence for all the Kings that were before Fergus the Second; which is the Design for which Sir George bringeth it. 4. Good Historians, who make it their Business to Search into the Affairs of former Ages, may attain to some probable knowledge of what passed for more than 200 years, by Comparing one thing with another; which others who have not made that their Study cannot easily reach; yea, they do not always set down all the Grounds of what they Write, for that would oblige them, sometimes to write a Controversie, instead of a Historie. I say not this to Oblige any Body to take all on Trust that Historians, even of the best Note, do Write; but to shew the unwarrantableness of Determining so dogmatically about the Credibility of History; Neither do I think Defending our Opinion about the ancient Church-Government in Scotland needeth the help of this Observation. Before he had peremptorly Condemned the Historical Evidence that we bring; he should have Answered what Sir George Mackenzie (an Author that he seemeth to value) hath Written against the Bishop of St. Asaph, p. 311. that History requires, nor admits, no Mathematical, nor legal Proof. But is satisfied with Moral certainty inferred from probable Tradition, old Manuscripts, credible Histories, the Testimonie of forreign Authors; and probable Reasons. 2. That our Histories being already acquiesced in, and received by the Generality of Mankind, and especially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Historians, the best Judges in such cases, need no Confirmation, nor further Proof. And he sheweth, p. 6. that Livies History hath no surer Grounds than Tradition, he Writing long after the time he speaketh of. All this he fully Proveth.

p. 269§ 3. He doth, p. 236. unjustly suppose, that I had asserted, that the History of our Nation must perish, if there was no Presbyterian Church in Scotland, so near the Apostolick Age. I said not so, nor had Words to that Effect. What I did, and do affirm is, that if none who have written the History of this Nation, are to be believed, our History is lost; for the Collateral Proofs from the Roman Historians; that he talketh of, could give us but a very lame Account of our Affairs. He maketh, p. 237. these Recitations of the Bards to be twisted with the Practice and Custom of the Nation; and that by a constant, and uninterrupted Practice; and that from the first Colonies that were planted here: now let me ask him; what Authority he hath for this; is not here an Oral Tradition (for these Recitations are not extant, but are perished time out of Mind) for much more than two hundred years, and thrice as many more. Nor doth Sir George Mackenzie give better Evidence for the Antiquity of our Kings, than we give for what we assert. He telleth us against Saint Asaph, p. 129. that the Tradition of our Nation might well be preserved for six hundred years, which is far beyond our Authors Period. That I Reasoned against Christmass from the Silence of the first Ages, is no way inconsistent with what I have, on this Occasion, written; for if our Author can prove it from any other Topick, we shall not reject it. We shall tell him, whence the Historians had what we receive, and assert from them; when we come to Debate with him, the Truth of things we hold; we are now upon the general Argument, of the Credibility of a History. We are not obliged to give him Instances of other Presbyterian Churches before Calvin and Beza, others have done it. What he saith of the Waldenses I have disproved, Section 1. §. 1. I promised, above, to state this Question, about the Credibility of History, more clearly than he hath done; for which there is much need; for he neither distinguisheth Matters related, nor Persons relating, nor the Weight that is to be laid on what is related in History. 1. Then Matters that are of no great Moment, whither they be true or false, we may receive with a Historical Faith, on more slender Grounds than what is of great Moment, or, the Consequences of Believing which is of great Advantage, or in Convenience. Matters that we build an Article of Faith on, or that our Christian Practice, yea, or that any great Worldly Interest dependeth on the Truth or Falshood of what is told us, have need to have Credentials proportioned to the Stress that is to be laid on them. And therefore I yield so far to this Author, that he shall not be obliged to believe what we assert p. 270in this Matter, unless we bring such Evidences as the Matter requireth, and is capable of. 2. The Credibility of a Historian, must bear some Proportion to the Degree of Assent, that we are to give to the thing narrated. If our Author will have us to look on any History, as an infallible and irrefragable Ground of our Belief; he must give us more than the Testimony of Men; or the best Historians who are not Divinely Inspired. As I have shewed Section 3. §. 31, 35. on the other hand, we talk not so high of the Historical Evidence that we bring, and therefore, a Probability of a lower Degree, than what he talketh of, may serve. 