A DEFENCE OF THB CHUKCH-GOVERNMENT, FAITH, WORSHIP, AND SPIRIT, or THtl PRESBYTERIANS ; ANSWER TO A BOOK, BNTITLEO, AN APOLOGY FOR MR THOMAS RHIND, SEPARATING FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, AND EMBRA- CING THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By JOHN'aNDERSON, M. A. lOMB TIME MINISTKR OF THB GOSPEL, DUMBAKTOK. 1 John. ii. IP.— TAe_y went out from ut, S^c. EDINBURGH: Printed iy Michael Anderson^ rOR ALEXANDER THOMSON, SKENE STREET, AND WILLIAM TROUP, GALLOWGATE, ABERDEEN. 1820. The PxjBLiSHEU has consulted with the fol- lowing eminent Divines, for whose judgment he has the liighest respect^ who have express- ed their approbation, and hearty concur- rence, in the republication of this Work ; — - illustrative of a subject, which it is highly ne- -cessary should be thoroughly understood by the People of this Country, and peculiarly im- portant at the present time ; viz. Professor KiDD, Aberdeen ; Professor PAXTONjEdiuburghj Dr CoLQUHOUN, Leith ; Dr Peters, Dundee ; Dr M'Crif,, Edinburgh ; Rev. D. Dickson, jun. ditto ; llev. A. Thomson, ditto; Rev. William Burns, Dun; Rev. J. AiTKEN, Kiiriemuir ; Rev. James Aird, Rattray ; Rev. Hugh Ross, Fcarn ; Rev. N. Kennedy, Loggie ; Rev. H. Bethune, Alness ; Rev. D. Waddell, Shiels ; Rev. P. Robertson, Craig- dani ; Rev. J. BuNYAN, Wliitehill ; Rev. Jas. Miller, Huntly ; Rev. S. Somerville, Elgin ; Rev. John Monro, Nigg ; Rev. D.Anderson, Boghole; Rev. Adam Blair, Perry Port-ou-Craig. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, ARCHIBALD, EARL OF I SLAY, LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL OF THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND, OKE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY LORDS OF SESSION, AMD aOVERNOR OV l)UMBAl|TON CASTLV. My Lord, I HAVE, upon more accounts than one, pre- sumed to shelter this Book under your Pa- tronage. The great family whence you are sprung, and whereof you are so bright an ornament, has always, since the first dawn of the Refor- mation, patronized the cause therein defend- ed. They have managed it by their wisdom, protected it with their sword, adorned it by VI DEDICATION. tlieir lives, and too often sealed it with their blood. Yet, even this was a fate rather to be envied than lamented. For, to fall a sa^ crifice at once for their God and their coun- try ; to be transmitted to posterity under the united characters of martyr and patriot ; this, my Lord, was, next to the enjoyment of heaven, the highest glory great and virtuous souls could attain to. I need not tell your Lordship that the same cause is still in hazard. It is lampoon- ed in the tavern, declaimed against from the pulpit, scribbled at from the press, and its ruin projected by the dealers in the politics. Yet all the nation is persuaded, that it is no less the inclination, than it is visibly the inte- rest of the family of Argi/le, heartily to es- pouse it : And all the owners of that interest, that is, the wiser and better, and far greater part of the nation, have necessarily such an opinion of the personal sufficiency of the prin- cipal members of that house, as to found the greatest expectations thereon. Your illustrious brother, the Duke, has raised himself to an unrivalled glory, and dis- tinguished himself as the hero of the age. You, my Lord, not contented to excel in those exercises, which are too often the DEDICATION. Vll only accomplishment of persons distinguish- ed by their birth, not satisfied to have adorn- ed your mind with that which is called the polite part of learning ; and, by a true taste of the Belles Lettres, and uncommon advan- ces in the Mathematics, and all the most va- luable parts of Philosophy, to make your con- versation both shining and instructive : Not satisfied, I say, with all this, you have besides, that you might be a public good to your country, stocked your soul with so exact and extensive a knowledge of the Laws, that you are distinguished on the bench by your abili- ty no less than by your quality : And the whole nation finds itself happy in her Majes- ty's wise choice of your Lordship to bear so great a part in those Courts, on the sentences of which their liv-es and fortunes depend. Though then, my Lord, the weaknesses of the book are mine only, and so can no way affect your Lordship ; yet the subject of it, and the cause it appears for, necessarily entitle it to the patronage of a person of your charac- ter. You, my Lord, know that the Presby- terian establishment in Scotland can never be overthrown ; without breaking through what- ever has been hitherto held sacred amonop men. And your Lordship knows, there is no cause why it should be attempted. .i^^'^-cr^C ^^-. '^.<. "^'Mi DEDICATION. Though the High Church faction, with whom modesty and moderation are reckoned scandal, has taught her proselytes to charge the Presbyterians with a Spirit diametrically- opposite to that of the Gospel ; yet, you, my Lord, from your own personal acquaintance with them, know how false and calumnious that charge is : As it is evident, to the obser- vation of all the world, that they are the most 'serious Christians ; so your Lordship is abun- dantly convinced, that they are the most faith- ful subjects her Majesty has on this side the Border^ They do not indeed allow of a Worship fringed with ceremonies of human invention and imposition. Eut I am persuaded, a per- son of your Lordship's reflection must needs be sensible, that a Minister of God never makes a more unsightly figure, than when ap- pearing in a party-coloured dress, and prac- tising motions and postures his Heavenly Master never enjoined him. It is true, the Presbyterians do not restrict themselves to forms in praying to Almighty God. But, I suppose, your Lordship does not think a beg- gar ever the less sincere, though he do not always ask his alms in the same studied cant. It is confessed likewise, there are several Articles of Faith taught by the Presby- DEDICATION. IX terians, which are above the comprehension of our finite minds : But your Lordship, who, every day, in the search of nature, finds so many appearances perfectly unaccountable from the laws of mechanism, without having recourse to the First Mover and great Author of nature, cannot be surprised to find articles in religion not otherwise to be resolved, but by believing that God's judgments are un- searchable, and his ways past finding out. Nor will your Lordship, I presume, be strait-, ened to believe, that the whole Christian Church, which has taught those articles equal-. ly with the Presbyterians, is as likely to be in the right, as an upstart sect of yesterday, whose confidence is their most useful qua- lity. In a word, my Lord, the Presbyterians disown a Prelacy amonoj the Ministers of the Gospel : And, on this score, High Church finds in her heart to damn them by the lump, and mercifully to consign them to everlasting flames. But your Lordship has a juster no- tion of the kind Author of our being, than to believe that he v/ill ruin his creatures, for not submitting to a Government, which its freshest and most learned patrons own, is not to be found in the Oracles of Truth. I HAVE, therefore, adventured to inscribe X DEDICATIOX. this piece to your Lordship ; not doubting, but how weak soever the performance may be, that yet an Essay to defend so very good a cause, wherein not only truth, but peace, charity and good neighbourliood are so much concerned, will not be quite ungrateful to you. That your Lordship may be always blessed with the richest favours of Heaven, is, and shall be the daily prayer of, My Lord, Your Lordship's Most humble, and Most obedient servant, JOHN ANDERSON. CONTENTS. Prefack, p. xlx. Thk Introduction, p, 1- CHAP. I. Containing preliminary Remarks, p. 2. Sect. 1. Containing Remarks on the Title of Mr Rhind's Book, ib. Re- mark I. That the title of an Apology was ill chosen, the Book itself wanting the Apostolic requisites of an apology, viz. meekness and fear, ib. This proved from his character of the Presbyterians, which is shewn to be malicious, p. 4.— false, p. 4, 5. Truly and indeed the character of Pligh Church, p. 5, 6. Remark II. Upon his concealing what Church it is whose communion he has embraced, p. 6. Proved, That there is no Church on earth whose communion he can in rea- son claim to, p. 6 — 11. Sect. IT. Containing Remarks on iNIr Rhind's Preface, p. 12. — Remark!, On the date and motive of his separating from the Presby- terians, ib. Remark II. On his own character of his Book, p. 14. Its true character, Vanity, p. 15. Dogmaticalness, ib. Profaneness, 16'. Remark III. On his bespeaking civil usage for himself, p. 16. Remark IV. Whether Mr Rhind is the true Author of the Apology, 17. See also the Preface, p. xxvii. Sect. III. Containing Remarks on his narrative of the manner Iiow he se- parated from the Presbyterians, p. 18. — Remark I. Demon- strated that his narrative is pure poesy, p. It) — 23. Re- mark II. The dreadful consequences (upon his own princi- ples) of his having been baptised by a Presbyterian minister. XII CONTENTS. p. 2S. Remark III. That he does not ascribe to God his se- parating from the Presbyterians, p. 24. Remark IV. On his mentioning his Obligations to the Presbyterians, 25. Re- mark V. That he refused the communion of the Church of Rome on a quarrel which equally obliges him to refuse com- munion with the Church of England, p. 26. Remark VI. Upon his charging the Presbyterians with want of respect to the Fathers, p. 27. Remark VII. Upon his character of the Episcopal authors, p. 30. Remark VIII. Character of Mr Dodwell, p. yj, and of Mr Sage, p. 36 — A short Digression on the late Vindication of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, p. 37. CHAP. II. Mr Rhind's first reason for separating from the Presbyterians, viz. That they are Schismatics in point of Government, ex- amined, p. 40, Sect. I. His Principles and Corollaries examined, p. 41. They are not admitted by the Presbyterians, p. 42. Much less by the Church of England, p. 43. Proved, That if the Presby- terians are Schismatics, eo ipso, it will follow that they are not without the Church, p. 47. Sect. II. His state of the debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Episco- palians examined, p.48. Sect. III. His Arguments for Prelacy summed up, p. 53. Sect. IV. His Arguments, for proving that Christ and his Apostles were under a necessity of instituting a Prelatic form of Govern- ment, examined, p. 54. Art. I. His Argument from the Nature of the Thing, for prov- jng that Necessity, examined, ib — Proved that the argu» CONTENTS. Xili ment, Iti, is not modest, p. 56 •, 2f a dispute. Ornari res ipsa negat, contenta duceriv My greatest care, next to that of the matter, was that 1 should not be intricate or perplexed, as con- troversies are apt to be : And this 1 hope I have obtained ; For I have never made any blind refe- rences to Mr Rhind*s book, but have always given his sense, and almost always in his own words, which is another considerable cause that my book is so large. To both which I may add a third, viz. That I have XXVI PREFACE. inserted some few digressions, thoiigli not I hope from the purpose, yet from the thread of Mr Rhind's book. That upon the late Vindication of the Fun- damental Charter of Presbytery, which the reader will find, p. S3, is but short : And though one would think that Scotchmen ought to be very lit- tle concerned with the English liturgy, yet that being the dispute of the day, I understand that tlie author of the Countryman's Letter to the Curate, against which that Vindication is directed, intends, if God spare him, a second edition, in one volume, on a fine paper and type, both of the Dialogues concerning the English liturgy, and of that letter, &;c. ; wherein the subject of the liturgy is to be more largely discoursed, and whatever has been advanced against the Dialogues by Mr Barclay and others, and against the Letter by the vindicator, either in reason or history, is to be considered. The largest digression I have made, which tlie reader will lind p. 361, is that on the Earl of Cromarty's late book. Besides that it was necessary in point of self-defence, I persuade myself that his Lord- ship will be pleased with it, because it may help to exactness in a piece of history, which his Lord- ship has so much contributed to the enlightening of. As to the conduct of the whole book, I am sen- sible how much I shall want the reader's indul- gence. But this piece of justice 1 crave, that he would not censure any one part of it, till he have read through the whole ; because, what he might perhaps expect to find in one place, I may have possibly thought fit to reserve for another, where I fancied it might stand to greater purpose, or with a PREFACE. XXVll better grace. Farther, I must advertise the reader, that having used the word whigy in some few places, I meant it in the original Scotch sense, as signifying a Presbyterian, except when by the context it ap- pears, that it is to be understood in that more com- prehensive notion use has now fixed to it. I hope the reader will be merciful as to the er- rors in printing. Such as are of any moment are but few ; and both these and the lesser escapes in spelHng, pointing, or dividing of syllables, I expect will be excused upon the account of my distance and necessary absence from the press. After all I have said, p. 17, there are some would still persuade me, that not Mr Rhind, but another person of a much higher character is the true au- thor of the Apology » But it is the same thing to me, whether it be so or otherwise : For, I never thought that external character could either heighten or diminish the intrinsic value of a book : Nor did I intend to dispute against any man's per- son ; but though I ordinarily name Mr Rhind only, yet I generally mean his party : And, therefore, though he complains that the Presbyterians have exhausted all their common places of slander a- gainst him, yet, for my own part, I have consider- ed him merely as the writer of the Apology y with- out so much as touching upon his personal quali- ties or circumstances in any private concern. I know the public could have been very little edi- fied with personal objections ; and I did not think I wanted such adminicles, the argument itself hav- ing given me sufficient advantage. XXVlll PREFACE. Plainly, I persuade myself that every one who has read Mr Rhind^s book, will, upon the reading of mine, allow that I have kept more temper than perhaps was due to such a piece. For, when a set of people, about whom there is nothing extra- ordinarily Christian appearing, will needs put such a jest upon mankind, as to monopolize the name of Church to themselves, and belch out their fire and venom, without fear or wit, against the whole reformed interest, and yet at the same time will have us to believe them Protestants j iiji such a case I must needs own, that 1 ifficlle est atyram non scribere. However, I have restrained myself as much as the matter could admit of, or either justice pr charity required. I reckon upon it, that my book will be answers ed ; and it is hardly possible to foresee what kind of argument may be used against me ; but there is one which I deprecate, viz. that powerful one-r damn me. I don't fear that any of their laity will attack me with it— I have a better opinion of their piety and manners ; but I dare not promise so much on their clergy's head : For, what has been,* may be. However, by way of prevention, I own it to be an unanswerable kind of argument ; and tlierefore, they may save themselves the trouble of it ; so much the rather, that they carinot be great losers, though they omit it. But I am sensible, that by the length of this Preface, I add to the transgression of the book. * See Mr Caldei's Miscellany Numbers, Number IV. TREFACE. XXlX After all I can say, I know it must, as all other books have ever done, take its fate according to the inclinations or capacity of its different readers. And, therefore, as it is, I send it forth into the world with its father's blessing, heartily praying that the God of truth and peace may