The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined, Appendix
APPENDIX.
AFter the former Sheets were almoſt Printed, I met with two Books at the ſame time, which I had not before ſeen: the one called the Fundamental Charter of Preſbytry, &c. with a Preface of 167 Pages, by a nameleſs Author: the other an Inquiry into the new Opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland; with ſome Animadverſions on the Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk: by A. M. D. D. This latter Book ſeemeth to have more of Argument than ſome others which I have ſeen from ſome Scots Epiſcopalians, if not from the ſame Hand: I have much deſired that our Debates might run in that more pure Channel; and rejoice to ſee any hopes of it. I am ſorry that now I have no time from neceſſary, urgent, and daily work, to conſider this Book ſo as to Anſwer it, if I ſhall not be Proſelyted by it. I intend to try it's ſtrength as ſoon as I ſhall have leaſure, if the LORD give Life and Health; and if it ſhall not be ſooner Anſwered by ſome other Hand; which I do much wiſh.
§. 2. The former of theſe two Books is expreſly levelled againſt an Act of the Parliament of this Nation; and is a direct Refutation of it: and therefore the Examination of it is out of my Road; and is moſt fit for ſuch as are converſant in the Affairs of State, and know the Politick which moved the Parliament ſo to contrive their Act. I do judge that he who ſhall undertake it will find no hard task. Beſide, the Presbyterian Miniſters did never look on the Inclinations of the People (which that Act mentioneth in it's narrative) as the fundamental Charter of Presbytry; however the Parliament might wiſely conſider it in their Conſultation and Determining, and mention it rather than what did more ſway ſome of them. We always did, and do, found the Government of the Church by Parity, on Divine Inſtitution; and look on Prelacy as contrary to Chriſt's appointment.
§. 3. What I now undertake is, a tranſient view (ſuch as the Preſs haſtening to an end of the former Diſcourſe, will allow) of his Preface: which I hope may be lookt on as a due Refutation of it: nor can I imagine that any judicious and unbyaſſed man will judge, that ſuch a parcel of Stuff, deſerveth a laborious▪ Examination: he hath need of a hardened Noſe who can inſiſt long in an exact Anatomatical Scrutiny into ſuch a rotten Carion. The Author hath out-done his Brethren (yea, and himſelf too) in Billingſgate-Rhetorick: he ſeemeth to be eminently gifted that way; to the ſilencing of who ever will oppoſe him; as ſome learned acute men have quickly had their Mouths ſtopt when the Tongues of ſome of theſe good Women have been let looſe againſt them. I had rather own in my ſelf all the dulneſs that he is pleaſed to impute to the man whom he deſigneth to expoſe, than enter the Liſts with him at that Weapon: and I do freely confeſs I am not qualified for it; and if I were, I ſhould think it unſutable to my Character (however mean) and inconſiſtent with a good Conſcience. Such impotency of Mind, and ſuch injurious Defamation, is not well conſiſtent with Chriſtianity; nor is ſutable to that Learning that is required in them who write Polemick Divinity: for, Scolding is no Scholarſhip. If his Adverſary was weak, he ſhould have knockt him down with ſtrong Arguments; not beſpattered him with dirty Revileings: the one would have ruined his Cauſe, the other but bedawb'd his Perſon; and it may be eaſily wiped off. If the Cauſe which my Adverſary owneth, need this Conduct, it is weak, and not worth contending for: if not; they who do ſo manage it are no credit to it.
§. 4. I refer the Reader who would have a view of this Author's Qualities more truly than he Characterizeth other men, to the Biſhop of Sarum's Vindication: where, if he be not aimed at, he is very plainly chaſtiſed in Effigie: for G. B. & G. R. ſeem to have been ſtung with the ſame kind of Serpent; if not the ſame individual. He had dealt more wiſely, if he had not convinced the Reader, by this management, of the very ſame ill Qualities in himſelf, that he ſo frankly attributeth to another. I am ſure he hath ſhewed litle Wiſdom in bringing Inſtances to prove his confident Aſſertions: had he contented himſelf with bold Saying, and quibling Inſinuations, of what he thinketh fit to load one with; ſome who know neither him, nor the perſon who is the Butt of his Malice, might have believed ſome part of what he alledgeth (they who know that perſon, however they cannot but ſee many Infirmities in him, have other thoughts of him; and indeed better than ever he could deſerve: and they who know this Author will judge that his Tongue, nor Pen, is no Slander.) But now his Proofs are ſo exceedingly unſuted to what they are brought for, that a litle attention may ſerve to improve them as Weapons againſt himſelf, and as Evidences of theſe things in himſelf which he deſigneth by them to faſten on another. I perceive he hath been at pains to read all that hath been written by G. R. on ſeveral occaſions; and what he thinketh fit to aſcribe to him; to ſee what he could pick up in theſe Papers wherewith he might reproach the Author: in which alſo he hath (innocently and without deſign) done him a Kindneſs: for if ſo critical an Eye could find no more to try his Skill upon in all theſe Writings, it is like there are many things in them which he could not Blame: for, exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis. It is a wonder if ſuch a perſon as he expoſeth could ſay ſo much to any purpoſe.
§. 4. I ſhall not inſiſt on his civility to the Parliament, and their Act; nor his modeſt Reflexion on himſelf; nor his great care expreſt to ſute his Diſcourſe to the Engliſh-Nation, even in the Words and Phraſes: nor on the account he giveth of the helps he uſed. Only I take notice how much pains he is at to prove (through 14 Pages) that the Book commonly called Knox's Hiſtory was not written by John Knox: I know none, who is much converſant in our Scots Affairs, who is contrary to him in this: and if G. R. was ſo abſurd as to cite that Book under the Name by which it is commonly called; if it hence follow that he thought John Knox was the Author, let him paſs for as ignorant as our Author will have him to be: if this be no good conſequence, I hope it is no great evidence of this Author's Learning ſo to infer. That John Knox did not compoſe that Book, (tho' much of the Materials of it was taken from his Manuſcripts) hath been held by Presbyterian Brethren, before this Author went to School: neither do I know any of them who are earnest to have it believed that he wrote it: yea, this Author himſelf citeth it always under the Name of John Knox; as he confeſſeth: and why might not another do ſo too, without debating about the true Author of it; which had been a needleſs digreſſion from his Purpoſe.