3. Tho the Credit of a Historian be not, by it self, sufficient to perswade us of the Truth of what he saith, yet if it be supported by the Probability of the Thing, by Circumstances that favour it, or the Testimonies of others; or by any good Topick, from which the Truth, or the Probability of the Thing may be inferred, the History is not easily to be rejected. 4. The Persons who write the History are to be distinguished, some of them have given Evidence of their Ignorance, Negligence, Foolish Credulity, and Listening to Fables; others have manifested great Learning, Industry, Care to Examine what they narrate; or are Attested by others to be Men of Probity, Learning, Wisdom, and Exactness: certainly more Weight is to be laid on the one, tho living at some Distance from the Period he writeth of, than on the other, tho nearer to it. 5. They who live at great Distance from any Period of Time, may give great Light concerning what was done in it, if they do not barely Assert what they Fancy, nor Measure the Things of that Period according to the Opinions, Customs, the Dialect of their own Time; as many of the Historians that our Author layeth much Weight on, have done; but consider Things as then they were Stated, and bring probable Grounds, either from the Histories written by credible Persons in, or near that Time, or from any other Medium.

§ 4. I now proceed to the Vindication of our Argument from History, for the first Christians in Scotland being Governed without Bishops. He mistakes when he saith, that I bring Blondel as a Historical Witness of this: I mentioned him only, as Citing these Authors which assert it. Which are, Joan. Major. de gest. Scotor. lib. 2. c. 2. Per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis, Scoti in fide sunt eruditi; and before him, Fordon Scoto-Chronicon, lib. 3. c. 8. Ante Palladii adventum, habebant Scoti fidei Doctores, & Sacramentorum Ministratores, Presbyteros solummodo, vel Monachos Ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae. It is true, Blondel citeth also Boet, who was p. 271later than either of them: But what he citeth out of him, seemeth not to be so much to his Purpose; wherefore I wave that Testimony. Our Authors Answer to the other two Testimonies is, they were not competent Witnesses, living at so great a Distance from the Time they speak of. To which I Reply, First, they cannot be esteemed Partial Witnesses, being both of them Papists, and not Presbyterians: and it may be rationally thought, that if they had no sufficient Ground for what they said, they would rather have either said what made for the Way they owned, or at least suppressed what they had no good Warrant to assert, against their own Way. To this he saith, p. 245. that the Monks advanced this Fable to gratifie the Popes Design of Exempting the Religious Orders from Episcopal Jurisdiction. Reply, This doth not meet with our Case; for Major was no Monk; and so not concerned to tell a Lie to please the Pope in that Design. And for Fordon; whatever Temptation he might have, to endeavour the Lessening of the Extent of the Episcopal Power; he would not design to root out Episcopacy wholly out of Scotland, (which this Testimony tendeth to, for the Period he speaketh of) contrary to the universal Sentiments of that Church, whereof he was a Member. Wherefore that Consideration doth no way derogat from the Credibility of his Testimony. Secondly, We have no Ground to think that these Historians spake by Guess, or that they invented this Story; for the contrary of it cannot be proved: and the thing it self is not impossible; yea, Sir George Mackenzy, in his Advertisement before his Book against Saint Asaph, maketh it appear, that in our Countrey there were very Ancient Manuscripts, and that the Priests learned our ancient History from the Druids; and he maketh it clear, p. 2. &c. that our Histories (of which that of Fordon and Major are a part) being received by the Generality of Mankind, especially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Historians, ought not now to be called in Question. And I must still think, for all that he hath said in Opposition to it, that the History of our Nation falleth, if these Authors are not to be believed; seing without them, he shall never be able to make up a Scots History out of Roman Authors. Thirdly, The same Author p. 5. sheweth that Men satisfie themselves in most things, with the general Belief and Tradition of a People; that Manuscripts infer no Mathematical Certainty; but the Authors of them might mistake; that the Histories of all Nations are no better founded. All which sheweth how unreasonable it is to Question the Authority of these Histories; especially when none do so, but one who is straitned p. 272with an Argument brought from their Testimony, against a Cause that he is fond of. It is also much to our Purpose, that the Learned Usher, de primord Eccles. Brit. 808. citeth the same Passages, with Approbation; he citeth also Balaeus de scriptor. Britan. affirming that Palladius was sent, ut Sacerdotalem Ordinem Romano Ritu institueret, which we may rationally think: was to set up Bishops. Also the Learned Doctor Forbes, Iren. p. 157. citeth the same Passage of Major, and addeth of his own, adeo ut Ecclesia Scoticana plus quam 230 annos erat absque Regimine Episcopali; and Forbes was Zealous for Episcopacy.