prosper it, to the preserving among us two such valuable en- joyments. March 17tfi, 1714. Mr RHIND'S APOLOGY DISPROVED. THE INTRODUCTION. -L HE general method of Mr Rhind's Book is, I acknowledge, abundantly distinct. Therein, after the history of the manner, how he gives an account of the reasons for which he separated from the Pres- byterian party ; to wit, because, upon inquiry, he found their government to be schismatical, their ar- ticles oi faith fundamentally false and pernicious, their worship scandalously corrupt, and highly im- perfect; and their spirit diametrically opposite to that of the gospel — a heavy enough charge truly; and if but one half of it hold true, every good Christian must needs at once justify his separation, and con- gratulate his escape- But it is the design of the following Sheets to ex- amine his performance ; and if, in the issue, it shall be found, that there is neither truth in his asser- tions, strength in his arguments, proof for his al- legeances, nor modesty in his characters ; — then, I hope, it will follow, that, how much reason soever some other party may have to be fond of their nevr REMARKS ON proselyte, yet the Presbyterians have no such cause to be swallowed up of overmuch sorrow for their loss, but that they may hope the days of their mourning may wear over, and they may be com- forted. CHAP. I. CONTAINING PRELIMINARY REMARKS. Though his Tiile^ Treface, and Narrative, have no great influence on the main subject ; yet, that I may proceed in order ; for clearing the ground, I shall beg leave to take them under review in some few remarks : — the rather, because the doing so will, I hope, sufficiently distinguish the spirit of the Au- thor J perhaps, too, help to enlighten his Book. Sect. I. Contaming Remarks on the Title of Mr Rhinos Boole, I. Mr Rhind has given his Book the Title of An Apology. But, I apprehend, when the book itself is looked into, it will appear to be very ill chosen. The Apostle Peter enjoins * Christians to be always ready to make an apology (so it is from the original) to every one that asks a reason of the hope that is in them. But, though that Apostle had as much edge on his temper, and possibly was as forward in * I Epist. chap. iii. 15. MR RHINd's title-page. his zeal as Mr Rhind ; though the cause of Chris- tianity was at least of as great importance as that of Prelacy, and the enemies the Church had then to do with little better natured than the Presbyterians ; yet he would not allow them, in putting in an apology even for Christianity itself, though against Jews and Pagans, to use rudeness or bitterness, far less calum- ny and slander ; but expressly charges them to do it with meekness and fear. Mr Rhind was not igno- rant of this precept ; he has fronted his book witli it : But, since ever apologies were in fashion, I very much doubt if ever any v/as v/ritten with so unchris- tian a spirit, so absolutely void of both these requi- sites. I do not beheve the reader would think him- self much gratified, by entertaining him with a col- lection of all the passages in the Apology that might contribute to prove this character I have given of it ; yet it is necessary I produce one, lest any should suspect I charge him falsely ; and one, I am persua- ded, will be fully sufficient for that purpose. I shall, therefore, without adding, altering, or diminishing, transcribe one paragraph from him, wherein he has drawn the character of the Presbyterians ; distin- guished, too, into its periods, for the reader's more distinct conception. It is thus : — * 1. They (the Presbyterians) are naturally rigid * and severe ; and therefore conclude, that God is ' such a one as themselves. 2. They damn all w4io ' differ from them, and therefore think that God * does the same. 3. And because they love them- ' selves, they are pleased to persuade themselves, ' that they are his special favourites. 4. In a word, * they are respecters of persons, and therefore think ' to patronise their partiality with his authority. * 5. Hence they conclude, that they owe them no * civilities whom God neglects, nor kind offices * whom he hates. 6. He neglects, and hates all ' who are not capable of his grace, which none are * (say they) who- are not of their way. 7. This * wicked persuasion sanctifies not only the ill man- 5 ners, but, which is worse, the ill nature of the * REMARKS ON * party, towards all who differ from them. It cott- ' tradicts the ends of society and government, and is * only calculated to advance the private interest of ' a partial and designing set of men !' Thus he, p. 20S. Now, if in all this paragraph, there is the least allay of meekness, he would very much oblige us, if he would tell us what bitterness and malice is. But though his zeal swallowed up his meekness, yet, was there no place for fear, (the other requi- site), I mean a reverence and regard' to truth ? Might he not have thought it necessary to offer at least at some instances for supporting the said character ? Did he fancy it would be believed on his bare word ? He must be abundantly sanguine, if he did. How- ever, Presbyterians do not think themselves much in hazard, from writers that sacrifice their veracity to the pleasure of breathing their spleen. They are accustomed to have the most black characters drawn of them by the rampant High Church authors ; but they do not feel themselves much hurt thereby, be- cause they are as notoriously false as they are black. It is difficult to name that ill thing, which a Heylin, a Hicks, a Lessley, a Sacheverel, Calder, or some other very Reverend Divine of the like probity, has not written of them, or imputed to them. Who were the instruments that procured the Spanish Ar- mada to invade England in 1588 ? The Whigs. * Who burnt London in 1666 ? The Whigs, t Who piloted in, and assisted the Dutch to burn the Eng- lish fleet at Chatham ? The Whigs. X Nay, who cru- cified Jesus Christ ? who, but the Whigs ; the very children are taught to lisp out that. § Calves-head feasts are with these authors true history. Why ? Because one of themselves wrote it, and the rest cite it, II and who dares doubt it after that ? But, suppose it was below an author of Mr Rhind's soaring genius, to adduce proof for his assertions, or * Cassandra, Numb. ii. p. 57. f New Association, Part II. p. 58' j: Ibid. § Calder on the Sign of the Cross, Numb. VIII. P* 32. II Cassandra, Numb. I. p> 46. MR RHIND S TITLE-PAGE. D to regard so small a circumstance as truth in his cha- racters ; yet might he not have used so much com- mon prudence, as not to draw the Presbyterians in the habit of High-Church Tories, and to twist them with that whereof himself and fellows are notorious- ly guilty, beyond what was ever heard of among any party of Christians, except the Church of Rome ? His fore-cited character turns mainly upon un chari- tableness. The Presbyterians, saith he, ' damn all * that differ from them, and therefore think that God ' does the same.' But is not this ever the distin- guishing principle of a High-flyer ? Has not Mr Dodwell, whom Mr Rhind so much admires, and upon whose principles he professes to have formed his own, p. 24, 25., expressly taught, that there is no communicating with the Father or the Son, but by communion with the Bishop. * It is,' saith he, * one of* the most dreadful aggravations of the * condition of the damned, that they are banished ' from the presence of the Lord, and from the glo- * ry of his power. The same is their condition, al- * so, who are disunited from Christ, by being dis- * united from his visible representative (the Bishop).* Nay, has he not shut up even the small cranny of the uncovenanted mercies of God, which might have let in some faint ray of hope, against all the world but Episcopalians alone, by declaring, in that same place, * That it is extremely uncertain, and at least ' infinitely hazardous, (and what can be beyond in- * finite ?) that ever they shall share in them.' D^ not scores of their other authors talk at the same rate ? But why do I speak of others ? Is not thi; the very design of Mr Rhind's book ? Was not thai the reason why he separated from the Presbyterians because they are not in the ordinary road to heaven i p. 31 : Nay, I hope to make it good to every man'' conviction, ere I have done, that he has damned th( whole Christian Churches on earth, the Church o England herself too among the rest, excepting somi • One Priesthood, Chap. XIII. Sect. 14. 6 REMARKS ON High-flyers, who can no more be said to be of the Church, than an overgrown wen, or some monstrous tumour on the body, can be called a part of it. Think, now, how well calculated Mr Rhind*s Book is to bear the title of an Apology ; how wisely and justly his meek and Catholic spirit charges the Presbyterians with rigour and uncharitableness. I would advise him, if ever his book come to a second edition, to alter the title a little j and instead of an Apology, to call it a Libel. II. In his title, he promises to give an account of the reasons for which he separated from the Presbyterian party, and embraced the communion of the church. I cannot but wish he had been a little more particular, and told us of what church. It is true, the church is but one ; yet there are several communions. There is the Roman, the Lutheran, the Church of England communion, with too many others, which diifer from each other in very consi- derable points ; but though I have read his book with all the application I was capable of, I sincerely declare I cannot find out that church whose com- munion he can reasonably claim to. • The Presbyterian party is that which he hath a- bandoned. He hath, though indeed in very modest terms, disclaimed the communion of the Church of Rome, p. 14, 15. The Greek, Armenian, Ethio- pic Churches, &c. lay too far out of his road. The lesser fractions and sects among Christians he gave not himself the trouble to enquire about, from a just fear lest if he had, he had ended his days ere he had formed his confession of faith, p. 14. What church, then, can it be, whose communion he has embraced? He has given us three hints to find her out by, but none of them sufficient to give light in the matter, and determine the inquiry. 1. He tells us, p. '28, it is the communion of the Catholic Church. But this Catholic is a hackney which every party press into their service ; every church claims, and the Church of Rome, which yet he disowns, appropriates to herself. MR RHIND S TITLE-PAGE. 7 2. He tells us, in the beginning of his Preface, that it is the communion of the Suffering Church, by which he means the Prelatists in Scotland. But though he hath joined himself to them, yet that he is not of them, nor within their communion, I shall, ere I go further, make abundantly evident upon this single postulatum, that that church is the same in her principles, now she is suffering, that she was while flourishing. She was, while flourishing, Erastian in her go- vernment, Calvinist in her doctrine, her worship without a liturgy, her discipline exercised by lay elders. All which is directly contrary to the prin- ciples of Mr R hind's book. First, I say, his suffering church was Erastian in her government. Besides the tract of our history and many acts of Parliament, Archbishop Glad- stones has given emphatic testimony that it was so in the time of King James VI. In his letter to that prince, of the date August 31, 1612, he has these remarkable words: * For, besides that no estate ' may say, that they are your Majesty's creatures, * as we may ; so there is none whose standing is so * slippery, when your Majesty shall frown, as we. * For at your Majesty's nod we must either stand or * fall.' Thus also it was in the late times, after the restoration of King Charles II. as appears by the act of Parliament redintegrating the estate of bishops: For therein ' the disposal of the external government * and policy of the church was declared to be in his * Majesty and his successors, as an inherent right of * the crown, and that tliey might settle, enact, and Ji- ' mit such constitutions, acts, and orders concerning * the administration of the external government of * the Church, and the persons employed in the same, * and concerning all ecclesiastical meetings, and * matters to be proposed and determined therein, as * they, in their royal wisdom, shall think fit.* Did she alter this principle upon the Revolution? No. In the year 16'J2, no fewer than ISO of the Episco- pal clergy, with Dr Canaries on their head, in their REMARKS ON own name, and in that of the whole body of the Episcopal clergy in the North, addressed the Ge- neral Assembly to be assumed into ministerial com- munion, and a share of the church-government, upon a formula, whereof the first words are, — I, ' A. B. do sincerely declare and promise, that I * will submit to the Presbyterian government of the * church, as it is now established in this kingdom.* This they could not, without exposing themselves to damnation, have promised to do, had they judged Presbyterian government to be schismatical ; but their doing so was very well consistent with the Eras- tian principles. Now, Mr Rhind's principles are di- rectly opposite to these ; for he hath not only taught, ' That the church is a society independent upon the * state,' p. 29, but that Prelacy is the only govern- ment of the church by divine right, and that ex- clusive of all others. This is the avowed design of almost one half of his book. Secondly, His Suffering Church was Calvinist in point of doctrine. Knox's Confession of Faith was formed in the year 1560 ; exhibited to and ratified by the Parliament that same year, and oftentimes af- terward. It was owned as the only confession of this church, without rival, without controul, either by Prelatists or Presbyterians for almost sixty years. 