§. 6. After he has diſgorged a great deal of Gall againſt G. R. and declined him for an Antagoniſt (who hath the ſame averſion from entering the Liſts with him, unleſs he deal more like a Chriſtian, and a Diſputant) we might (but it is in vain) expect he ſhould be more compoſed: his Bile overfloweth through all his Sheets. He mentioneth ſome Paſſages in my Writings that he will not inſiſt on; only noteth them with a Nigrum Theta, as proofs of my unqueſtionable ignorance: they are, that I hold Ruling-Elders, who are no Preachers, to be of Divine Inſtitution; that the Fathers, and Scripture alſo, owne them under the Name of Biſhops. That Patronages came not in till the ſeventh or eight Century, or later: (where his own ignorance, or ſomewhat elſe, appeareth; the word is, they were not ſetled till then: it is well-known, that many Uſages crept into the Church long before they were ſetled, either by Law, or univerſal Practice.) That, moſt, and the moſt eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge, that by Chriſt's appointment, and according to the Practices of the firſt Ages of the Church, ſhe ought to be, and was govern'd in common by Ministers acting in Parity, (which is a groſs Miſrepreſentation; for that is ſaid of Chriſt's equally intruſting all his Miniſters with Power of Preaching and Governing: which is aſſerted and fully proved by the learned Stillingfleet in his Irenicum: and what followeth is that Author's own Words, not attributed to Chriſts appointment as unalterable, nor to the practice of the Church. Yet I ſhall not decline debating of both theſe with him (tho' I ſay not they are the Opinion of Prelatiſts) That Dioceſan Epiſcopacy was not ſetled in Cyprian's time, &c. (What Ignorance is in this, is to be judged by the foregoing Book, That the Decretal Epistles of Anacletus are genuine, is neither aſſerted nor ſuppoſed, nor is any opinion given about them: only they are uſed as an antient Writing; and argumentum ad hominem. If this one Witneſs be caſt, we have enough beſide. That it is aſſerted, Rational Def. of Nonconf. p. 10. that Epiſcopacy is not in any Protestant Church but in England: is neither truly, nor with Candor ſaid; the Expreſſion is, as in England: and it is eaſily demonſtrable, that in no Proteſtant Church, it is in that height, or doth ſo entirely ſwallow up the Ruling Power of Presbyters, as it doth in England: If my Expoſition of Jerom's toto orbe decretum est, be Ignorant, or Erroneous; I muſt ſo abide, till this Profound Doctor Enlighten mine Eyes; which he hath not vouchſafed to do. Another of Jerom's Sayings, Quid facit Epiſcopus, &c. excepta Ordinatione: he ſaith my Gloſs on it, hath been ſufficiently expoſed, Hist. of the General Aſſembly 1690: and I ſay, it hath been ſufficiently Vindicated, in Anſwer to that, and other four Pamphlets; and Def. of Vindic. in Anſwer to the Apology, p. 24, 25. I ſhall now add, that very Expoſition of that Paſſage, was given by Marſilius Patavinus, cited in the end of the Preface to Paul Bayn's Dioceſan's Tryal: that Author lived about Anno 1324. In his Book called Defenſor Pacis, againſt the Pope; he hath theſe Words, (ſpeaking of that Paſſage of Jerome,) Ordinatio non ſignificat ibi Poteſtatem conferendi, ſeu Collationem Sacrorum Ordinum; ſed OEconomicam Potestatem Regulandi, vel Dirigendi Eccleſiae Ritus atque Perſonas, quantum ad Exercitium Divini Cultus in Templo: unde ab Antiquis Legum▪ latoribus, vocantur OEconomici Reverendi. This we maintain to be competent to every Pariſh Miniſter; tho' not to the Elders of the Congregation, to manage theſe in the Publick Aſſembly. I hope no man of ſenſe, will reckon that Author an ignorant Perſon, of whom Papir. Maſſon. ſaith, cujus Libri extant, non cuidem Verborum, ſed Rerum aepparatu, prorſus Admirandi. His Inſtance of my Ignorance, in Citing ſome Greek Authors, out of the Latine Tranſlations of them, is ſo ridiculous, as it needeth no Anſwer.
§. 7. He next cometh to ſome Inſtances, that he ſeemeth to lay more Weight on. The firſt amounteth to no more but this, that I Cited Chryſoſt. out of Bellarm. and I had not Chryſoſtome then by me, (as our Author ſaith, he had not Bellarmine, when he wrote this Preface,) and anſwered Bellarmine and Chryſoſtom's Words, as he brought them: if he doubt, (as he ſeemeth to do,) whether I did faithfully Tranſcribe Bellarmin's Words, let him conſult the Place: And now, when I have ſeen and conſidered Chryſoſtom's own Words, I am ſure that foreign, is not the ſame way aſcribed to the Biſhop alone, as foreign and foreign are to him, with the Presbyters: for he deriveth theſe from Chriſt's Inſtitution, which he doth not pretend concerning that: nor indeed could he, ſeing he had ſaid foreign: he muſt then mean, that in his time, the Biſhop had an Election, and may be, alſo Ordination to a ſuperior Degree of Dignity, (which was without a ſuperior Power,) or that to him, was committed the Performance of the Ceremonie in Clerical Ordinations, viz. Laying on of Hands: tho' I am ſure, and have ſhewed, this was not the conſtant Practice. What our Author blameth in my ſenſe of foreign is fully Vindicated, Gilleſp. Eng. Pop. Cer. P. 3. C. 8. Diggreſſ. 1. P. 164. His next Inſtance, is out of Ration. Def. &c. p. 199. where I prove the Peoples Power in Electing their Paſtors, from Act. 14. 23. and that from the word foreign, (not barely from the force of the word, as he, by Overſight, or Ignorance, miſtaketh; but) by the force of the word, and it's Circumſtances in that Place. If Scapula be not a good Voucher for the Signification of a Greek Word, both in Profane, and Eccleſiaſtical Writings, his Lexicon is little worth: if he be, our Author has litle Judgment in declining his Authority; ſeing not one of the Inſtances he giveth of the word, is for Ordination; but generally, for giving Suffrage. If we Conſult Scripture, it is uſed Act. 10. 41. and 2 Corinth. 8. 19. in both which Places, it is uſed for Election. And its importing alſo Ordination, which I alledged, he is pleaſed to mock at: but thinketh not fit to take notice of the Grounds brought for that Interpretation, from the beſt Criticks: which I impute to his Unacquaintedneſs with that ſort of Learning; if we may be ſo bold, as to Queſtion the Skill of one, who ſo looketh down on other poor Mortals, as Ignoramus's.