§ 5. The Testimony of these Historians is supported by other Historians, who shew Palladius was the first Bishop that Ruled in the Scots Christian Church; and that Church had Subsisted, and had Government, and others of Christs Ordinances in it, above two hundred years, before Palladius came among them. This is Attested by Baronius and his Epitomator Spondanus, ad ann. 431. and by them taken out of Prosper, see Spondan. p. 592. this is more fully cleared, first Vind. p. 4. His Answer to this I now consider. He saith, p. 244. that the Controversie cometh to this, whether Prosper saith, that two hundred years before Palladius was sent to the Scots, there was a Presbyterian Church in Scotland, this is a ridiculous State of the Question, and made by none but himself: we affirm that Prosper said, that Palladius was the first Bishop sent to the Scots: and we, aliunde, prove that there was a Christian Church in Scotland, two hundred years before that time. Whence the Consequence is clear, that during that Space, the Scots Christians had no Bishops. I must ly under his Charge of Supine Negligence, in not Reading the Authors I cite. I only may be bold to require him to make that appear. That he thus attempteth. Baronius saith in the same Place of Palladius, Quem perductum etiam ad Hiberniam Insulam, sed cito mortuum, Probus in rebus gestis Sancti Patricii scripsit, dictum est superius. Hibernorum quidem Conversionem Deus Sancto Patricio reservavit. I hope the Judicious Reader will neither think it a Token of Supine Negligence, nor of my not Reading the Books I cite; that I did not Transcribe this. For it was no ways to the Purpose in hand; it might as well be so Constructed, that I did not write over all that followeth in Baronius, about Saint Patricks Descent, about his Ordination, his Instruction in Divinity, &c. But the Weight of his Objection lyeth in this, that Baronius and Spondanus understood Prosper so, as that Palladius was sent to Ireland; and not to that part of Britain that we call Scotland. Here the Enquirer giveth me Occasion to return p. 273the Civility of a good Advice to him; that he would consider what he Readeth, and what he Citeth out of Authors: for it is against all Sense and Reason, to make Baronius and Spondanus, either mean this in this Passage, (or so to understand Prosper) of a Mission to Ireland, and not to Scotland. It is to make a flat Contradiction between their Meaning and their Words: Whereas they say, Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum Episcopum ad Scotos; quem perductum etiam ad Hiberniam, &c. The Meaning then must be to our Author, tho he was Missus and Ordinatus ad Scotos; he was not sent to the Scots, but to Ireland. Do not the Words bear it in their very Face, that he was sent to Scotland, and was their first Bishop: and after he had been there for some time, he was brought over to Ireland; it is not said Missus, nor Ordinatus; but Perductus: his Mission was to Scotland; what Casuality or Design led him to Ireland, is not told us; neither is it Prosper, but Probus that mentioneth his going to Ireland: and that he never was in Ireland, I have shewed in the Place Cited.