1 need not tell any body who has seen it, that it was Calvinist all over. In the year 1616, the General Assembly at Aberdeen, wherein Archbishop Spotis- wood was moderator, formed a new confession of faith, which we have at length in Calderwood's His- tory, from p. 638. This was yet more expressly and rigidly Calvinist than the other. In the late epis- copal times, Knox's Confession of Faith was again revived and sworn to in the oath of the test. The whole Episcopal clergy, except some few that were Whiggishly inclined, and refused it on other ac- counts, went into that oath : And therein not only * declared that they believed the said confession to ' be founded on, and agreeable to the written word * of God 3 but also promised and swore to adhere MR riiind's title-page. 9 * thereto during all the days of their life-time, yea, ' and to endeavour to educate their children there - * in.' After the Revolution, the Westminster Con- fession of Faith was ratified and established as the avowed confession of this church. How much Cal- vinist that is, every one knows. Yet in the year 1692, the Episcopal clergy, who desired to be as- sumed upon the formula before mentioned, promis- ed, ' that they would subscribe the said Confession * of Faith, and larger and shorter Catechism con- * firmed by act of Parliament, as containing the * doctrine of the Protestant religion professed in * this kingdom.' This promise, if it signified any more than a juggle, which we ought never to suppose a clergyman guilty of, could import no less, than that they owned the doctrine of the said confession and catechisms to be true, at least, that they did not judge them to be fundamentally false and pernicious. This is a short history of all the confessions of faith that were ever received in Scotland since the refor- mation. All of them were formed upon the Calvinis- tic scheme — all of them have been assented to by the Episcopal clergy ; yet all of them directly con- trary to Mr Rhind's book in the doctrine of the decrees, predestination, perseverance, universal re- demption, universal grace, &c. Thirdly^ His Suffering Church had her worship without a liturgy. Knox's liturgy was falling into desuetude ere Episcopacy was established in the time of King James VI. Besides, ministers were never bound to constant observance of it. On the con- trary, the book of itself allows them to use the se- veral forms, or the like in effect. And, saith, one of its rubrics, * It shall not be necessary for the minis- ' ter daily to repeat all these things before men- * tioned, but beginning with some manner of con- ' fession to proceed to the sermon ; which being * ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates be- * fore mentioned, or else prayeth as the spirit of * God shall move his heart, framing the same ac- * cording to the time and matter which he hath en- 10 REMARKS ON * treated of/ It is true, there was an attetnpt made in the time of King Charles I. to bring in a liturgy, much after the Enghsh model. But I need not tell the world, that it miscarried. No wonder : For, not only the body of the nation and the bulk of the Presbyters, but even the wisest and most experienced of the bishops were against it. This, Gilbert Burnet has ingenuously confessed ;* this the author of the Short Account of Scotland, though episcopal, frankly owns, page 56 : * It was * set on foot by a foreigner (Abp. Laud) upon the « importunity of some young bishops in the Kirk ' of Scotland, who made it their business to oppose * the ancients, and thought it matter of triumph to « carry any point against them.' Thus he. In the late times, before the revolution, the episcopal cler- gy did not so much as essay to bring in a liturgy. For many years after the revolution, none of them pubHcly used any, either in their churches or meet- ing-houses. And to this day some of the best of them, to my certain knowledge, are against the English liturgy. Hov/ then can Mr Rhind pretend to be of their communion, when he argues not only for the excellency, but even the necessity of forms ; and declares, ' That flat impertinencies, substantial < nonsense and horrid blasphemies are unavoidable « in the extemporary way.'t And yet I have heard the extemporary prayers of Episcopal ministers five hundred times. It seems I have been well employ- ed. And I have known five hundred people ha- rassed in the late times for not going to church to hear such prayers. It seems it was a merciful go- vernment that persecuted people for not putting themselves under the imavoidable necessity of hear- ing horrid blasphemies by way of address to God Almighty. Fourthly/, His Suffering Church exercised her dis- cipline by lay-eiders ; and this every one knows that lived before the revolution. I conclude, then, * Memoirs of the House of Hamilton, p. 32-25i t P. 156, 157. MR rhind's title-page. H that Mr Rhind is not of the communion of the suffer- ing church, either in point of government, faith, wor- ship, or discipline, unless that he can prove that she hath changed her principles in all these within a score of years or so ; which I suppose it will be hard for him to do. And when he has done it, I cannot think it will contribute much to the raising her cha- racter to represent her as a changeling. Let us go on in our search after his church. He gives us a third hint for finding her, by telling us, p. 169, ' That he has embraced the communion of * that church whose worship is the best in the world, * with respect to both matter and manner.' By which character he would have us to understand the Church of England. But, though he has em- braced her, yet she is so far from embracing him, that he stands de facto excommunicated by her. I shall have ample occasion to shew this when I come to consider his second reason for his separation. In the mean time, to satisfy the reader's longing, I shall give one instance for proof of it. Among the other Presbyterian doctrines which he has de- clared fundamentally false and pernicious, &c. he reckons this as one, That the best actions of men, without grace, are but so many splendid sins.* The truth of this Presbyterian doctrine is obvious even to common sense : For, how busy soever a servant may be, yet, if he has no regard to the will of his master in what he does, can his diligence be reckon- ed obedience ? Nay, must not the neglect of his master's authority be imputed to him as a fault? But it is not the truth of the doctrine I am now concerned about. Be it true or false, is it not the doctrine of the Church of England as much as of the Presbyterians ? Hear her. ' ART. XIII. * Works done before the grace of Christ, and * the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to * God J for as much as they spring not of faith in • P. 136, 1S7, ISt; 12 REMARKS ON * Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to * receive grace, or (as the school authors say), de- * serve grace of congruity : yea, rather, for that ' they are not done as God hath commanded and « willed them to be done, we doubt not but that they * have the nature of sin.' It is plain, then, that he has impugned and re- jected the doctrine of the Church of England. Now let us hear what censure she has awarded to such as do so. * CANON V. 1603. ' Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the * XXXIX. articles agreed upon by the Archbishops ' and Bishops of both provinces, and whole clergy in * the convocation holden atLondon,in the year of our * Lord 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opi- * nions, and for the establishing of consent touching * true religion, are in any part superstitious or erro- * neous, or such as he may not, with a good con- * science, subscribe unto ; let him be excommuni- ' cated ipso factOy and not restored but only by the * Archbishop, after his repentance and public revo- 5 cation of such his wicked errors.' Who now will say that Mr Rhind is of the Church of England communion, when she has excommuni- cated him ? I conclude, then, upon the whole, that it is not possible to find that church wherein he can be classed, I mean, here on earth. As for the wi- spotted church * of which the late Edinburgh ad- dressers professed themselves to be, I don't believe it to be on this side the clouds. Sect. II. Containing Remarks on Mr RhincCs Preface. I. Our apologist is earnest to have his readers • See London Gazette, Numb; 5080; MR rhind's preface. 13 believe that it was not upon any sinful bias or worldly consideration that he changed sides. And, therefore, in the beginning of his Preface, tells us, * That a forcible conviction, which was the refu- * sal of an impartial inquiry, determined him to a- * bandon the Presbyterian party some years ago, ' when the church was under severe pressures in this ' nation, and when there were small hopes of de- * liverance.' But, he has been too general in the date of his conversion, and some people are tempted to think there was a reason for it. Her Majesty was pleased, some years ago, to write a gracious let- ter to her Privy Council of Scotland, of the date, February 4, 1703, in favours of the Episcopal clergy and others of that profession. Her Majesty was so far from intending that the said letter should have any ill influence on the Presbyterian esta- blishment, that, on the contrary, she recommended it to her Council to give them all due countenance and encouragement. Yet it is abundantly well known in this nation, that the Episcopal party con- structed the said letter as a preface to the overturn- ing of Presbytery and the re-establishment of Pre- lacy ; as if her Majesty, like a kind mother, teased with hungry children, had bid them content themselves a little with that morsel, till she could get dinner provided for them. And, in op- position to all her Majesty's promises and assu- rances to the contrary, the distinction betwixt a secret and revealed will was industriously propa- gated. And from that time, some young divines, who hitherto had been warmed and fledged, under the wings of Presbytery, began to look with a kind- ly eye towards the Prelatic party, and to alter their conduct accordingly. If Mr Rhind's separation was prior to that time, there is the more charity to be had for him, and he was not kind enough to him- self in not signifying so much. But if it was after it, I can see nothing extraordinary in it : For, to run from under a falling house, and to worship the ris- ing sun, is what people do every day. 14 REMARKS ON Besides, how little encouragement soever Mr Rhind might hope from the suffering Church in Scotland, yet he might very reasonably, upon his revolt, expect more elsewhere than ever he could have found among the Presbyterians. A Presby- terian minister is like the heath in the wilderness, that never grows higher. When once he got him- self possessed of a church, however shining his parts are, there is a ne plus ultra set to his ambition. But in the Prelatic way, there are various degrees of dignity to animate the generous spirit. It is pos- sible one may rise from a curate to a rector, from thence to a dean, archdeacon, or so — at length obtain a mitre, and never cease advancing, till he hath lodg- ed himself in Lambeth. Though I will not sup- pose Mr Ilhind so airy as ever to have dreamed of mounting the highest pinnacle of honour ; yet had he so humble an opinion of himself as not to allow himself to think, that he might one day merit some of the greater church dignities ? Was it no motive to him to know, that there are people in the world much fonder of a proselyte from Presbytery than from Paganism ; and that the writing of an Apology might very much contribute to his advancement ? He does not seem to be so very much a stranger to good authors, as not to have heard of Juvenal's secret for rising in the world. Would'st thou to honours and preferments climb, Be bold in miscliief, dare some mighty crime, DiiYDEN, Sat. i, 1. 73. And is not Dr Sacheverel a fresh instance of the wisdom of that precept, whose high misdemeanours made him at once the idol and the darling of Pligh Church, the theme of her praise, and object of her bounty. II. He has been pleased in his Preface to give his own favourable judgment of his performance, of the plainness of his style and thought, the linking of his arguments, and so on. And 1 think it cannot be a- niiss to give mine to, before I enter on the book it- self. Besides the ill nature (already noticed) which MR rhind's preface. 15 bewrays itself almost in every page, and is sometimes continued through many, without so much as one ray of truth to qualify it- Besides this, I say, his book bears three other characters, none of the most lovely indeed, yet too remarkable to escape notice. — I mean, vanity, dogmaticalness and profaneness. 1. Vanity. With a very distinguishing air he as- sures the reader,* * That he meant something else * by the length of his Narrative than to add to the * number of his pages.' This was so necessary an inuendo, so pretty a phrase, that he thought fit to repeat it again in his own favours, p. 79. He had before told, in his printed Sermon on Liturgy, that his genius, and the course of his studies, had habituated him to some application of thought. This was of so great, moment to be known, perhaps so hard to be gathered from his writings, that he now tells it over again in his Apology, p. 159« Again, p. 199, he dis- penses with himself from writing a lecture on the animal economy, and accounting mechanically for all the phenomena of the Presbyterian devotion, be- cause he wants leisure. No doubt. Yet some people think it had been not only as modest, but as true an excuse to have said, he wanted ability. In the mean time, he is not so just as to own that what he has al- ready advanced on that head, he owes to Dr Scott, in his sermon on bodily exercise, from 1 Tim. iv. 8. and other places of his works. 2. Dogmaticalness. He writes with the same po- sitive air as if he were infallible. Everv thinff adduced on the Presbyterian side is with him weakness, pre- judice, an argument of a desperate cause, and the like. What he himself advances, is put beyond all doubt, and he hopes every discerning and unpreju- diced reader will take the hint, and be convinced as well as he. Nay, it shall be an impeachment of the Divine wisdom to think differently from him. Nay, our Lord himself behoved to do ac- cording to Mr Rhind's dictates. Repeated instances of this presumption we shall meet with afterwards. The most learned of the Arminian side in the church * Preface, p. 2. IG REMARKS ON , of England have owned, that the Calvhiista Iiave to say for their opinions on the controverted points, what is not to be easily answered. But there is no- thing too hard for Mr Rhind. Conditional Decrees, Freewill, the Apostacy of the Saints, Universal Re- demption, Universal Grace, are all as clear to him as Self-evident Propositions. Nay, so strong has his fancy wrought ; that, as if he had for ever decided the Episcopal, Arminian, and Liturgical Controver- sies, he concludes his book in the mathematical style, with a Q. E. D. 3. Frofaneness. He sets himself industriously, from p. 189. to p. 207. to put the most sacred things in the most burlesque air possible. The Presbyterians, saith he, p. 200, tell a long but sense- less story of the manner of God's dealing with the souls of his elect ; how the work of grace is carried on there ; and how their regeneration is completed. It is true, the Presbyterians do talk of these things ; but how long and senseless soever the story is, the substance of it is what every good man feels : It is what the spirit of God works : It is a story which the Church of England divines, the most judicious of them,* bishops, too, amongst the rest, have told a thousand times over, and some of them very lately .t I am not to repeat the rest of his impious stuff vo- mited out on that head j once printing it was too much. I only wish that our prelatic writers, though they do not regard man, yet would at least fear God. For I suppose that no man that reads the latter part of Mr Rhind's book will stick to acknowledge that Lucian, Celsus, Vanlnus, Spinosa, Blount, may be reckoned modest Christians in comparison of him. III. Towards the end of the Preface, Mr Rhind, apprehending some one or other might essay to dis- prove his Apology, thinks fit to bespeak civil usage for himself; with certification, that in case he is not thus used, he will expose the Presbyterians yet more fully to the world. Were I of his council, I would advise him, ere he proceed further, once to prove • See Hooker's Sermons, subjoined to hia Eccles. PoUt. Edit. London, 1705. f Bishop Hopkins, Dr Edwards, Ac. MR nillND's PREFACE. 