§. 8. The next Proof of Ignorance is, I was bold to reprove one of my Adverſaries for commending Miniſters from their underſtanding Christian Philoſophy: Hence our Auther ſpendeth about 10 Pages to prove, that that Phraſe was uſed by the Fathers: all which is eaſily granted, and was never queſtioned by any that I know. Only I ſtill think (and if that be to be ignorant, I cannot ſhun that blame) that however the Fathers did pertinently uſe it, and even at this time it may to very good purpoſe be uſed in ſome caſes, yet that in a time when Socinianiſm aboundeth, and when revealed Religion is ſo much decryed, by not a few, and all Religion is by ſome reſolved into Nature, and Humane Reaſon, the improvement of which is Philoſophy: I ſay in that caſe, it is not ſo very proper a Commendation of a Miniſter, that is taken from Chriſtian Philoſophy, as that which is taken from that knowledge of Divine Things, which is built on Revelation, as ſuperadded to what we have by Nature, and is attained by Ratiocination from ſcientifick Principles.
§. 9. He next thinketh fit to charge his Antagoniſt with Nonſenſe, the Inſtances are firſt, (Animadverſ. on Stillingf. Jrenic. p. 30.) I had ſaid that all Ceremonies of God's Worſhip, are Worſhip themſelves. He ſhould have minded that it is there ſaid that the learned Stillingfleet ſaith the ſame, Irenic. p. 65. which I ſtill aver: and if he will not aſcribe Non-ſenſe to that unqueſtionably learned Author, why may not ſuch an one as I take ſhelter under his ſhadow. But if this Author had underſtood the Diſtinction, that I (and many more learned than I) have elſewhere cleared between Circumſtances, Rites and Ceremonies, and that this laſt Sort, is peculiar to Religious Actions, and hath place in no other kinds of Actions, he might have underſtood, that ſuch Actions are Religious, and Acts of Worſhip, and that they are true Worſhip, if inſtituted by Chriſt, and falſe, if diviſed by men. This cannot be judged Nonſenſe, by any who hath, with Judgement, lookt into the Controverſie about Ceremonies; but it muſt be Nonſenſe to judge ſo of it. The Fetch, (as he calleth it) of Ceremonies that are in the place of Competentes, or Catechumeni; called in the ſame place Candidate Ceremonies, is no more Nonſenſe than other Metaphors are, if the Author be ſo ignorant, as to underſtand that Phraſe literaly, it is his own Nonſenſe, and none of mine. The next peice of Nonſenſe is, that the Affirmative of the ſecond Commandment is, that we ſhould worſhip God in the way that he has preſcribed in his word: Rational Def. p. 125. If this be Nonſenſe, I have for my Compurgators, the whole Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, who in the Shorter Catechiſm, gave this Anſwer to the Queſtion, What is required in the ſecond Commandment? The ſecond Commandment requireth, the Receiving, Obſerving, keeping pure and entire, all ſuch Religious Worſhip, and Ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word. It is like this Author will not ſtick to charge that venerable Aſſembly with Error, but if he dare charge them with Nonſenſe, it is no great matter if poor I take a ſhare with them. I am ſo dull as to underſtand as litle what Nonſenſe is in owning the Lutherian Churches, as Sister Churches, and ſo having Communion with them, and yet refuſing to joyn with them on their Instituted Ceremonies. If any thing here look like Nonſenſe, it is from a Typographical Error, (which I confeſe that Book aboundeth with, the Correcting of the Preſs being commited by that Author to a negligent perſon, while himſelf was at the diſtance of ſome hundrdes of Miles) it is in the Manuſcript uninstituted Worſhip: and is meant of parts of Worſhip not appointed by Chriſt, but deviſed by men: We can have Communion with them in owning the ſame Truths, (ſeing they own the ſame Fundamental Truths with us) and in theſe parts of Worſhip that Chriſt hath appointed; but we cannot joyn with them in worſhiping God, by their Devices, and if they intermix theſe with inſtituted Worſhip, we muſt forbear Communion with them in both, rather than pollute our ſelves with uncommanded Worſhip: If this be Nonſenſe, I muſt bear that Imputation. Another Inſtance of Nonſenſe is, Second Vindication, p. 14. That the two Governments (Presbytery and Monarchie) of Church and State, have ſuited one another many Ages, ſince the Nation was Proteſtant: The Authors Antagoniſt had expreſſed his Wonder, how Presbytery could ſuit Monarchie in the State. I confeſs I was not ſo critical, as to impute to him, that he meant Presbytery in the State, and Monarchy in the State; (For I cannot diſcover Non-ſenſe where it is not, even in an Adverſary, as this ſenſible Man can;) And I plainly anſwered, that theſe two Governments; (viz. Presbytery in the Church, and Monarchy in the State) did ſuit one another. Whether the Non-ſenſe is in my Expreſſion, or in my Adverſaries apprehenſion, let the Reader judge: Alſo whether a Handle is here given for a Cavil; or Malice, or Ignorance, hath ſupplyed it.