§ 6. He further endeavoureth to overturn our Argument from Prosper, as he is Cited by Baronius; where he attempteth two things, 1. To shew that Palladius in Prospers Sense, was not the first Bishop, that was in Scotland; but the first Bishop that was sent to them by the Pope. This he buildeth on Prospers Words, both as they are Cited by Baronius, and also are in the Augustane Copy; the first are, Basso & Antiocho consulibus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius, primus Episcopus mittitur. And the other Copy is, Basso & Antiocho consulibus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius, primus Episcopus missus est. I see not what moved him to transcribe the Words twice; unless he see a Mystery that others cannot observe, in the Difference that is between mittitur, and missus est; but he will have mittitur, or missus est, primus Episcopus to signifie that he was not the first Bishop; but the first Bishop of the Roman Mission; if he be allowed to put what Sense on Mens Words he pleaseth, it must be so: Baronius and Spondanus did not so understand the Words; neither can any Man so understand them, unless his Preconceived Opinion do Darken his Mind, that he cannot see things as they are. If Prosper had thought that there were Bishops in Scotland before, he should have spoken more plainly, and told us, that the Pope sent him to Rule over the Scots Bishops, or, that whereas Scotland was formerly Governed by their own Bishops; the Pope would have them thenceforth Governed by such as he set over p. 274them. He telleth us of several Bishops sent to other Churches; not to introduce Episcopacy; but to bring them in Subjection to the Pope. This I deny not, (tho he instanceth only in Austine the Monk, who was sent to England) but this furnisheth an Argument against himself; for none of them is called primus Episcopus of such a Nation, except he who was sent to Scotland. Augustine is neither called primus Monachus, nor primus Episcopus, though, as Beda, hist. lib. 1. c. 23. hath it, he was ordinandus Episcopus, si a Gente Anglorum susciperetur. He saith it is not evident from Prospers Chronicon, whether there was any Formed, Organized Church in Scotland, when Palladius was sent by Caelestine. This is wholly beside the Purpose: for Prospers Testimony is not brought for that End. Is it not enough that it is clearly proved out of Authentick Writers: that the Scots were Christians anno 199, and Palladius came to them about 431. Now can he imagine, that the Scots Christians all that time, were not an Organized Church; if he think that therefore they were Unorganized, because they wanted Bishops, this is to beg the Question.

§ 7. His other Answer is not a Refutation of me, but of Baronius, who took the Chronicon consulare for Prospers Work; whereas our Author saith it is none of his; and for this he produceth the Authority of Pithaeus: which is not sufficient against that of Baronius. And even Pithaeus himself confesseth that Chronicon per consules digestum, hactenus in omnibus Hieronomiani Chronici editionibus Prosperi nomine subjungitur. All the Ground he hath for denying it to be Prospers is, that the Stile differeth from what he calleth the true Chronicon, whereof a Fragment only remaineth. He telleth us also, that Doctor Cave saith, that the Chronicon consulare is much Interpolated: but that doth not prove the Book spurious; neither doth it derogate from the Testimony we bring out of it; unless he can say that it is one of the Interpolations, may be, Foisted in by some Presbyterian; which if he say, it will make the Presbyterians older than our Author will allow. He quarrelleth, that I had asserted, that the Christian Faith was received in Scotland in the beginning of the second Century; and calleth it a Dream; because we have no certain Records of any Progress of Christianity made in the Island at that time. He should not have been so confident in this Matter, without Answering what was brought for that Assertion, or Dream, whatever he will call it. He should have disproved that Donald was our first Christian King: that he began to Reign anno 199, that Palladius came to Scotland 431, p. 275in all which Space the Scots lived without Bishops. If I have brought our Christianity any nearer to the beginning of the Christian AEra; I shall confess an Error in Calculation, which I deny not that I may readily fall into. What he saith of Squeezing of his Words: I cannot Answer, for he neither tells where, nor wherein; for my Book lying open to his Remarks; the Reader must judge whether it be so, or not, and what Advantage he hath got against it; the Error of my Title Page, putting of in stead of for the Clergy, is not such as he would represent; if they do not owne it, he should crave Pardon for making it; if they do, I have not Miscalled it; tho I confess changing his own Word was an Oversight; but I hope it is not a Beam; but a Mote that he hath discovered, by his Critical Skill.