An Apology for the Discipline of the Ancient Church, Part 2 · Section 1
SECT. I. The Reply.
IN this ſecond part of your letter you propoſe a point I confeſſe of greateſt concernment, and ſuch which is moſt worthy of the ſad and ſerious diſquiſition; which is, how, where, and when the Church became ſo corrupt, polluted and degenerate, as ſcarce the ſecleton, faſhion or face thereof is to be perceived, no not among the profeſſours of godlineſſe.
Good words I pray; The Reformed Churches you ſay cannot ſhew it, the Prelates cannot produce it, the Papiſts are at the ſame loſſe, and among the profeſſours of godlineſſe, (be they who they will) the Sceleton is ſcarce to be perceived, hardly the faſhion, the face appears among them. And where then ſhall we looke for the ſubſtance, the body it ſelf, of which, if any man be not a part, 'tis but in vain to look for ſalvation? Since out of the Church no man can have hope of ſalvation, no more than that creature had of life, who was out of the Ark of Noah. God be merciful to us all poor Chriſtians, if our Mother that ſhould nouriſh us, be brought to bare bones, have but a face and faſhion of a Mother and nothing elſe; ſurely ſhe will never be able to give her children milk while they are babes, and ſtrong meat when they come to be men, if this be ſo.
Now tell me I pray, what is the caſe, why ſhe is brought to this pittiful and lamentable condition? how came ſhe ſo corrupt and polluted? Oh ſay you, that is quickly diſcern'd; ſhe is fallen from her Presbytery; for all the while ſhe was Presbyterial, ſhe was pure: Firſt, I could adviſe you to take heed of this affirmative, except you put Combinational unto it. For all the Presbyterians will catch at it, and runne away with it in triumph; and where are you then, and I beleeve your own party will not con you much thanks, that have given the adverſary ſo great advantage. Secondly, it behoved you, (ſince you have laid the ſtrength of your cauſe upon this word) to have demonſtrated by infallible arguments out of the Scripture, that the Church was at firſt governed by that kind of Presbytery you mean, which you have not done, before you pronounced all ſucceeding Churches corrupt and polluted becauſe they degenerated from that Presbytery. This is petitio principii, the fouleſt way of arguing. Thirdly, that the moſt learned and modeſt of the Prelacy, though they will grant you a Presbytery in the primitive Church, yet will never grant you, that from thence the Church ſhall be denominated Presbyterial; or that if it ſhould vary from thence, that therefore it had no more than the Sceleton, faſhion, face of a true Church. All theſe things ſhould have been better caſt up before you had been ſo poſitive.
The degeneration then you dream of, is grounded upon a falſe ſuppoſition, that there was at firſt ſuch a Presbyterial or Combinational Church, that was conjoyn'd in any Church-Covenant beſide Baptiſme, that had the native power of the Keyes, &c. which you never ſhall be able to demonſtrate. The contrary to which Rutherford hath nervouſly prov'd, more particularly in his ſeventh Chapter of his peaceable and temperate plea, to whom I referre you. The ſumme of whoſe diſcourſe is, that there were at Jeruſalem, Father f. cap. 7. Concluſ. 4.at Samaria, at Epheſus, at Rome, at Galatia, at Antioch Presbyteries, (which ſhall be granted) but that theſe Presbyteries were not of one ſingle Congregation. From theſe then you can never prove that the following Church did degenerate, becauſe they were not.
The manner of this degeneration you make gradual, and you give us in five ſteppes, deſcending from the Parochial till it came to the oecumenical Romane, as you call it. But ſuppoſing a degeneration in the degrees, you are miſtaken; for as I ſuppoſe the firſt ſhould be laſt, and the laſt firſt, which will appear, if we examine how the Church was govern'd from the Apoſtles times to this our unhappy age. But firſt I will tranſcribe your whole diſcourſe.