§. 10. Another thing wherein he hath a mind to find Non-ſenſe, is Animadverſ. on Stillingfleets Irenicum, p. 5. where the learned Dr. having aſſerted, that where there are different Opinions▪ and probable Arguments on both ſides; if it be not a matter neceſſary to Salvation, it giveth ground to think that that matter in Controverſy was never intended for a neceſſary mean for Peace and Ʋnity in the Church: On this occaſion, G. R. was bold to ſay, that if things not neceſſary to Salvation, must needs be thus clearly revealed, much more this clearneſs is needful in things neceſſary to Salvation. The Non-ſenſe of this I cannot yet perceive: and I think this Author (not by his piercing Judgement, but by this tinctured Fancy) was the firſt that diſcovered it. And I cannot ſhun ſtill to think, that the Fundamental Truths ſhould be, and are revealed with more evidence, than the inferior Truths; and that the Lord would not have us to venture our Salvation, on that obſcurity of Revelation, that we may not venture the Peace of the Church on; if that were at Stake. But the beſt is, that the peace of the Church dependeth not ſo much on Oneneſs of Opinion, about ſome inferior Truths, as in honeſt endeavours after that, and in mutual forbearance where it cannot be attained. I am litle concerned in his not believing a Typographical Error, in a paſſage about the Decrees of God; which a Friend of his, (if not himſelf) had obſerved, and I had ſolemnly diſowned, and do ſtill diſowne, as what I never thought, ſpoke, nor wrote: It ſeems he meaſureth the veracity of others by his own. But he will prove what he affirmeth; That Book was Re-printed in England, without Alteration, or Correction; Ergo it was the Authors, not the Printers Error. A wiſe Conſequence indeed: if it went abroad with that Error, (as I deny not it did) it is no wonder it was Re-printed with it: but that it was ever Re-printed, is more than I know, or ever heard before: if he will not believe me in this, I hope ſome others will. He next ſetteth the black Mark of Non-ſenſe, on the Arguments I bring againſt a ſtinted Liturgy of mans Compoſure: Rational Def. p. 226. I can ſee nothing but tollerable Senſe, and ſome ſtrength of Reaſon, in theſe Arguments; when I review them after many years: And our Author thought not fit to diſcover it to us, and therefore they muſt even ſtand as they were. Only this great Judge of Non-ſenſe, ſheweth us that the Lords Prayer is a ſet Form and diſowned by Presbyterians, and therefore that must be here included: Anſwer, that Prayer (if a ſet Form; that is, if it be enjoined to be rehearſed in publick Worſhip) is not a ſet Form of mans deviſing, and therefore falleth not under the Arguments that he oppoſeth. Neither do Presbyterians diſown that Prayer, but uſe it as a Directory for Prayer, and if any will repeat the words in ſolemn Worſhip, they do not cenſure them. He hinteth, (tho' ſo confuſedly, that I cannot make Senſe of his Refutation of Non-ſenſe) that we are Quakers, becauſe againſt Liturgies. We find no Liturgies in the Apoſtolick Church; and yet they were no Quakers: if all praying without Book were Enthuſiaſm, (as he ignorantly inſinuateth) many Epiſcopal men muſt be ſuch, for they do not always uſe the Book. His retorting the Argument on extemporary Prayer, is ſtrangely wide, and hath been often anſwered: But this Author's buſineſs is not to clear Truth, but to run down a certain perſon whom he hath in chaſe: Extemporary Prayer impoſeth neither Matter, nor Frame, or Compoſure, on the Hearers, and Joyner, further than Nature it ſelf maketh neceſſary, where people pray together: but ſet Forms do.
§. 11. Yet more Non-ſenſe: his Antagoniſt ſpeaketh of the Popiſh Church of Scotland, and of the Proteſtant Church, alſo often of the Epiſcopal and Presbyterian Church there, whereas the Church is but one: Which this Author is at much pains to expoſe: but by miſhape, expoſeth himſelf in ſo doing: I liſt not to contend about words, whether you call a divided Church (as Scotland was while partly popiſh, and partly Proteſtant: and novv is vvhole partly Presbyterian and partly Epiſcopal) two Churches, or one Church rent in two peices; I think is not material, I ſee no Non-ſenſe in either way of ſpeaking: Both Parties or Churches if permitted muſt have their Government, and Governours, neither is it fit that they ſhould rule that Church, or part of the Church to which they are oppoſite, and which they would deſtroy. It is wholly beſide this purpoſe that he bringeth in, of my blaming Dr. Stillingfleet for making the Ʋnity of the Church of England, conſiſt, in two Convocations (which our Author doth ſo groſly miſtake for the Upper and Lower Houſes of one Convocation, whereas that Author doth make two Convocations in two diſtinct Provinces, p. 300) for that is one Church united in it's parts, not divided into Parties as the Church we ſpeak of. And it's leſs intelligible, how that ſhould have two Heads, than in this caſe: Why two Parties may not be called two governing Bodies, in a divided Church, I cannot yet underſtand, for all his Story of the Platonick Monſter: That no Head is mentioned, why ſhould he wonder; unleſs he think a viſible Head of the Church in a ſingle perſon is neceſſary; in ſuch Metaphorick Speeches, there is no matter of moment; whether ye call the governing Part of a Church a Body, or a Head: but enough of this quibling on this Head.
§. 12. Our Author's next Eſſay, is to ſet forth his Antagoniſt's ill Nature: in which Diſcourſe, every one may ſee, how manifeſtly and fully he ſetteth forth that Temper of Mind in himſelf, which he blameth in another: moſt of the Paſſages he inſiſteth on, were written againſt ſome Pamphlets, which contain the moſt falſe and injurious Imputations, and that not againſt a Perſon only, but againſt all the Presbyterians without Diſcrimination: yea, againſt the whole Nation, in it's Repreſentative, the Parliament; and many of theſe Aſſertions are proved to be falſe, and if a certain Author, by a Book which gave leſs occaſion, was by every Line, provoked to the Indecency of Paſſion, what wonder, if juſt Indignation was warmly expreſſed againſt ſuch Abuſive Treatment. If I have called any thing Lies, Railing, Saucineſs, Impudence, which was not ſo, I am content to underly the juſt Sentence of unbyaſſed men, but this Author and his Complices, take a Boundleſs Liberty to Reproach, and if they be told of it, they are Clamorous beyond Meaſure. It is not inconſiſtent with all that Civility that is due to men, to give things their true Names, eſpecially where the Rank and Behaviour of the Perſons we deal with, plead no extraordinary Reſpect. He miſtaketh, when he ſaith, that I knew, that the Author of the Memorial was dead, before I anſwered his Book: I do not to this day, know who was the Author of it. What was ſaid about giving up King Charles the firſt to England, ſhould have been refuted by Reaſon, not by Quibling: I have no Anſwer for ſuch Arguments: neither have I time to examine how fairly all the words are cited, which he adduceth, nor to ſhew on what occaſion, or on what neceſſity they were written: what he repreſenteth as ſpoken of the Prelatiſts, is injuriouſly blamed, it was ſpoken of a Party of them, (who are but few,) who reproached the Presbyterians in general, and in the moſt univerſal Terms; which never was my way againſt them.