17 the characters whereby he has already attempted to expose them, least he establish a character upon him- self, and the party he serves, that will be none of the most honourable. Nor let him fear it will be reckon- ed pedantry to stud his margin with vouchers : For I can assure him, the world is now so much infidel, Whigs especially, as not much to regard assertion without probation. If the Presbyterians are such as he has represented them, he cannot expect civil us- age from them. And if they are not such, he may be sensible he has not deserved it. However, to make him easy, I shall promise him all fair quarter, and resent his invectives no otherwise than by ne- glect: Or if I chance at any time to draw his picture, it shall be with canvas and colours of his own fur- nishing. IV. I am now to enter on the book itself. I have beard it both from Prelatists and Presbyterians, that it was not done by Mr Rhind himself, but that his separation having given the occasion, a better hand than his did the work, and borrowed his name to it. The Prelatists possibly give out this to gain the greater reputation to the performance. But if so, it is a very mean politic : For, by how much it magni- fies the book, it disgraces the man, and at once les- sens their own trophy and the Presbyterians' loss. The Presbyterians found on this, that while he at- tended his studies among them, though his zeal a- gainst the Prelates was flaming high, yet his other accomplishments did not seem proportional. In a word, that he did not make such a figure as promis- ed an author. But this conjecture also is too weak. For years and application do oftentimes make surpris- ing changes on young persons. I do indeed believe that the book was written at the desire, and publish- ed upon the approbation of the leaders of the party. But 1 as firmly believe Mr Rhind to be the true fa- ther ; and seeing he owns the book, and none else claims it, I can see no reason why any body should believe otherwise. I am so much convinced it is his, that I take the whole book to be pieced up of B iB: REMARKS ON Sermons he had preached at several occasions, or at least of large shreds of them artfully tacked toge- ther. Some such sermons were necessary to ingra- tiate h'm with his new masters: his haranguing way seems rather adapted for sermons (according to the Episcopal v/ay of sermonizing) than for a dispute. And which confirms all, I find a good part of his Sermon upon Liturgy, which he preached and print- ed in the year 1711, engrossed verbatim into his A- pology, though he has not acquainted his reader therewith. Sect. III. Containing Remarks on Mr RhincCs Narrative, of the manner how he separated from the Presbyterian party. From /?, 1. top. 29, The sum of his Narrative is, that he was educated Presbyterian, turned sceptic upon choice, that he might find out the truth ; the result of which was, that he separated upon conviction. He has indeed gone far to scar one from quarrelling the account he has given, by promising, p. 6. to deliver the same with as much sincerity, as shall be these words with which he hopes to commend his soul at last to God. And yet I must needs declare, I do not find myself obliged, even in charity, much less in justice, to be- lieve it. I cannot help thinking it is a piece of poesy rather than history ; a handsome fiction of the me- thod he thinks he ought to have taken, rather than a real account of what in fact he did take. I am a- ware how hardly this my judgment may be con- structed of. But I crave to be heard, and then let the reader give sentence. By Mr Rhind's own account, p. 6. he was edu- cated Presbyterian. When he had run through the ordinary course of the languages and philosophy, and commenced Master of Arts, he applied himself to MR rhind's narrative. 19 the study of divinity. After several years attend- ance on that, he went home to his own country, the shire of Ross, to undergo trials, in order to be li- censed a preacher. All this while, he was so far from being suspected to incline to prelacy, that he received particular favours from the Presbyterians, as he himself owns, p. 7. And as he was not suspected, so indeed there was no apparent reason why he should : For he owns, p. 8. not only that he was really Presbyterian in his judgment, but that he was a zealot in that way. By all this account we find him at least 21 years of age complete ; for no sooner do the Presbyterians admit men to be preachers, or enter them on trials for that end. And yet all this time he had not en- tertained a thought of separating ; nay, he had not brought his mind to a suspence or equilibrium about the controversy : For how could he essay to com- mence preacher amongst the Presbyterians, while he was undetermined to the one side or the other ? Again he tells us, p. 152, that he was but 22 years among the Presbyterians. There is then but one year left for doing all these things, and making all these enquiries he mentions in his Narrative, and at last determining himself. But, if he did them all in one year, I dare be bold to pronounce it was a miracle; being well assured it would have employed any or- dinary man seven. A short abstract of his Narrative will sufficiently demonstrate this. 1. When the lucky minute was come that was to give a beginning to his conversion, he conceived a very just suspicion, that the many opinions, where- with he found his mind crowded, were not all either well come by or right founded. From this he con- cluded, that therefore it was reasonable, if not neces- sary, to examine and bring them to the test. But, in order to this, prejudices were to be shaken off; p. 9, 10. Every body that has a competent know- ledge of himself will allow that this was not to be done without time. B S so REMARKS ON 2. Thus prepared, he made the first experiment in some philosophical points. And, after a most impartial and accurate examination, found, that what formerly he had admitted, upon a supposed scienti- fic evidence, was, in itself, absolutely false ; p. 11. Every one will own that this was not to be done at a start. 3. Thence he proceeded to try whether his reli- gious opinions were not as ill founded as his philo- sophical ones. For that end he threw himself into a state of absolute scepticism, and found that he had yielded too implicit an assent to them ; p. 12. Sup- posing this had been lawful, yet, I hope, it will be granted it was not th-e work of a day. 4. After all this labour to unhinge himself, he next began to search where he might fix. To that purpose he entered upon the most impartial and ac- curate examination of the essential articles of re- ligion he was able to make ; and ceased not till be was rationally persuaded about the truth of a natural reh'gion J p. 13. This, considering how many fine books have been v/rit on that subject, and how many shrewd things have been advanced against it by such as are called the wits of the world, and, which Mr Rhind's curious genius would undoubtedly engage him to peruse, would be sufficient to exercise him a very considerable time. 5. He next carried his enquiries to revealed re- ligion J and examined the necessity of revelation, the certainty of that which is owned as such by Christians, — in a word, the truth of the Christian re- ligion and the divinity of the Holy Scriptures. Ibid. What a large subject of disquisition this is, and how much time it would require, may be easily conjec- tured. (j. When he had got himself convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, his labour was but beginning; for Christians being multiplied into so many sects, which of them could he believe in the right, when each of them pretended to be so ? He resolved, then, only to examine the pretensions of MR rhind's narrative. 21 the most considerable parties, viz. the Roman Ca- tholics and Protestants. For that end, he laid a- side all prejudices, and seriously examined all that is commonly adduced for or against the Roman Ca- tholic way; p. 14, 15. Now, who knows not that the Popish controversies are so very large a field as to require several years travel to get through them to purpose ? 7. He parted ways with this infallible church ; though, upon a very small quarrel, as we shall hear afterward. But then he found the Protestants can- toned into so many parties, that he was in a great quandary where to find rest for the sole of his foot : Wherefore, to shorten his work, he resolved to con- fine his examination to the Episcopal and Presby- terian persuasions. And here it cost him both time and pains to divest himself of his prepossessions in favours of Presbytery, and to shake off the prejudices he had contracted, or been educated- in against Episcopacy, and to fortify his soul against the temp- tations of persecution and want in case he were de- termined to the Episcopal side ; p. 16 — 20. This being done, he entered upon a very huge task : 1. He did read the Old and New Testament all over ; p. '20. Now, though a shift may be made to get through that book in a short time, yet it is a large one, and when one applies himself to read it, with a view to be determined by it in controverted points, which was Mr Rhind's case, he will find it a considerable labour. 2. After the Bible, he engaged himself in reading the works of the Fathers, especially those of the three first ages. In which course of reading, he narrowly observed whatever could serve to determine the controversies in hand j p. 2 1 , 22. This was a yet larger task than the former ; for though he hail never gone beyond the tliird uge ; yet, to get through the works of Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Atlu^n- agoras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Irena?uf, Tertullian, 22 REMARKS ON Clemens Alexanilrinus, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, &c. — To get through all these, I say, with the histories relating to their times, was sufficient to employ one a longer time than Mr Rhind*s account can well admit of. 3. And yet he was not near an end of his toil j for being curious to know whatever was written on the head of government, he read the controvertists, of both sides, on all the subjects in debate. In which, he declares, he was so scrupulously exact, that he does not remember any author, of any name, whom he did not peruse, except Salmasius alone, which he could not come by ; p. 22 — 25. This was to be diligent in good earnest ; For, to read on the Episcopal side, Andrews, Bancroft, Biison, Burges, Chillingworth, Dounham, Dodwell, Hooker, Hall, Heylin, Hammond, Honneyman, Maurice, Monro, Saravia, Sage, Scot, Sutlivius, Tilen : On the Pres- byterian side, Beza, Bain, Bucer, Blondel, Baillie, Cartwright, Calderwood, Clarkson, Gillespie, For- rester, Jameson, Rutherford, Rule, with a long et cetera on both sides ; — to read all these authors, I say, and to read them so as duly to weigh the arguments, objections, answers, exceptions, and replies, was a Herculean labour. But where is there time for it, by Mr Rhind's account ? And yet he had not done with it. For, 4. As to the other controversies that relate to doctrine, worship, &c. he consulted the respective authors pro and con. ; p. 26. That is to say, he studied the Arminian and Liturgical contro- versies, which, every one knows, require both much time and great application. Yet, after all this, he was only shocked, not absolutely determined. For, 5. To the study of books he added conversation with learned men ; he collected his observations on the spirit and principles of the party of which he had so long been ; and took time to inform himself about what he did not know of the other ; and narrowly observed how the spirit and principles of both discovered themselves by overt acts. AH this MR RHIND S NARRATIVE. 23 lie did, not once, but many times : and after all this he had his soul to work up to a due seriousness and intention of thought ; and then once more recollect- ed what he had learned from men, books, or his own experience for or against either principle or party. Not till this was done, and the aid and direction of God invoked, was he determined in his judgment. And even when he was determined, bashluliiess or fear restrained him, till at last a forcible conviction, and the severe remonstrances of his conscience, obliged him publicly to declare himself j p. 2G — 2i9. This is his account; but now, how a man could do all this within the space of 22 years, when he had not so much as a thought of doing any thing of it at an age wherein he was capable to be a preacher, which we cannot suppose earlier than 21 ; that is, in a word, how Mr Rhind could do that in one year which would have kept any ordinary man constantly busy seven years, he has yet to account for to the world; and till it be done, he must excuse his readers, me at least, from believing the sincerity of his Narrative, notwithstanding the solemnity of his asseveration. And so I proceed in my remarks. II. Though Mr Rhind has told us, p. 6, that he owes his birth to Presbyterian parents, yet he has concealed his having been baptised by a Presbyterian minister. Did it look like sincerity to dissemble that which was of so great moment to be known ? I seriously declare I do not intend banter or raillery by this particular ; but touch upon it, because, ac- cording to Mr Rhind's principles, it is of the last consequence, not only to himself, but, possibly, to many others. He is in a much worse condition than if he had been baptised by a mere layman or mid- wife in the Church of England ; for, though bap- tism, as dispensed by them, is irregular, yet, being Christians, within the church, and having at least the connivance of the Bishop, it is not invalid, and, therefore, is not repeated, ordinarily, at least. But Presbyterian ministers are no Christians. They are, by his scheme, not only without the church, but 24 REMARKS ON enemies to it. Their baptism, then, is null, and can have no effect, even though the person is afterwards confirmed by the Bishop: For what is in its own nature null, can never be madevalidbyaposterior deed: And, therefore, as Dr Hicks informs us,* the Church has provided the office for the baptism of those of riper years, which was not originally in the liturgy, on purpose to answer the case of persons in such cir- cumstances. This must needs afiect Mr Rhind very heavily ; for, according to his own principles con- cerning baptism,! he is no Christian — is without grace — incapable of salvation — can neither be priest nor deacon, consequently the baptism dispensed by him to otliers is null j consequently, by his principles they must all be damned, if extraordinary mercy in- terpose not. I could not think of all this without horror, and, therefore, am in pain till I hear how he extricates himself. By all I can apprehend, there is but one way to save him and prevent further mischief, viz. to get Episcopal baptism. If he is not convinced of the necessity of this by what I have said, I re- commend to him to read Mr Laurence's late book of the Invalidity of Lay- Baptism, where he may have all objections answered, and both arguments and an example to persuade him. IlL Mr Rhind still professes that, while he was among the Presbyterians, he was without the church, and incapable of salvation. One would think, there- fore, that he should have ascribed to God the first hint was given him to make his escape out of so dangerous a state. Even the Church of England Divines themselves, who have gone ofi* the Calvinian scheme, do yet acknowledge a preventing grace. But does Mr Rhind this ? No. He ascribes it to himself and his own thought ; and that, as I take him, under a favourable planetary aspect. * When I * had arrived,' saitli he, p. i). *at a competent age, in * some lucky minute, my thoughts suggested to me the * reasonablenessofmy enquiring into my opinions about ' things.' God is not brought into the account here ; • Piefxce to the Invalidity of Lsj-Eaptism. f P. 177. &c. MR rhind's narrative. 