Episcopacy by Divine Right Asserted, Section 10
§. 10.
The fourth ground, That the univerſall practice of the Church immediately ſucceeding the Apostolike times, is a ſure Commentary upon the practice of the Apoſtles, and our beſt direction.
FOurthly, I muſt challenge it for a no leſſe undoubted Truth, That the univerſall practice of the Church immediately ſucceeding the Apoſtles, is the beſt Commentary upon the practice of the Apoſtles; and withall, that the univerſall practice of Gods Church in all ages, and places, is next unto Gods Word, the beſt guide and direction for our carriages, and formes of Adminiſtration; The Copartners and immediate Succeſſors of thoſe bleſſed men could beſt tell what they next before them did; for who can better tell a mans way or pace, than he that followes him cloſe at the heeles? And if particular men or Churches may miſtake; yet that the whole Church of Chriſtian men ſhould at once miſtake that which was in their eye; it is farre more than utterly improbable. A truth, which it is a wonder any ſober Chriſtian ſhould bogle at; yet ſuch there are, to our griefe, and to the ſhame of this late giddy age; even the great guides of their faction;Polit. Eccleſ. l. 2. cap. 7. Falſum eſt, &c. Our miſ-learned countriman Parker, the ſecond Ignis fatuus of our poore miſ-led brethren, and ſome Seconds of his, ſtand peremptorily and highly upon the Deniall: It is falſe (ſaith he) that the univerſall practice of the Church is ſufficient to prove any thing to be of Apoſtolike Originall; And jeeringly, ſoone after, Vniverſa Eccleſiae praxis, & conſenſus patrum, unica Hierarchicorum Helena est. The univerſall practice of the Church, and conſent of Fathers, (ſaith he) is the onelyonly dearling of the abettors of the Hierarchy. But the practice of the Church immediatly after the Apoſtles is no evidence. Heare now, I beſeech you, my deare brethren, all ye who would pretend to any Chriſtian ingenuity, and conſider, whether you have not reaſon to diſtruſt ſuch a leader, as would perſwade you to ſlight and reject the teſtimony and practice of the whole Church of God upon earth, from the firſt plantation of it to this preſent age, and to caſt your ſelves upon the private opinions of himſelfe, and ſome few other men of yeſterday; ſurely in very matter of doctrine this could be no other than deeply ſuſpicious, than foulely odious: If no man before Luther and Calvin had excepted againſt thoſe points wherein we differ from Rome, I ſhould have hated to follow them; how much more muſt this needs hold in matter of fact? Iudge what a ſhame it is to heare a Chriſtian Divine careleſly ſhaking off all arguments drawne from Antiquity, Continuance, Perpetuall Succeſſion in and from Apoſtolike Churches, unanimous conſent, univerſall practice of the Church, immediate practice of all the Churches ſucceeding the Apoſtles, as either Popiſh, or nothing. And all theſe are acknowledged for our Grounds, and are not Popiſh. For me, I profeſſe, I could not, without bluſhing, and aſtoniſhment read ſuch ſtuffe; as confounded in my ſelfe, to ſee that any ſonne of the Church ſhould be not onelyonly ſo rebelliouſly unnaturall to his holy mother, as to broach ſo putrid a Doctrine, to her utter diſparagement, but ſo contumelious alſo to the Spirit of God in his providence for the deare Spouſe of his Saviour here upon earth! Holy Jrenaeus, Iren. l. 4. contr haereſ.I am ſure, was of another minde; Agnitio vera, ſaith he, The true acknowledgement is the doctrine of the Apoſtles, & antiquus Eccleſiae ſtatus, and the ancient ſtate of the Church in the whole world by the Succeſſion of Biſhops, to whom the Apoſtles delivered the Church, which is in every place: And then whiles we have both theſe; the doctrine of the Apoſtles, ſeconded by the ancient ſtate of the Church, who can out-face us? What meanes then this wilfull, and peeviſh ſtupidity? Nihil pro Apoſtolico habendum; Ibid. l. 2. c. 7.Nothing, ſaith Parker, is to be held for Apoſtolike, but that which is found recorded in the writings of the Apoſtles. Nothing? Was all regiſtred by themſelves, which we muſt believe they did, or enacted? For doctrine neceſſary for ſalvation, we are for him; but ſurely for evidence of fact, or rituall obſervation, this is no better than abſurd rigour, than unchriſtian incredulity: Where is there expreſſe charge for the Lords Day? Where for Paedobaptiſme? Where for publike Churches? Where for Texts to be handled in Sermons? Where for publike Prayers of the Church before and after them, and many ſuch like, which yet we think deducible from thoſe ſacred authorities? That is true of Hierome, Hieron Tom. 6. in Agge 1.Quae abſque authoritate, &c. Thoſe things which men either finde or feigne, as delivered by Apoſtolike tradition, without the authority and teſtimonies of Scripture, are ſmitten by the ſword of Gods Spirit; But what is this to us, who finde this which we challenge for Apoſtolicall, recorded in the written Word of God? Or, with what conſcience is this alledged againſt us, which is directly bent againſt the hereticall doctrines and traditions of the Marcionites, either utterly without, or expreſly againſt the Scripture?