§. 13. If any thing hath dropt from my Pen, which may be judged Uncivil, or ſhort of due Reſpect toward the Learned, and Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet, I am ready to crave him pardon, for I deſigned the contrary: what this Author chargeth me with that way, is partly falſe, as what he citeth out of the Preface to Animadv. on Irenic. for both the Prefaces, (I have ſeen one at ſome Copies, and another at other Copies,) were written by another hand, without the knowledge of the Author: partly they are fouly miſrepreſented; to give an Inſtance: this Author faith, that I ſaid of Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 18. that for the moſt part he doth nothing, but magno conatu nihil agere. This is miſrepreſented: I ſaid that he inſiſteth moſt on things not controverted, and thence inferred the blame mentioned. It is one thing to charge one directly with an Opinion or Practice: and another, to make an Inference from it: ſeing many do or ſay that, the ill Conſequence of which they do not obſerve, but will diſowne. His other Citations are but a juſt Cenſure one ſome Paſſages of that Learned Author's Writings, which I was examining, which cannot be ſhunned in Polemick Writings: to call that a Contradiction that I make appear to be ſuch, is no Injury nor Breach of that Civility, that is due to a Stated Adverſary: many things are fair enough in open War, which were not ſo in a State of Peace. This Author is yet more injurious, in expounding all that I have ſaid of a few men of imbittered Spirits; among the Prelatiſts, who have in their Writings reproacht the Presbyterians, and imputed to them, things that they are innocent of, or abhor, applying all this, (I ſay) to all them who are of the Epiſcopal Perſwaſion; or to the Party in general, as that they are Eſaus, Serpents, Spiteful, &c. I challenge him to prove what he ſaith: I deny it: if I have ſaid any thing of Immorality among the Clergy, it is too evident, tho' I know ſome of them are innocent, and lament it. What he citeth as ſpoken againſt the Church of England, and her Clergy, is either what is in Controverſie between us, and them: I have been ſo bold, as to call their Liturgy and Ceremonies Superſtition, and to mention what is the Native Concomitant of Superſtition, that men will be wiſer than Chriſt or his Apoſtles. This is no more a Crime, than it is a Fault to be oppoſite to their way. What is ſaid of Immoralities, and Inſufficiency for the Ministery, and other Corruptions that are among them, is not chargeable on me, yea nor on Presbyterians alone, but it is the Complaint, of the beſt among themſelves, ſee the five Groans of the Church, and Mr. Bold's Serm. Theſe Authors were truly Sons of the Church of England; thouſands among them, complain of theſe things, who yet adhere to that Communion. I might well diſowne that Principle of Sentencing, & Executing Kings by their Subjects, about which ſome of the Church of England had informed forreign Divines, as the Principle and Doctrine of Presbyterians: becauſe the Generality of Presbyterians in Scotland, (very few excepted, and theſe turned Independents after,) ſhewed their Abhorrence of that Fact committed on King Charles the firſt, ſo they did in England, and ſome of them ſuffered Death, for owning his Son. Is it Incivility to the Church of England, that I thought, at the time of the late Revolution, it was fit for Parties to put in their Claim, for what they thought the way of GOD, that it might be judged of by them who had Authority? if the Church of England think, we ought not to mutter againſt the Corruptions of their way, nor ſeek a Remedy in an orderly and legal way, they may know that we pretend to no ſuch Civility, as is inconſiſtent with Faithfulneſs to the Truth, and Ordinances of Chriſt. We are for the Purity of the Church of England, and for her Peace too, ſo as not to meddle with her without our Sphere: but if ſpeaking, or writing for the good way that we owne, do diſquiet her, with reſpect to her Corruptions, we muſt be excuſed. It is a wiſe Aſſertion, he exhorteth his Readers to purge the Church of England, &c. I exhorted none to this Attempt, but in their Station, ſuch as many have not: his Expreſſion ſoundeth, as if I had ſtirred all up, that ſhould read this Book, to fall on the Church of England, and pull her down.
§. 14. Impudence is the next Epithet, that he laboureth to fix on the man of his Wrath. Inſtances are; It is abſcribed to Cunning, that their Books reproaching the Presbyterians were ſpread in England, but hard to be found in Scotland: which he imputeth to want of Liberty for Printing ſuch Pieces in Scotland, and hazard in importing them: but it is ſufficiently known, that many Books of that ſtrain have been imported, and none ſeized (that I hear of) but one Parcel, which was of another ſtrain. Next it is Impudence to aſſert the Loyalty of Presbyterians. Anſw. It is more Impudence to aſcribe to Presbyterians, what was the Practices of ſome few, with which the far greateſt part, neither did, nor would concur. What was ſaid on this Head, was alſo proved; and it is Impudence to put ſuch a Mark on any Aſſertion, and yet not attempt to anſwer the Arguments brought for it. Another Impudence is to ſpeak of the Harmleſneſs of Presbyterians, and that they are no Perſecutors. And that any one of many of them ſuffered more Hardſhips, and Barbarous Cruelty, than all the Eſpiſcopalians have endured: the Impudence of this, he proveth very learnedly: how could one man ſuffer the deprivation of five or ſix hundred Livelyhoods. That there were ſo many Epiſcopal Miniſters turned out, (I ſuppoſe theſe he meaneth) I know not; but it is not a wiſe compariſon, of one man to have ſo many Families to maintain on nothing, and each to have his own: I affirm that one man who ſuffered Torture, Intercommunning, was forc'd to lodge in Dens and Woods, and in daily hazard of his Life, who was ſold for a Slave in the remote places of the Earth, ſuffered more (tho' his loſs of Money did not amount to ſo great a Sum) than all they did. I find nothing in what followeth to diſprove what I had ſaid, and therefore paſs to another piece of Impudence, (which yet is a repetition of what he had ſaid before) that Presbyterians are no Rebels. To prove this he (very pertinently) alledgeth a Contradiction between firſt Vindic. ad Q. 2. §. 3. where it is ſaid that Epiſcopacy raiſed a Tumult, and §. 5. they (the Epiſcopal men) raiſed no Tumults. (This laſt is ad Q. 3. §. 5.) Anſw. The former is ſpoken (as plainly appeareth to them who will ſee) of the War between the King and Parliament. The other of ſuch Tumults as our Author chargeth the Rable with, and it is expreſly ſaid that they did what they could to raiſe a War. Here then is that horrible Contradiction that he findeth, or fancieth: a War managed by potent Armies and for a long time, is in one place called a Tumult; and yet Scuffles among a confuſed Rout, which are ſoon over, are diſtinguiſhed from ſuch a War. Here is neither Contradiction nor Impudence: The Impudence that followeth is injuriouſly imputed to me (it is vindicating the Presbyterians from being Rebels) for what himſelf ſeemeth to applaud in other more modeſt perſons, he might find frequently ſaid by me. But if it be Impudence to deny Presbyterians to be Rebels, what kind of quality muſt he be of who chargeth them with it, while his own Party is guilty of Actions of the ſame nature, and were as univerſally engaged in them. What hath lately fallen out, might teach him either to juſtifie what he ſo freely calleth Rebellion, or to lay the blame of it on Proteſtants, and not Presbyterians only: and then if no ſhare of it fall on himſelf, let us know what Party he is of.