25 nay, he has not so much as a hint of addressing him by prayer, till he had determined himself as to natural religion, till he had got himself persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion, — and till he had resolved himself against the Romish. After all this, and no sooner, did he address the God of all truth, p. 19. This conduct of his was designed and founded upon two reasons, which thereadermay weigh at his pleasure. First, he is so much an enemy to enthusiasm, that he did not think it would become him to impute any motion in his soul to the spirit of God : For the man- ner of God's dealing with the souls of his elect, is but a senseless story, and it was below his philoso- phical genius, to ascribe that to a divine etliciency, which might otherwise be accounted for. Secondly, His story would not have told right, if he should have owned God. For he was resolved to throw himself into a state of scepticism, wherein he was to suspend the belief of the being of a God. And in that state it had been very unaccountable to pray to him : For every one that comes to God, must be- lieve that he is. It will therefore be very necessary, that Mr Rhindjin his next, explain a little upon the lucky minute, because people are much in the dark about it. IV. Mr Rhind, p. 7- makes mention in general of his obligations to the Presbyterians. But did he in- tend thereby to testify his gratitude ? No. The whole strain of his book is evidence, that he had lost all impressions of that j but he does it, that he may raise his own character, by shewing how great temp- tations to the contrary, he had se})arate from them, and upon what disinterested views he had come over to the Episcopal side. This is plain from his own words, p. 8. * And if now 1 am none of theirs, and * if, after having received so many discourtesies from * them, I do still entertain a grateful resentment of * their favours, imagine how deep the impression * must have been, and how much I would be pre- * judicate in their belialf, wlien actually allowed ' \QTy liberal expressions of their fiivour and esteem/ 26 REMARKS ON — I cannot persuade myself, that such artifice would become a man recommending his soul to God in his last minutes. V. I said before, that he parted ways with the Church of Rome upon a very slender quarrel. What was it? Take it in his own words, p. 15. * Though * I had been convinced of the truth of all the articles * of Pope Pius's creed, (which you may think * would argue a strong faith, and a great deal of vio- * lence offered to my reason,) yet could I never be * persuaded, that the damning of all, who did not be- ' lieve as I did, should be a condition of my salva- * tion. In a word, the absq, qua fide^ ^c, which * they had made a term of communion and an ar- * tide of their faith, was so choking, that it would * not believe for me. And as the disbelief of this ' one article would hinder their receiving me into * their communion : so indeed, this alone abundant- * ly convinced me, that I should never enter into * it.' For understanding this, the reader must know, that Pope Pius's creed, after a rehearsal of the several articles, hath this affixed: 'and the same true Catholic * faith, without which no man can be saved — I the same * N. do vow and swear.' This damning clause was the quarrel j but I affirm, that supposing he had been convinced of the truth of all the other articles, it was no good one, because he has already done the same. The Church of England, to which Mr Rhind has joined himself, hath engrossed the Athanasian Creed in her liturgy : And yet, that creed has at least two such damning clauses, and in harder words too ; one in the beginning, * Whosoever will be * saved, before all things, it is necessary to hold the * Catholic faith, which faith, except every one do * keep holy and undefiled, without doubt he shall * perish everlastingly.' Another at the end : ' This ' is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe « faithfully, he cannot be saved.* Why then did he refuse the Roman Catholic com- munion, for that which he has approved of in the Church of England communion ? I camiotsay it was MR uhind's narrative. 27 unwisely done : For the smaller the quarrel was, the easier may the reconciliation be. VI, While Mr Rhind is giving an account of his own study of the Fathers, he falls heavily, p. 21, upon the Presbyterians, for their want of respect to them. But has he adduced in all his books one instance from the writings of the Presbyterians to prove his charge ? Not one. What meant he then ? Why, he knew that was a common-place for declaiming on among his party, and it had been a pity to miss it. No other proof has he for his charge, unless you will be so kind as to take his own assertions. * They who had the * directton of my studies,* saith he, * never recom- ' mended to me the reading so much as of one Fa- * ther.' No wonder, truly ; it was soon enough to begin the study of the Fathers at the age of 22. Most part of young men are not sooner ripe for it ; and at that age, Mr Rhind separated. Bishop Bur- net is thought to have tolerable good skill in training young theologues, now hear him : * — ' It may seem ' strange, that in this whole direction, I have said * nothing concerning the study of the Fathers or * Church history. But 1 said at first, that a great ' distinction was to be made between what was ne- ' cessary to prepare a man to be a priest, and what * was necessary to make him a complete and learn- * ed divine. The knowledge of these things is ne- * cessary to the latter, though they do not seem so * necessary for the former. There are many things ' to be left to the prosecution of a divine's study, * that therefore are not mentioned here, without * any design to disparage that sort of learning.' Thus he. But, proceeds Mr Rhind, I frequently heard them talk contemptibly of them and their works, ex- cepting still St Augustine'sbooks of predestination and grace. That excellent person, Mr George Meldrum, late Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh, was he who had the direction of Mr Rhind's studies. If he talk- . • Pastoral Care, p, 179. 28 REMARKS ON ed contemptibly of the Fathers, I can say, from my own personal knowledge of him, to be confirmed by naany thousands yet alive, that it was what he hard- ly ever did of any body else. Mr Rhind then must prove this ere he is believed. But while he charges the Presbyterians so fiercely on this head, why does he himself give such a con- temptible hint of Augustine? Why, p. 114, talks he so contemptibly of Jerome, that he contradicts himself, &c. ? Why, Augustine was for the doctrines of predes- tination and grace, and Jerome for Presbytery, both which are Mr Rhind's aversion ; yet one would think he should not deny that freedom to Presbyterians which he takes to himself. The Presbyterians will- ingly acknowledge, that the Fathers have done excel- lent things ; yet they don't believe they were infal- lible. They stick not to say, that the Fathers were subject to the same infirmities with other men, and their works as full of gross escapes, as these of latter authors, and that they wrote (as themselves acknow- ledge,) crowdedly and loosely, till heresies and schisms arising, taught them more correctness. And do not the Church of England Divines talk as contemptibly of them as all this, or whatever else Presbyterians have said of them can amount to ? Yes. Never was there a set of writers in the world, that treated the Fathers more homely and coarsely than they do. The only difference is, that they fall into this strain, when they find the Fathers to be against them. But then, when they either are one, or can be screwed over to their own side, oh then ! the Fa- thers are all oracles, and it is the sin of Cham to open a mouth against them. Need I cite instances to prove all this ? No. It is clear to every one who is acquainted with their writings ; yet 1 shall give one or two for satisfying the reader. One of Mr Rhind's learned brethren of the clergy, * has lately appeared \Qry loudly in defence of tiie book about * Mr Caldcr. MR rhind's narrative. S9 Antichrist, ascribed to Hippolitus, though no man tliat had not quite prostituted his sense would have done it. He has been told how Coke, Fulk, Whit- aker, three famous divines of the Church of England, have disparaged it, and how Monsieur le Fevre, that eminent critic, hath made a jest of it, and how, supposing it were, what he would have it to be, yet makes nothing for his purpose. Yet he, like a true Teague, is resolved to keep his text, whatever he say on it. To put him in liumour, then, after so much wrath, it shall be allowed that Hippolitus's book is genuine. Now hear, with what profound re- spect. Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, treats * the re- verend Father and his work. * *Tis a very little ' book, of small price, and as small credit. It ap- * peareth that it was some simple man that wrote the * book, both for the phrases of his speech in the * Greek tongue, which commonly are very childish, * and also, for the truth and weight of the matter,* He beginneth the first sentence of his book with Enim, which a very small child would scarcely do. After a recital of several of his blunders, he adds, * And this he saith, without either warrant of the * Scriptures, or authority of the church. — He al- * legeth the Apocalypse of St John in the stead of * Daniel, which is a token of great ignorance, or of * marvellous oblivion.' Say now, what discipline a Presbyterian had deserved, had he treated so worthy a Fatlier so familiarly. Take another instance. Bishop Wlytgift f runs a comparison betwixt the Fathers and the English Bishops in truth of doc- trine, honesty of life, and right use of exernal things, and very mannerly gives the preference to himself and his colleagues in all the three. If these instances are not sufficient, Mr Rhind may have five hundred more upon demand, and perhaps some of them be- fore we have done. To put an end for ever to this topic of declaiming against the Presbyterians, I here • Reply to Mr Hartling's Ans. Art. 1. Div. 5. f Defence of the Aus. p 472. so REMARKS ON challenge the Episcopalians to make a collection of all the contemptible things the Presbyterians have written of the Fathers. And if I do not make as large a collection of as contemptible things, that the Episcopal authors have written of them, it shall be owned they have reason for their declamations. If they refuse this, they must give us a reason why they may make bold with the Fathers, and the Presby- terians not. Have Prelatists only the privilege of railing at them ? VII. Mr Rhind gives an ample enough commen- dation to the writers of his own way. * I found them ' all, saith he, p. 23, to be men of discretion and sense, * so that should I name all whom I thought to have * acted their part handsomely, I should leave none un- < named.' Is this the sincerity he promised ? Could he find never one senseless author on the Episcopal side ? Why, certainly he has looked on them with a lover's eye ; for who is there that knows not, that the confusion of languages at Babel was never great- er than is among the Episcopal writers ? Where shall we find any two of them that go entirely upon the same scheme ? Does not every body know how they mutually reject each other's arguments ? Should I instance any of their writers whom I judge to have performed but so and so, I know I would be declined as a partial judge ; but let us hear one of themselves giving the character of his fellows that went before him. Mr Thomas Edwards asserts* of them, that as to their proofs out of Scripture, * they understood « notwhattheysaid, nor whereof they affirmed.' And in a later book,t he is so far from repenting of these hard words, that * he hopes every body will grant he < had reason for them.' And he would not have this meant of one or two only of his fellow writers, but of the whole bulk of them. And therefore, he pulls down the whole frame of Episcopacy, to build it after his own new and better fashion. Now, either Mr Edwards has not acted his part handsomely, or none • Discourse against Extemporary Prayer, f Diocesan Episcopacy proved from Holy Scriptures, p. 231.^ MR RHIND*S NARRATIVE. St of the rest have : For it is sure but a sorry way of acting, when one knows not what he says, or where- of he affirms. VIII. Of all the Episcopal authors, Mr Rhind gives the preference to Mr Dodwell and M. Sage.* To the first particularly for his book of Schism, and that of the One Priesthood and One Altar; and to the latter for his Principles of the Cyprianic Age, and the Vindication thereof. That Mr Dodwell was a man of vast reading and abstract life, every one must acknowledge ; but that his books are of a most pernicious tendency, I am well persuaded no one ought to deny. For in order to make room for planting Prelacy, he hath, so far as his principles prevail, not only destroyed charity, but grubbed up the very roots of Christianity, yea of natural religion. Whether this be an unjust cen- sure, I refer it to the reader upon hearing of the fol- lowing account. His book against Schism he published in the year 1679, when the civil government did not want to have a bad opinion of the Non-conformists. There- in he attempts to prove, not only that the separatists from Episcopal government are Schismatics, but t that no prayers made by themselves, nor by others for them, can find acceptance with God, except such prayers as are put up for their conversion from the Schism, and that their separation is the sin unto death, spoken of by St John, 1 Ep. chap. v. ver. 16. That t that dreadful text, Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6. * It is impossible * for those that were once enlightened,' — is applicable to them. That§ they are guilty of the same crime, and as real enemies to Christ, as those who in terms professed him to be an impostor. That || such se- paration is a sin against the Holy Ghost,^ and an interpretative disowning Christ for our master. Nay,** that it is as criminal as the sin of the angels, and the old world, and the Sodomites, and the Israelites in the wilderness. In a word, that nothing is effectual * P. 24. f Chap. xi. sect. 7- % Chap. xlil. § Ibid. sect. IS. II Chap, siv. f Ibid. sect. 20, ** Ibid. sect. 22. S2 REMARKS ON to salvation, without being in the Episcopal cont- munion. I pose now Mr Rhind to find any thing more impious and scandalous in Spinosa's book, to which, he says, the Presbyterians compare Mr Dod- well's. This, one would have thought, was enough for one man in his whole life. But Mr Dodwell did not think so. The parliament of England, considering the great danger the nation was in from Popery, saw it was necessary to have better thoughts of the Dissenters, and to give them more countenance than would have followed upon his principles. And therefore, shortly after the pubHshing of his book^ viz. upon the 10th of January 1680, the Common* declared by their vote, nemine contradicente, * It is * the opinion of this house, that the prosecution of * Protestant Dissenters, upon the penal laws, is at * this time grievous to the subject, a weakening the * Protestant interest, an encouragement to Popery, * and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom.' This was plainly to blast all hopes of the fruits might otherwise have been expected from Mr Dodwell's book. Whereupon he makes a second attack, and in the year 1683, published his book of the One Priest- hood, One Altar, wherein he over again attempt- ed to prove the Non-conformists Schismatics, and imagining he had done it, infers* that they can lay no claim to the one altar, nor to the one priesthood, to the favour of God here, nor the enjoyment of him hereafter. It was no wonder he was thus severe upon the Dissenters : For he proceeded, and made the Church of England herself, upon the revolution establishment, schismatical, and in the year 1704, published his Latin book, entitled Parcenesis adeMeros de nupero Schismate Arigiicano, to advertise foreigners thereof. What, you will say, was his quarrel with the Revolu- tion Church of England ? Was it her injuries to the late King James ? No. W^as it her renouncing the ♦ Chap. xiii. tcct. 9. 12, 13, U. MR rhind's narrative. 