§. 15. He next challengeth ſome Inſinuations, as if the Presbyterians in Scotland were the only Proteſtants; which cannot be inferred from any Words he citeth. Neither can it be inferred that I thought, or ſaid that the Goſpel was not preached but by the Presterians. One word he layeth weight on, that if the Presbyterians had not uſed the Indulgence given to them and Papists; theſe would have occaſion to miſlead People, without any to oppoſe them. None who had a mind to underſtand Words as they are plainly meant, would ſo conſtruct this Paſſage; ſuch univerſal Expreſſions moſt frequently ſuffer a Limitation: alſo in that caſe they had done what in them was, that none ſhould oppoſe Popery: as if a Batallion in an Army flee, they act ſuch a part as tendeth to hinder any oppoſition to be made to the Enemy. Beſide all this, tho' there were ſome privat Epiſcopal Miniſters appear'd faithful in this Caſe: it is well known how litle moſt of the Biſhops, and the generality of the Clergy appeared, and how they that did ſpeak any thing that way, were diſcouraged by ſome Biſhops. I wiſh he had better cleared to us, how abſurd it is to ſay, that the true Proteſtants in the Nation were for the late Revolution, than by telling us, that being againſt it was no Popery: moſt men think it was too much to favour it, and was a defect in that Zeal that ſhould have, in ſuch a Juncture, been ſhewed againſt it. The ſecret Inſtructions from Holland that he giveth as the Cauſe of Presbyterians complying with the Diſpenſing Power: I never heard of them, but from that Epiſtler whom he mentioneth: and I could anſwer nothing to it but by denying it: and now when he calleth for an Anſwer to it, I ſay, Firſt, Presbyterians did never comply with the Diſpenſing Power, but groaned under it as a Grievance: their uſing the Indulgence could not be ſo conſtructed, as I have elſe-where ſhewed. Secondly, I ſolemnly declare that I know nothing to this day of theſe ſecret Inſtructions. Thirdly, What moved ſuch Presbyterians as I was acquainted with to ſcruple uſing the Indulgence at firſt, and to accept it at laſt, was, that ſome Conditions and Limitations, that they could not ſubmit to, were left out in the laſt Edition of it. The Villany that he chargeth the Presbyterians with, in Addreſſing King James for his Indulgence, while they were on Intrigues to ſupplant him, muſt be charged on them who were ſo guilty: I knew of no ſuch Intrigues, nor any ſuch deſign then on foot, tho' now I perceive that ſuch Deſigns were then hatching: neither can I name one perſon among all that accepted of the Indulgence who knew of ſuch Deſigns.
§. 16. He next bringeth inſtances of Impudent Shifts uſed by G. R. when he, or his Cauſe is put to it. The rabbled Miniſters were not deprived of their Poſſeſſions (I mean Stipends) by an Act of Parliament (as he alledgeth,) but thruſt from their Places by the Rabble; and the State judged that they could not relieve them without palpable Inconvenience; and becauſe of the notoriety of the Scandals of not a few of them which had been ſo outed; (as appeareth from the then Prince of Orange's Declaration,) on which followed the loſs of their Benefices. What the State did, they can beſt give Reaſons for. I never defended what the Rabble did that way. For what is ſaid of Parliaments calling King James's Retirement from England, his Abdicating the Government: that is plain to be meant of the Parliament of England: for tho' it was written by a Scots-man, it was ſaid of Engliſh▪ Affairs: of Retirement from England, not from Scotland: wherefore here is no Impudence, (unleſs on his own ſide,) tho' the Scots Parliament ſpeak nothing of Abdication. This, and what followeth, is picking a Quarrel without cauſe given. The long Story he hath of the Viſcount of Dundee's Plot, and the Forces that came from the Weſt to defend the Convention, containeth ſuch Matters of Fact, as he contradicteth what is confidently affirmed by them who were on the Place, and had occaſion to know theſe things, as well as he; and are fully as credible perſons as he is. Let the Reader judge who deſerveth moſt Credit. I was Witneſs to none of theſe things: but ſhall give my Vouchers, if duely called to it: if he can do the like, let unbyaſſed Men judge of the whole Hiſtory. If I had ſaid the whole Nation knoweth the whole of this Paſſage to be true, as he affirmeth that the whole Nation knoweth it to be a Figment; I might have been branded with Impudence, on better ground than any thing that he hath brought to prove his Charge againſt me.
§. 17. What was ſaid againſt Dr. Strachan's Defence, he ſpendeth many Words upon it: on which I obſerve a few things. Firſt, I expreſly referred that Objection to be Anſwered by ſome ſeen in State-Affairs; it being Political rather than Theological. 2ly That I pleaded an Inter-regnum in the time of the Rabbling, and would not allow it in the Dr's Caſe, is no inconſiſtency: for in the firſt caſe the Exerciſe of Government was impoſſible; in the other there was actual Exerciſe of it. 3ly When it was ſaid the Repreſentative of the Nation had owned William as their King: it was not meant (as he hath a mind to underſtand it) as complexly ſuch; but as Exerciſing the Supreme Regal Power, and deſigned to be compleatly King. I could give Scripture-Inſtances of ſuch manner of ſpeaking of Kings: if it were fit to enlarge as much on this Head as he doth. 4ly If it was not a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation, to diſobey the Command of it's higheſt Power for the time, even tho' one ſhould attempt to give Reaſons (unleſs theſe Reaſons were alſo ſufficient, of which none of us are Judge) let any give Sentence. 5ly He ſubtilizeth the Diſtinction too much between being King, and exerciſing the Regal Power: but to help out his fine Notion, he behoved to alter the Phraſe, putting Right to Exerciſe for Exerciſing it ſelf: I hope theſe two may be diſtinguiſhed; and that there may be not only a Phyſical, but a Moral impediment, for a time, of a Moral Right. His Notion of Exerciſing the Regal Power before taking the Oath, and that there is no Obligation to take the Oath before the Coronation; I cannot yield to; but leave to Stateſmen, and Lawers to Debate it with him. I ſay the ſame of his Diſcourſe of Hereditary and Elective Kings.