3S doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance on any pretence whatsoever ? No. Was it the scandal- ous new prayers she had put into the liturgy ? No. All these things he expressly tells us, p. 3. He, with those of his principles, made a shift to bear with ; perhaps so much the more easily, that, as the writer of his life tells us, he had been proclaimed a rebel for not coming in and taking part with the forces of the said K. Jam.es, when they endeavour- ed to keep possession of Ireland, in the year 1689. What was it then disobliged him ? Why, the Bishops* mitre was touched, and that was of more considera- tion than the king's crown. The non-juring Bishops were dispossessed ; their vacant sees, after much patience, filled with as good men as themselves. That was never to be digested, and therefore he de- clared the establishment a schism. This was a pretty high flight, and yet he was not at his pitch. In the year 1706, he published his Epistolary Discourse, proving from the Scripturesand first Fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal; wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving the divine immortalising spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops. Here was a very new and surprising scene opened. The heathens that never heard of Christ were made happy by it. The w^orst they had to fear was, that their souls should vanish into thin air. But then sad was the case of all separatists from the Episcopal communion : For though their souls were neither by nature im- mortal, nor immortalised by Episcopal baptism ; yet, he found a cue to have them immortalised actually by the pleasure of God to punishment. Was ever such horrid doctrine heard of among Christians ? However, that book, though perhaps the very worst ever saw the light, had by accident, one very good efJ'ect. For, such as were before in danger of being implicitly carried into his principles by the fame of his learning ; when they saw that he would force even the Scriptures and Fathers to vouch for the na- c 34 REMARKS ON tural mortality of the soul, very justly presumed, that his reasonings from them in his other books were to be suspected. It is now worth the while to see how Mr Rhind refines on this. * It is true,* saitli he, p. 24. * Mr Dodwell seemed * to have given his enemies a handle against him, by * the uncouth thoughts which he vented in his book * of the soulj but this he did in a manner so learned, * and so far above the comprehension of ordinary * readers, that, allowing his opinion to be erroneous, * yet would not many be in hazard of being pervert- * ed by it. Withal, I considered that my then * search was not to be employed about that sup- * posed singular opinion of his j for Vvhat I was then * desirous to know, was only, whether his arguments * for Episcopacy were forcible or not ?' Here is a text worth the commenting on. Did Mr Dodwell seem only, did he not really give a han- dle not only to his enemies, but to all the world that had any regard for religion ? Bat why does Mr Khind call it his book of the soul ? Why does he not call it his book for Episcopacy ? Episcopacy was the conclusion intended, the morality of the soul only a medium for enforcing it. Why does he say it was writ above the com.prehension of ordinary readers ? Did he not write it in English ? And is not this a tolerable presumption, that he designed that he should be understood ? Is not the doctrine, to wit, the mortality of the soul, so plain, that every ploughman may understand it. But Mr Rhind is right : — For the arguments of proving this doctrine are above the comprehension, not only of ordinary readers, but of extraordinary too, even of all under- standing. This I am sure of, that the fioribility of the wills of dead souls, * separate souls receiving water baptism, t and the like, are notions as much above the capacitiesof Presbyterians as Jacob Behmen*s lucubra- tions are. I hope many are not in hazard of being per- * S«et. 4l.p. 17S. t Sect. 42. MR riiind's narrative. S5 verted by it. Bat Mr Rhind himself is so unhappy as to be one ; for it is nothinc^ but a supposed singular opinion, he will not positively say it is erroneous ; but allowing it to be so, it is not dangerous because of its obscurity. But how, in all the world, could he suf- fer these words to drop from him, ' That his search * was not to be employed about that singular opi- * nion of Mr Dodwell's, but to know whether his ' arguments for Episcopacy were forcible or not ?* Is not the natural mortality of the soul, and its baing immortalised by Episcopal baptism, or in de- ject of it, by the pleasure of God to punishment, one of his arguments for Episcopacy ? What meant Mr lihind by such a juggle ? Thinks lie, Mr Dod- well's book is not extant, or that all the world is turned quite senseless, and w^ants eyes to read it ? I cannot think that Mr Rhind himself, upon a review, will say, that he has used the sincerity that would become an expiring soul. But to go on with the history of Mr Dodwell. As he had proved the Dissenters and Low-Church schismatics, so the Nonjuring High Church Tories, who continued the separation after the death of the deprived Bishops, must, in their turn, be declared schismatics too. For this purpose, he published a book, the last he wrote, entitled, The Case in View, now in Fact, proving, that the continuance of a separate communion without substitutes, in any of the late invalidly de})rived sees, since the death of William Lord Bishop of Norwich, is schismatical ; with an Appendix, proving, That our late invalid- ly deprived Fathers had no right to substitute suc- cessors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same Fathers. Thus, I think, there were very few in England, Episcopal, or Dissenter, of High Church or Low Church, that were not, successively at least, schismatics by Mr Dodwell's account. Plainly, his head was turned with immoderate zeal ; and therefore schism, schism, was his everlasting clack. Mr Rhind, indeed, has given, C 2 S6 REMARKS OX p. 25., another character of him, viz. * That he has * stated the controversy fairly, that his authorities * are pertinent and justly alleged, and that his de- * ductions from them and all his other reasonings, do * proceed in a mathematical chain.' This character I shall, ad kominem, allow : For, whenever I shall find Mr Dodwell's and Mr Rhind's reasonings quite contrary ; which I hope not seldom to find in the following Sheets, it will necessarily follow that Mr Khind is fully answered, a mathematical chain be- ing more inviolable than an adamantine one- So much for Mr Dodwell. As for M. Sage, our Apologist's other celebrated author, all he says of him is : — * And in truth,* saitli he, p. 25., ' it is as much as can be said of any man, ' That he thought he pursued the argument in the * same manner with Mr Dodwell, and improved up- * on it.' Of this character, the panegyrical part is hyper-- bolical, the historical part false. First, I say, the panegyrical part, viz. that it is as much as can be said of any man, is hyperbolical. No man that is not blindly partial, will make him a standard. It is true, he was master of several good qualities ; of a good capacity, and great application ; but the Re- volution had soured his temper, which carried him out often to transgress the rules of religion, as well as decency ; witness his Fundamental Chai^ter of TresbyterTj, particularly his long Preface prefixed to it ; upon the account of which, I acknowledge, he deserves the character of an incomparable author : For, he has therein treated his adversary after a fa- shion, which, to say no worse of it, will not be ea- sily paralleled ; — and which makes it so much the more intolerable, is, that he did it upon some points of history, in which his own friends * have at last acknowledged he was mistaken. And how false and w^eak his historical arguings were in the said charter, upon the usage of the English Liturgy in Scotlanda, • YiaiUcatioa ef tlit Fuadameatal Charter, p. 79.. MR rhind's narrative. 87 has been sufficiently shown in the Country-man's Letter to the Curate, on that subject. It is true, there is lately puljhshed a Vindication of the Fundamental Charter, in opposition to the said Letter. But, I hope, upon comparing the two, the Vindication will appear to be a very harmless piece. For, 1. Who is likely ever to be moved by an author, that tells, as that Vindicator does, p. 165, * That it is not sufficient proof, that a thing is not, * because the historians are silent about it, no, not ' suppose they should all contradict it.' Has that gentleman his history by inspiration ? No, but he would have us to judge by histories yet to be written, P. 166. p. 13. 2. Who will be moved by his ar- guings on Buchanan, when, notwithstanding that Buchanan is ackuowledged to be the sole relater of what he argues for, he yet says, ' That Buchanan ' was doating when he wrote his History, if it came * from his hands, as we have it in all the editions « hitherto published,' p. 165. 3. Who that pro- fesses, as the Vindicator does, p. 9., to write with all possible candour, would say with him, p. 164,, that Buchanan contradicts himself about Arthur's Oven, when no man ever dealt more candidly than Bu- chanan has done in that matter, even though it was of no consequence. He begins the Civil History of his nation at the Fourth Book. There, in the reign of King Donald L, he says, * That work, now called * Arthur's Oven, some have falsely related to have « been the temple of Claudius Caesar. We, so far * as we can guess, believe it to have been the tem- * pie of Terminus.' You see he makes but a guess of it. To the civil history of his nation, he thought fit to prefix the geography of it, and an account of its antiquity ; and there, like a most candid soul, he retracts his former guess upon better information ; and, in the First Book, delivers himself thus : — ' 1 in- * deed was once induced by a conjecture, (by this it * appears, that the Civil History was written before * the Geographical part), to believe it to have been * the temple of Terminus, which (we have learned) J58 REMAnKS ON * used to be built round, and open above.' But then he tells us, * that he was informed by ere- * ditabie persons, that there were several other build- * ings of the same form in other places of the na- ' tion. This,' saitli he, * forced me to suspend my * opinion.' — Say now, good reader, is there any doat- ing here in Buchanan, when lie is so watchful even over his escapes in guessings ? Is there any contra- diction here ? Did not Augustine write two full books of retractions, and one of them, too, of what he wrote when he was a Bishop ? And does not eve- ry man applaud his ingenuity for doing so ? Nay, has not Mr Dodu'ell himself retracted * even in point of history — and yet who blames him for it ? 4, Who, to avoid the force of Dr Burnet, now Bishop of Sarum his testimony from the pulpit before the House of Commons, concerning what he had seen, and papers he had had in his hands, would put off the matter by telling, as the Vindicator does, p. 36. y that the Bishop is not infallible, and that all he preached in 1688 was not gospel, and that he some- times preached extempore ? Was not this a most bitter way of giving him the lie, and, which makes the treatment still the more rude, he at the same time declares, that it were uncivil and unchari- table in him to question the Doctor's candour and veracity. Is this the grave Vindicator ! Is the world so far lost, as to take slyness for sin- cerity, and affectation for gravity ? 5. Who that reads the Doctor's sermon, knows his character, or ever heard of his concernment in the pro- ject of comprehension, will allege his words to be capable of any other entendre than the Country- man has put on them ? 6. Who would deny, that the Doctor's testimony bears, * That the ceremo- * nics missed narrowly of being thrown out by an ' act of the Convocation, when it was carried by ' the greatest number of the voices of the Members ♦ that were present in the lower House, that they * Parsenes, Sect. 15. p, 61. MR rhind's narrative. S9 ' should be laid aside;' — and when the Bishops, (who made the upper House) were the same way af- fected ; the Queen's stiffness in maintaining them, saith the Doctor, not flowing from their counsels, but from disguised papists ; — will any man, that de- signs not to trifle, deny that this was a narrow miss ? But the Vindicator overlooked the Bishops in the Doctor's testimony. 7. The author of the Char- ter had affirmed, that our Country-man Aless was a member of the English Convocation. The Country- man had proved, beyond contradiction, that Alcss was not a member. What says the Vindicator to this ? It was only an impropriety of speech in the accurat* author. Every man ought to despair, af- ter such an answer, to convince the Vindicator, that it is light at mid-day. But the answer is, indeed, as solid, as the epithet of Accurate is judiciously chosen in that place. But I acknowledge all this is a digression from Mr Rhind's Book. I have only adduced these in- stances, to convince the reader, that if the Coun- try-man, who is my good friend and next neighbour, do not give himself the trouble of making any re- turn to the said Vindication, it is plain it is because it needs none. The reading over his Letter once more after the Vindication, being at once an easy and sufficient answer to it. I return, then, to Mr Rhind. In the second place, his historical part of M. Sage's character, viz. that he has pursued the argument in the same manner with Mr Dodwell, is false. Mr Dod- well,in all his books upon church government,* asserts the Bishop's sole power ; and though he is content to give a consultory power to the Presbyters, which every Christian man and woman has, it being law- ful to all or any of the people to say to Archippiis, ' Take heed to the ministry,* — yet he peremptorily refuses them a decretory power. M. Sage, on the other hand, not only denies the said sole power, but * See Dissert. Cypr. Numb. 13, 14, 15. Parsenes. Sect. «?. Proemonition to tlio Epiitolary Discourse, p. 49, *c. 40 DEFENCE OF THE applies himself, in his Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, to disprove the Bishops* claiming of it. Was this to pursue the argument after the same manner ? That excellent person, Mr Jameson, wrote his Cyprianus Isotimus in answer to the said Vindication ; — and answer it he did be- yond possibility of reply. M. Sage himself was abundantly sensible of this : He lived half a dozen years after Mr Jameson's book was published, but never essayed to make a return. He could not but see how he had mistaken his measures, and prejudged the cause. And therefore, as he could not with any ground of reason, so he would not, out of love to the cause, insist. And I doubt not but it was very heavy to his spirit to survive the reputation of his principal book ; and to think that he should have wasted the precious lamp of life in so voluminous a work, for proving that Bishops did not claim a sole power, when not only his learned adversary had proved, beyond contradiction, that they did so ; but the most learned of his own party allowed, that it was their right to claim it. So much for Mr Rhind's Narrative. CHAR n. WHEREIN MR RHIND S FIRST REASON FOR SEPARATING FROM THE PR.ESBYTErvlAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEY ARE SCHISMATICS IN POINT OF GOVERNMENT, IS EX- AMINED, FROM P. 29. TO P. 1 19. For justifying this reason of separation, Mr Rhind uses the following method : — First, He lays down two principles, from which he subsumes some corol- PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 41 laries. 2dly, He states the debate j and, Sdly, Ad- vances his arguments. Sect. I. Wherein Mr Rhind's Principles and Corollaries, p, 29., are Examined^ His two principles are : — * I. That the Church is * but one. H. That it is a Society distinct from, and ' independent upon the State.' From the first of these principles, he infers these two corollaries: — * I. That the ordinary means of * salvation are confined to the Church. II. That ' whoever are without, (but more especially they who ' separate from its communion), are out of the ordi- ' nary way of salvation.' From the second of these principles, he infers these three corollaries. — ' I. That the Church has ' distinct laws, and a government and governors of ' its own, which can serve all the purposes of the So- * ciety. II. That that which does properly denomi- * nate one a Member of the Church, is the acknow- * ledgment of its laws and government, and a sub- * mission to the authority of its governors : Nor is * the owning any one of those enough without the * other. III. That the contempt either of its laws, * or lawful governors, requiring no terms of com- * munion that are truly sinful, justly deprives one ' of the privileges of this, as well as any other so- * ciety.' From all this, he concludes, p. 30, 81. * That that * society, which is. not only defective with respect to * that form of government, that obtained in the days ' of Christ and his apostles, and downwards, (which [ is undoubtedly the rightful one), but does likewise 42 DEFENCE OP THE * disown and oppose those who govern after that * manner, is without the Church by the third corol- * lary, and consequently out of the ordinary road to * heaven, according to the second corollary from the * first principle.' And that the Presbyterians are thus defective in, and disown and oppose that go- vernment, he is, after stating the debate, to make good by arguments. This is his scheme, but notwithstanding its mathe- matical face ; as it will not please the Presbyterians, so yet far less the Church of England, which he has joined. First, It will not please the Presbyterians, as he too confidently presumes. For, though they wiHing- ly admit his first principle, that the church is but one, and do firmly believe that there is but one go- 'vernment, by divine right, viz. the Presbyterian, and zealously wish that it might obtain all the world over ; yet by no means will they assert that such as either oppose or want that government are without the church. The government of many of the Pro- testant churches in Germany is Superintendency, that of New England Independency, that of Old England Prelacy. The Presbyterians believe they are' each of them in an error, the last, especially, in a hugely great one ; and yet they believe them all to be within the Church, and capable of salva- tion,if they are otherwise good Christians ; and that, as an English poet has it somewhere. The God that parJons sin will pardon errors loo. They own the road to heaven is narrow, yet they do not believe it so narrow, but that they can charit- ably hope that one company may walk to it with a Presbyterian Minister on their head ; and another (though not in so straight a line), v;ith a Bishop on theirs. It is told of Mr Rhind, (and he allows us, p. 9, to represent him to have been a Presbyterian of the most rigid kind), that while he was studying theology at Edinburgh, among the Presbyterians, he made it a question, in a society of his fellow students, Whether an Episcopal Minister, dying in PBESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 43 that opinion, could be saved? I suppose he was the first Presbyterian ever started the question, and, possibly, may be the last. But some people's brains are figur- ed for bigotry, on whatever side they are. Whether it be by nature or accident they are so, I refer it to such as have skill in the animal economy. Secojidlj/, I say Mr Rhind's scheme will yet far less please the Church of England, which he has joined ; which I shall make good in two particulars ; when once I have premised, that by the Church of England I do not mean only this or the other parti- cular doctor, but that I mean her articles, homilies, liturgy, canons, and such other public formulas. 1st, Though the Church of England thinks Prelacy the best government, yet she is very far from unchurching those that want it. In her nine- teenth article, she defines the visible Church of Christ to be, ' a congregation of faithful men, in the * which the pure word of God is preached, and the * sacraments be duly administered, according to * Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of ne- * cessity are requisite to the same ?' In her twenty- third article, she declares, ' that those we ought to ' judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen ' and called to this work by men who have public * authority given to them in the congregation, to * call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard ?* In neither of these articles, though they were the only place for doing it, is any one particular form of church government declared necessary. Nay, the articles are conceived in such general words on purpose, that they might not be thought to exclude other churches that differ from them in point of government. So says the Bishop of Sarum,* whose sufficiency to understand the intent of the Articles was never doubted, and whose concern for the Episcopal cause in reason cannot. ' And,' adds he, ' whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this, ^ since that time ; yet we are very sure, that not * Expos. Art. XIH. p. 259. 44 DEFENCE OF THE * only those who penned the Articles, but the body ' of this church for above half an age after, did, * notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge ' the foreign churches so constituted, to be true * churches, as to all the essentials of a church.* And, p. 260, neither our reformers nor their successors, for near eighty years after those articles were pu- blished, did ever question the constitution of such churches. And the noble historian, Clarendon,* who was abundantly zealous for the church, repre- sents it as a false step in the government of King- Charles I. that the English Ambassador, with his retinue, separated from the Protestant Church, at Charenton, contrary to former usage. Yet further, the Church of England was powerfully attacked by the Romanists in the days of the late King James ; and upon the very same scheme, too, which Mr Khind hath advanced, viz. metaphysical inferences from the unity of the church ; from which they would needs conclude her to be schismatical. The English divines never made a more noble appear- ance than on that occasion. They engaged with the Romanists, and defeated them to theconviction of all the world ; but then it was by reasonings which quite overturn Mr Rhind*s scheme. Dr Sherlock fost enters the field, and, with open mouth, declares! against the unchurching doctrine for the want of Episcopal government. * I am sure,* saith he, * that * is not a safe communion where there is not a suc- * cession of apostolical doctrine ; but whether the * want of a succession of Bishops will, in all cases, * unchurch, will admit of a greater dispute : I am * sure a true faith in Christ, with a true gospel con- * versation, will save men ; and some learned Ro- ' manists defend that old definition of the Church, ' that it is Ca'tiis Fidelium, the Company of the * Faithful, and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into * definition of a Church.* Thus he : Dr Clagget, * Hist, rebell. ■\ Vindication of the Discourse concerning tha Notes of the Church, p. 53. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 45 succeeds him, and goes yet more roundly to work. He affirms indeed,* as we do, the Church to be one in many respects, viz. of head, faith, sacra- ments, service, and government too. But expressly denies that any of these kinds and instances of unity are necessary to the being of a Church, except these of one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And further asserts, ' that from the Apostles times till the Coun- * cil of Trent, the constant universal doctrine con- * cerning the cliurch was this, that it is the Society of * the Faithful, without ever inserting into the defini- * tion of it any thing relating to its being united to * the Pope, or any other Bishop, as to a visible head/ To both these you may add Mr Stillingfleet, after- wards Bishop of Worcester, who has proved,! be- yond contradiction, that the main bulk of the an- cient Bishops and Divines of the Church of England, from the first dawning of the Reformation almost down to Laud, have expressly declared against the necessity of Episcopal government, and maintained the mutability of Church government, according to the will of the Prince or circumstances of the king- dom ; and herein they were against Mr Rhind and his fellows. And that they have also acknowledged the Scripture identity of Bishop and Presbyter, as- serting the names to be interchangeable, and the office the same. And herein they were for the Presbyterians. 2f////, This is not the only quarrel the Church of England has against Mr Rhind's scheme. No one wonders to find the Presbyterians asserting the intrinsic power of the Church. They still claimed it, have been always wrestling for it — to be sure they never renounced it ; but it certainly very ill becomes one wlio has joined the Church of England to lay it down for a principle, as he has done, that tiie Ciiurch is independent of the State- ]? so, what then means the 2Jst Article, which declare?, * Upon Bellarmlne'd Vllth Note of the Church. j- Irvnic Part 11. chap. viii. 46 DEFENCE OF THE * that general councils may not be gathered together * without the commandment and will of Princes ?' Are not these necessary for serving the purposes of the Society ? The Church independent of the State ! What, then, means the 37th Article, which declares * the Queen's Majesty to have the chief power and * government of all estates, whether Ecclesiastical or ' Civil, and in all causes ?' The Church indepen- dent of the State! What, then, means the first Canon, I64t0, concerning the regal power, wherein the King's supremacy over the Ecclesiastical State, and in causes Ecclesiastical, is not only asserted but argued for : and the government of the Church declared to belong in chief unto Kings ; and that the power to call and dissolve councils, both na- tional and provincial, is the true right of all Christi- an kings, within their own realms and territories ; and that when, in the first times of Christ's Church, Prelates used this power, it was, therefore, only be- cause, in those days, they had no Christian kings ? The Church independent of the State 1 What, then, means the first Canon, 1603, the very rubric whereof is, the King's supremacy over the Church of England, in causes Ecclesiastical, to be main- tained ! The Church independent of the State ! What, then, meant the Bishop of Norwich, anno 1709, in his visitation charge, to spend a good part of his discourse, and a large appendix, in caution- ing his clergy against that principle ? Say, now, good reader, if Mr Rhind has not been competently furnished with assurance, when he declared, p. 29, his principles and corollaries to be truths so evident, that he thought it needless to enlarge on them. Had he intended only a dispute against the Presby- terians, he might, indeed, have assumed the inde- pendence of the Church for a principle : But when he was to tell the world what satisfied his own con- science, and determined him to go over to the Church of England, which, in the most solemn man- ner, has renounced that principle, the insisting on PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 'iT it. was one of the greatest inconsistencies a man could be guilty of. I shall conclude this discourse, upon his scheme, with one observation. Mr Rhind would needs have the Presbyterians to be Schismatics, and thence infers that they are without the church. But this is horridly false reasoning : For, I affirm, that, if they are Schismatics, then it will follow that they are within the church. I know this will be surprising at first to some readers, yet it is certainly true. The Romanists, in the dcy^ of the late King James, rea- soned exactly after the same manner with Mr Rhind, against the Church of England : But that great au- thor before-mentioned, I mean Dr Sherlock, demon- strates that pretended reasoning to be flat nonsense, and his words will abundantly clear my assertion. — * A Schismatical Church, says he,* signifies a church ' too, and how they are a church without belonging * to the one church, when there is but one church, ' is somewhat mysterious. And, therefore, schism * is not tearing off a part of the church, but one part ' dividing from the other in external communion, * which supposes that both parts still belong to the * same church, or else the church is not divided. * For apostacy and schism are two different things ; * apostates cease to be of the cliurch, schismatics ' are of the church still, though they disturb the * peace of the church, and divide the external com- ' munion of it. Does St Paul, who reproves the * Corinthians for their schisms, shut them out of ' the CiUU'ch for them too ? Does he deny them to * belong to the church, when he directs his epistle * to the church of God at Corinth.' Thus he. So very loosely knit is Mr Rhind's scheme, that the one part of it destroys the other. And if he can prove the Presbyterians Schismatics, eo ipso^ it will fol- low, that they are not without the church. Dr Sherlock's reasoning is plain, strong, palpable sense, against which Mr DodwelPs usual style, though " Ubi supra, p. 27, 2S. 48 pEFENCE OP THE founded upon some loose expressions of the Fathers, will never bear out Mr Rhind. Nor is Mr Rhind altogether a loser by this observe : For whereas he hints in his Preface, that he has been upbraided with apostacy by some ; though I am as well assured he is a Schismatic, as I am that there is such a sin as schism ; yet, upon the former reasoning, he ought not to be called an apostate, till he declare himself a little more explicitly. I hope, then, he will digest the observation the more easily, that what he loses by it in argument, he saves in character. Sect. II. Wherein Mr Rhind^s State of the Debate betwixt the Preshj' teriajis and Episcopalians, P' SI, 32, is examined. The stating of a debate aright, is always a princi- pal point in controversy. Take it in Mr Rhind's own words. ' It is sufficient to answer my design in • this short Apology, if I can prove that the govern- ' ment of the church, from the beginning, was ma- « naged by officers of different orders, and such as * acted in capacities, superior the one to the other ; ' among whom there were neither ruling elders, nor ' deacons, such as the Presbyterians have. Tiiis,' saith he, ' is all that the Episcopal writers plead for.' And, therefore, he thinks it needless to determine more explicitly, what are the distinguishing charac- teristics of the several officers, or to fix the bounds of their respective powers. Thus he. Now let us re- mark a little upon it. I. Why does he state the debate upon a subor- dination of Officers ? Was there ever Presbyterian denied, that there should be a subordination among the officers as well as judicatories of the Church ? Do they not own Christ to be the Chief Shepherd, the absolute King and Monarch of the Church ? Do not PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 49 -they own Presbyters to be under him, deacons un- der both ? Is not here a fair subordination of offi- cers ? If he had stated the debate upon a subor- dination or imparity of pastors or ministers, taking these words in their current ecclesiastical sense, it had been to the purpose ; but to state it upon a subordination or imparity of rulers or officers, was to lay a foundation to himself for chicane. Possibly he may think to ward off this remark by what he has added, That among these subordinate officers, there were neither ruling elders nor deacons such as the Presbyterians have. This, I acknowledge, when proved, will be a considerable point gained against the Presbyterians. But tlien, Imo, Why has he not restricted himself to the proof of this? For, in all his state of the debate, there is not one svl- lable more to the purpose ; and yet, of the 90 pages he has spent in the prosecution of it, he has employ- ed only five of them, and these too only by the bye, against the ruling elders and deacons — with what success we shall afterwards hear. 2do, When he has proved, which yet I despair of finding done, that among these subordinate officers, there were neither ruling elders nor deacons such as the Pres- byterians have, it will indeed follow that the Pres- byterians are mistaken in the characters and func- tions of their subordinate officers. But by no means will it follow, that they are against subordination of officers. On the contrary, Mr Rhind*s disputing against the Presbyterian ruling elders and deacons, proves, irrefragably, that they are for a subordi- nation of officers. I desire every reader of Mr Rhind's book, to attend carefully to this, and they will see there is no more needful for discovering the uselessness of all his arguments for a subordi- nation of officers, the Presbyterians being as much for it as the Prelatics are ; and that his latter part of the debate is a most effectual confutation of the former. ,11. Why does he say, That a subordination of officers, without such ruling elders and deacons as the 50 DEFENCE OP THl:> Presbyterians have, is, upon the main, all that the Episcopal writers plead for? Of ail things in the world, insincere dealing is the most odious. Cer- tainly he has taken it for a principle, that none who was to read his book, had ever read the E- piscopal writers, or would ever be capable of read- ing them. Is he yet to learn, that the sole power is pleaded for by them ? Having read so many books of that side, can his judgment be so weak as not to have discerned, or his memory so frail as to have forgot, that all the elevations of an absolute monarch accountable to God only, are pleaded for by them? If so, care shall be taken ere I have done, to clear up his discernment and refresh his me- mory. Does he imagine, that a subordination and sole power are all one ? Or, will a mere subordi- nation, without Presbyterian elders or deacons, please him ? If so, he is too well natured : For, alas ! it will not please his brethren. To humour him a little, 1 shall suppose the Presbyterians con- tent to accept of constant moderators for term of life, and that such moderators have the precedency in all their assemblies : But would that save them from the guilt of schism ? Mr Dod well has express- ly said it will not. Hear him.