§. 18. That I called K. J. our lawful Soveraign, he ſaith, was a striking at the Root of the preſent Settlement. Anſwer, if I had ſo called him, with reſpect to the time of the preſent Government, what he ſaith were true. But to ſay that he was ſo before this Government had it's being, and before the Nation in its Repreſentative had found and declared the contrary, is far from that blame. Next, he unfairly repreſenteth what I had ſaid, that Epiſcopacy cannot be restored: I hope it never ſhall, and I am ſure it never can, without croſſing the Inſtitution of Chriſt. But whether the reſtoring of it be conſiſtent with the Civil Rights and Priviledges of the Nation, as things are now ſtated, I leave it to Stateſ-men and Lawers to diſcuſs. His Commendation of the Cameronians, and blaming me for ſpeaking to their Diſadvantage, is not out of kindneſs to them, but in odium tertii; that he might make the ſober Presbyterians (for I cannot be bantered out of that Diſtinction) more hateful, as being worſe than they. I ſhould think it loſt time, to examine his quibbles about the Presbyterian Miniſters not preaching ſo much as he and his Complices thought was meet againſt the Rabling: theſe things were ſufficiently declared againſt by ſome, and that where ſuch Diſorders were moſt rampant and regnant: but Preaching could not Stem that Tide, many of theſe men would hear non of us, nor will they to this day (tho', through mercy, not a few of them are reclaimed) and ſome who liſtned to other Doctrine, would not hear that. He hath a wiſe inference, I had ſaid, theſe courſes were preached againſt both before they were acted, for preventing them: and after for reproving them; Ergo, ſaith he, it was a conſulted and deliberat Politick; and the Ministers were privy to it; and yet did not warn the poor men, that they might have eſcaped being rabled: I ſhall not give this its due Name; as he frequently giveth ill and undue Names to my Words. Miniſters knew an inclination to Diſorders in ſome, that they went beyond their Stations, by an ill guided Zeal: and this they warned againſt, yea, and ſome Presbyterian Miniſters did proteſt againſt all theſe exaſperated men, when they beheld it: But that they knew Deſigns for theſe Diſorders in particular, is falſe, and doth not follow from what was ſaid; He ſaith, he can name more than one or two of the firſt Rank of ſober Presbyterian Miniſters, (ſuch a Blunder and Repugnancy in me would have been called Ignorance, Non-ſenſe, Impudence, and what not) who adviſed to theſe Courſes. I ſolemnly declare I know not any of them, and if I did, I ſhould blame them.
§. 19. He cometh next to Contradictions: ſome of which are fancied; others are real; but of his own making, by miſ-citing words; One is I have ſaid, where there are Biſhops the Presbyters have no Power, in another Book, we do not ſay that Biſhops take all Power from Presbyters. Any who will be at the pains to conſult the places that he citeth, will find that the firſt ſpeaketh of Governing Power; the other ſpeaketh of Power in General, which comprehendeth preaching Power, but it is there expreſly ſaid, that they take away all Governing Power: Where is then the Contradiction: Next it is ſaid, (he knoweth not where it ſeems; nor do I) that King James's Indulgence was against Law. And yet 2d Vendic. p. 43. the Parliament had given the King ſuch Power. The firſt Aſſertion I find not; another Aſſertion that to him will infer it, is, the Law was for publick Meetings, Ergo, privat Meetings were againſt Law; It is a pitiful Conſequence, Where Liberty is allowed, (as now in England) the Law is for both ways. Wherefore the ſecond Aſſertion maketh no Contradiction. But if both had been ſaid, there are juſt Laws, and unjuſt: which may without a Contradiction in the Aſſertion, be ſaid to contradict one another. This Diſtinction removeth alſo the next pretended Contradiction, between a Forefeiture being unjuſt, that the Authority of the Nation laid on, and Miniſters having no legal Right to their Stipends, when the Authority of the Nation have determined otherwiſe; Parliaments may both do right, and do wrong. Another Contradiction he fancieth: Animadv. on Stillingf. Jrenic. It is aſſerted that all Miniſters having got equal Power from Chriſt, they cannot ſo devolve their Power on one of themſelves, as to deprive themſelves of it: their Power being not a Licenſe only, but a Truſt. This he thinketh is contradicted indirectly, by delegating Members to the General Aſſembly. To this I anſwer, Delegation to the General Aſſembly, is a Temporary, tranſient thing, for the exerciſe of one or a few Acts: and neceſſity doth warrant it, ſeing the Miniſters of a whole Nation, cannot meet, without leaving almoſt the whole Nation deſtitute of Preaching, and other Ordinances, for a conſiderable time. This is not to be compared with devolving of the Power of the Miniſters of a whole Province on one Biſhop, who is perpetually (ad vitam aut culpam) to exerciſe the whole power of the Church, in all the Acts of it; ſo as all the reſt are deprived of it, and cannot exerciſe it, nor give account to God for the Management of it. The one is very conſiſtent with that Parity that Chriſt made in communicating Church Power to his Servants, the other is not. He ſaith alſo, that I contradict the former Poſition directly, in true Repreſentation: & 2d Vindic. by allowing the taking ruling Power from the prelatical Clergy. Beſide the Neceſſity, and unſettled State of the Church in theſe Places, brought for juſtifying this Conduct, which he rather mocketh at than ſolidly anſwereth, I there at length inſiſted, to ſhew that there is no inconſiſtancy between this, and our principle concerning Parity: I need ſay no more, till he anſwer what is already ſaid.
§. 20. Another Contradiction he will needs make, between my diſowning ſome Grounds of Separation in England, and owning the ſame in Scotland. The one in my Rational Defence againſt Dr. Stillingfleet, the other in my ſecond Vindic. of the Church of Scotland, this he proſecuteth with a great deal of Clamor: what ſtrength is in his Diſcourſe, let us now try. I hope I ſhall be found ſemper idem, for all this noiſe. Three Grounds of Separation he mentioneth, wherein this Contradiction lyeth, firſt Epiſcopacy. Anſwer, I ſaid the ſetting up Epiſcopacy in England, was not a ſufficient Ground for People to forbear hearing of the Word in their Pariſh Churches, I ſay the ſame with reſpect to Scotland. I ſaid Epiſcopacy was a good Ground for Miniſters to withdraw from Church Judicatories, where they muſt (at least interpretatively) own that Authority: I ſay the ſame of England. If he can find any thing in my words, that doth import any more than this, I ſhall owne a Contradiction, and the ſhame that it may infer. The ſecond is Epiſcopal Miniſters were Ʋſurpers, or Intruders. The third is they had not the Peoples Call. I am ſure, I never made theſe to be two diſtinct things: but this Author's ſubtile Wit, hath divided them. Here I cannot own either Contradiction or Contrariety. I approved the Conduct of many People in England, who by a tacit, and after Conſent, owned theſe men, as their Paſtors, and heard them, tho' they did not joyn with their unwarranted Ceremonies: I never condemned the ſame Practice in Scotland; but approved it by my Practice, and Doctrine. Only I pleaded, that what ever might be ſaid of their not giving Conſent, (which was alſo the Caſe of many in England,) they could not be Charged with Separation, while theſe men were obtruded on them, againſt the Laws of the Goſpel, eſpecially when they might hear their own lawfully called Miniſters, tho' in a Corner. I find no Contradiction here, neither in what he ſaith about the Covenant, which I ſtill think never made any new Duties, or ſins for the matter; but was a ſuperadded Tie to former Moral Obligations. I ſaid indeed that the Covenant National, and the Solemn League, made ſetting up of Epiſcopacy more ſinful than before: but I never ſaid, that either it made Epiſcopacy ſinful, where it was not ſo before: nor that it made owning of it ſuch: tho' I am ſure it aggravated the ſin of both.
§. 21. His next Effort is to expoſe my Rejecting the Teſtimony of ſome, who were brought to Atteſt the Rabbling: but in his way, (I know not what Freak took him,) he Digreſſeth to conſider the Preface to Animadv. on Stillingf. Irenic. which he will needs have to be written by the Author himſelf, on which he diſcanteth after his own manner, that is, not very Learnedly, nor Convincingly; I aſſure him, and (if he will not be aſſured, he having no great Eſteem of my Veracity,) I can aſſure the Reader, that the Author neither wrote that Preface, nor what is in the Title Page, nor knew that the Book was Printed, till after it was done; but was at 300 Miles diſtance from where it was done. The Metaphorical Death, ſpoken of in it, taken from the Engliſh Phraſe, of being Dead in Law, as the Nonconformiſt Miniſters then were, was but a ſorry Subject for a Learned Divine to practiſe upon, but he had a mind to write much, and had little to ſay, tho' he often pretendeth to have great Plenty of Matter. It is true I did, and do Queſtion the Truths of many Circumſtances, whereby the Rabblings were aggravated: and tho' he is pleaſed to ſay, that the whole Nation knoweth them, I affirm the Generality of the People, where theſe things were ſaid to be Acted, know the contrary: let the Reader, who hath not occaſion to enquire into the Matters of Fact, believe as he ſeeth Cauſe, or ſuſpend his Belief. I did never defend, nor deny the Hardſhips that ſome of the Epiſcopal Clergy met with from the Rabble: only I ſaid, and I inſiſt in it, that they were Repreſented moſt Diſingenuouſly in ſeveral Parts, and Circumſtances of them: his Vouchers I reject, (I mean ſome of them,) ours he rejecteth; which is ordinary in ſuch Contendings, wherefore unleſs the thing could come to a Legal Tryal, every one muſt believe as he ſeeth Cauſe. That I rejected by the Bulk all the Matters of Fact, is falſe, and injurious. I did acknowledge ſeveral of them, and condemned them as unaccountable Diſorders. It is a fooliſh Inference, no man can be a fit Witneſs before a Court, becauſe we are not to believe all the Stories that men tell of themſelves, or their Friends. That I had my Informations in theſe things moſtly from Rabblers themſelves, is falſly aſſerted, as may be ſeen by any who Impartially conſider the ſecond Vindication. His expoſing that ſecond Vindication, becauſe I had the Accounts of Matters of Fact from other hands, and was not Eye, nor Ear-Witneſs to them, is odd; for what Hiſtorian is there, who may not be, on the ſame Account, blamed. The Book he ſpeaketh of, Account of the late Establiſhment of the Presbyterian Government, by the Parliament, I have not ſeen, nor heard of it before. I thanked the Parliament, in the Preface to my Sermon before them, for their Act, Eſtabliſhing Presbyterian Government, can any wiſe man thence Infer, that I commended whatever was beſide Incorporated into that Act? Therefore all his long Diſcourſe on that head, is impertinent. Another terrible Contradiction is, I ſay Field Meetings were ſometimes neceſſary: and yet they were Condemned by the Wiſest and Soberest Presbyterians. If I had ſaid they were in all Caſes ſo Condemned, he might have Inſulted: but may not I always, that is at all times, be of Opinion, that a thing ſhould not be done, as I ſee it often done, and without Neceſſity, and yet think that there may be a Caſe of Neceſſity, where it may be done; this is to Cavil, not to Reaſon.
§. 22. The Envenomed Words, in ſome Pages that follow, wherewith he Concludeth his Preface, and theſe of the ſame Sort, wherewith it Interſperſed, I diſregard: he doth himſelf more Hurt by them, than me: I reſolve not to be Hector'd, nor Banter'd out of my Principles, nor Scarred by Malice, or Reproach from caſting in my Mite, for the Defence of Truth, tho' he, and ſuch as he Conſpire to Overwhelm me, partly with their Books, and partly with their Calumnious Imputations. It is not uſual for Satan ſo to Rage againſt a bad Cauſe. Theſe few Pages I have written raptim▪ the Preſs waiting for them: if he, or any other will Examine them fairly, with that Candor that becometh a Chriſtian, and a Diſputant; I ſhall be willing to be Corrected, if any thing have eſcaped my Pen; if he or they write in the ſame Strain of this Preface, I will Deſpiſe them, as alſo will all Sober and Intelligent Readers.
FINIS.
End of the text · Gilbert Rule, The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined (1696)