* * This, (a principle * of unity) none of our modern sects, except the Pres- * byterians, can so much as offer at. None of them * (the other modern sects) have any single minis- * ter, who, by their principles, can pretend to supe- * riority over his brethren. And all that they, (the ' Presbyterians) can pretend, is^ a moderator over ' their classes, either for a certain time, or, at the ^ utmost, for term of life. Yet even that is not * sufficient for a principle of unity. Seeing the sa;- * crifices, are they which are the cement of this ' unity, it must be a precedency, not in their assem- * blies only, but their sacrifices, which can entitle to « a principle of it.' Thus Mr D'odwell. And what now would it signify though Presbyterians should grant all that subordination which Mr Rhind pleads * One Priesthood, Chap. xiii. Sect. 13, p. 396. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. SI .or, when notwithstanding, they must still remain Scliismatics by Mr Dodwell's verdict ? III. Why did he think it needless to determine more explicitly the several characteristics of the se- veral officers, and to fix the bounds of their respec- tive powers ? About what, I pray, is all the con- troversy betwixt Prelatists and Presbyterians ? Is it about the title of Bishop ? It is yielded on both hands to be a scriptural one. Is it whether there should be bishops in the church ? The Presbyte- rian was never yet created who denied it. Is it that these bishops should have officers subordinate to them ? The Presbyterians loudly assert it. Is it not, then, the controversy about the character- istics and powers of bishops wherein the choke lies ? And yet Mr Rhind thinks it needless to de- termine them more explicitly. If so, it is very plain he should have thought it needless to have written his book. If the Prelatists can prove, that bishops, by divine right, should be absolute monarchs ; or, to come lower, that they should have a negative voice, simple or even reciprocal ; if they can prove, that, by divine right, they have the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, or either of them ; if they can prove, that, by divine right, they should have some hundreds, or even scores of congrega- tions under their inspection, Presbyterians are hearti- ly content to yield the cause, and to accept of bi- shops with all these powers, or so many of them as they shall prove of divine right to belong to them. On the other hand, if the Prelatists are content with bishops that are neither absolute monarchsj nor have a negative voice, nor sole power, nor a greater charge than they can personally inspect, that is, preach and dispense the sacraments to, with the assistance of elders to oversee the manners of the people, (and of deacons to take care of the poor), and that discipline may be duly exercised ; the Presbyterians offer to prove that they have such bishops already, or are content to take them where they have not. Is it possible fairer conditions can D 2 -52 DEFENCE OP THE be eitlier demanded or offered ? Why, then, did Mr K-hind decline to explain himself? The reason is obvious, he designed to harangue a while, and disputing would have marred the cadency of his pe- riods. IV. Supposing Mr Rhind's state of the debate had been more distin'ct than it is, it would answer only the one half of his undertaking in the title- page. For though it might be a reason for his se- parating from the Presbyterians, yet it would be none for his embracing the communion of the church, according to his present practice, unless he had proved that the subordination of officers in the church of England constitution, into which he is gone, were of divine institution, which he has not so much as attempted to prove — I add, nor can be proved. For, that primates or archbishops, having a power over, and being ordinaries to, the other bi- shops, — that bishops exercising a sole power, or even a negative voice, — that Presbyters, serving as the bishops delegates, without power of ordination or jurisdiction, — that preaching deacons, vested with a power of baptizing, but deprived of all manage- ment of the churches' stock, or care of the poor, which was the original design of their office ; — that, I say, all or any of these officers considered under these peculiar characters, are the creatures of God, or of divine institution, I positively deny, and want to be directed to any author that has proven it. So much for Mr Rhind's way of stating the de- bate : And, I believe, it is obvious to every body, that thereby he has projected for his own ease rather than the reader's conviction. For, let one, in pe- rusing his book, dash out the word officers or rulers, an imparity or subordination among which the Pres- byterians grant, and substitute in place thereof the word pastors or ministers, a parity among whom was his business to disprove j and it will presently ap- pear that several of his arguments are just as much to the purpose as an ode of Horace would have been. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT,' 53 But there is no need of running into niceties in this matter. Every body has a tolerable notion in the jQjross what is meant by Prelacy and Presbytery. If Mr Rhind's arguments prove that the latter is a schismatical kind of government, the former that which should obtain in the church, I shall grant he has gained his point. If they prove not that, it is nothing to us what else they prove. And whether they do so or not, I am now to apply myself to try. Sect. III. Wherein Mr R/iincTs Arguments for Prelacy are summed up. He has cast his argument into the form of a ha- rangue ; but so far as I can distinguisli them, they amount to the number of nine. The three first of which are calculated to argue that Prelacy should ' have been instituted ; the six latter to prove that it actually was instituted. 1. That it was necessary that Prelacy should be instituted, he argues, J. From the nature of the thing, which made it indispensably necessary in itself. A monarchical or subordinate form being able to answer the ends of government better than the contrary. 2. From the form of government in the Jewish Church, seeing God must be uniform in his actings. 3. From the rules of political prudence, seeing a levelling form of government would have been dis- tasteful both to the Jews and Romans, as being op- posite to the hierarchy of the former, and mo- narchy of the latter. II. That it actually was instituted, he attempts to prove, 1. From its obtaining in the days of Christ, as appears from the subordination of the Seventy to the Twelve. 2. From its being continued in the days of the 54 DEFENCE OF THE apostles, as lippears from the history of their acts, and their epistles, and a succession in the aposto- late. S. From the episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. 4. From tlie apocalyptic angels. 5. From testimonies of antiquity. 6. From the impossibility of its obtaining so early ^nd universally, if it had not been of divine insti- tution. All these (besides what he has advanced against the Presbyterian ruling elders and deacons), I shall examine in order. SJECT. IV. Wherein Mr Wiind's Arguings for proving that it'wasneces- sarii that the Prelatic form of Government should have been at first instituted^ are examined^ fromjp. S2 to jp. 49, I HAVE just now observed tbat he attentpts this by three arguments, which I shall examine in so many articles. Let me only once more advertise the reader, that Mr Rhind's expressing himself in thi» controversy by a subordinate form of government on the one hand, and a levelling form of govern- ment on the other, with such like phrases, is a very ridiculous, as well as unjust style j for, the Presby- terians are against a levelling, they are for a subor- dinate form of government, yea, they are for a mo- narchical form of government, understanding our Lord to be that monarch ; as Mr Rhind himself does, p. 49. Though, then, Mr Rhind found it ne- cessary for amusing his reader, and filling his pages, to use such forms of speaking, as a monarchical or subordinate, a republican or levelling form of go- vernment J yet I must either neglect his arguments altogether, as signifying nothing in this controver- sy, or else I must plainly understand by these and the like phrases, Prelacy or Presbytery respectively. PBESBYiTERIAN GOV^IVNMENT. 55 as common usage has fixed the notion of them in this controversy. This; premised, I now proceed. ARTICLE I. JVherein JWr Rhind's Argument, for the Indispen- sable Necessity of instituting Prelacy, from; the Na- 'ture of the Thing, is ej^amined, from p, 32 to p, 39, The sum of his argument is this : — God could not but institute the best form of government for his Church. A government of a monarchical or sub- ordinate form is such, that is, it can answer the de- signs of society better than any other. Therefore the Church ought to have that form of government, that is to say, Prelacy. Now, let us consider this; and, I. I affirm this way of arguing labours under three very considerable infirmities. First, It is not mo- dest. Secondly, Not secure. Thirdly, Suppose it were both ; yet, as he has laid it, it is quite im- pertinent, and does not in the least affect the Pres- byterians. First, It- is not modest. Does it become the crea- ture to prescribe to God i* Is it sufferable that one should talk at Mr Rhind*s rate, that such a form of government, abstracting from, and antecedently to, ' the divine establishment, ' ought to be,* ' musthe,'' * is •indispensably necessary in itself,* that it does not look * like God that it should be otherwise' — all which are his phrases ? Is not this to set bounds to God's wis- dom and will. I must needs read a lecture to Mr Rhind from the judicious Hooker,* to teach him more reverence towards God. ' As for those mar- ' vellous discourses, whereby they adventure to ar- • Eccles. Polit. B. III. Sfct. 2. p. 154, iSS, 56 DEFENCE OP THE * gue, that God must needs have done the thirig^ * which they imagine was to be done, I must con- « fess I have often wondered at their exceeding * boldness herein. When the question is, whe- * ther God have delivered in Scripture, (as they ' affirm he hath), a complete, particular, immutable ^ form of church polity ? why take they that other * both presumptuous and superfluous labour, to prove * he should have done it, there being no way in * this case to prove the deed of God, saving only by * producing that evidence vvherein he hath done it. ' When we do otherwise, surely we exceed our * bounds ; who and where we are we forget. And '^ therefore needful it is that our pride in such cases * be controuled, and our disputes beaten back with ' those demands of the blessed apostle, ' How un- " searchable are his judgments, and his ways past *' finding out ? Who hath known the mind of the " Lord, or who was his counsellor ?' — In matters ^ which concern the actions of God, the most du- * tiful way on our part, is to search what God hath * done, and, with meekness to admire that, rather « than to dispute what he in congruity of reason * ought to do.' I am sure it is Mr Rhind*s duty to chew the cud a while on this. Secondly^ It is not secure. For, circumstances may make that best in one case, which would not be so in another. Hear Mr Dodwell, * who will clear the mat- ter. ' The way of arguing from the actual establish- ments of God, as it is much more modest, so it is al- so much more secure for finding out the right of government, than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing. It is certainly the most becoming course for a modest Christian in all things to acquiesce in God's judgment, how great evidence soever there might seem for differ- ing from it. — The reasons, from the nature of government in general, and peculiarly of govern- ment as ecclesiastical, are not proper to any one « Oa Schisjn, Chap. xlx. Sect. 39, 40. p. 454, 455. PRESBYTEKIAN GOVERNMENT. 57 * age. But for bringing these reasonings clown to .* determine the rights of any particular government, ;* many particular matters of fact are requisite to be ' known.' Thus he. Thirdlij, His argument, as he has laid it, is quite impertinent, and does not in the least affect the Presbyterians : — For he adduces it, to prove, that there should be a subordination of officers in the Church, which the Presbyterians are for, as well as he. 11. iSupposIng his argument were otherwise tole- rable, how does he prove, that a monarchical or sub- ordinate form of government is the best ? Why, waving the many arguments of several learned au- thors, he will needs advance three of his own. The first is taken from the British Monarchy. The se- cond from the Principles. The third from the Prac- tices of the Presbyterians themselves. The first, from the British Monarchy, stands thus : — All the subjects of Britain must own monarchy to be the best form of government for the State ; and therefore he sees no reason, from the nature of the thing, why it should not be reckoned such for the Church also. — Nay, that it looks not like God that it should be otherwise, p. 33. But this is as unhappy an argument as Mr Rhind could have pitch- ed on. For, 1?720, Unless he could prove, (perhaps Dr Lesley may help him to it,) that Monarchy is the only government i)y divine right for the State, and that all the nations of the world who are under any other kind of government, are, on that account, iii a state of mortal sin, his argument must do a great deal more hurt than good to the Episcopal cause. For it will plainly follow, that such nations as have an aristocratical or democratical form of govern- ment in the State, and are persuaded it is best, should have the like in the Church too. The Bri- tish subjects are, indeed, persuaded, that monarchy is the best government for Britain ; and, I believe, will always be of this mind, while so benign a Prin- cess as her Majesty fills the throne j but these same 58 DEFENCE OF THE -persons are not persuaded, that it would be the best for the United Provinces, the Republics of Venice, Genoa, Lucca, the Swiss Cantons, Geneva, &c. ; and consequently, they must be persuaded too, ac- cording to Mr Rhind's way of reasoning, that a mo- narchical government in the Church would not be best for them. His argument, then, would quite alter its nature by a voyage; and from being a good one for Episcopacy at home, would become a good one against it beyond sea. 2f/o, Is it not pret- ty odd, to find one, who has read the Bible all over, as Mr Rhind says he has done, and has heard our Saviour not only declaring, that his kingdom is not of this world, but expressly discharging his disciples to exercise such dominion and authority as the Princes of the Gentiles do ; is it not odd, I say, to find such a one urging the cutting the Church go- vernment by the pattern of the State ? Does he not know that it was the fancy of modelling the external government of the Church according to the civil go- vernment of the Roman empire, that brought in such officers to the Church, of whom there is just as much mention in the Scripture, as there is of the present Emperor of Morocco, or Czar of Mus- covy. * I refer it, then, to the reader, to judge, if that can be a good argument for determining the government of the Church, which was the greatest cause of her corruption. StiOf As Mr Rhind has laid the British monarchy in the one scale, so he must allow me to lay some instances in the other, and let the reader weigh both. The Romans, who were the greatest masters of civil prudence ever the world knew, when once they had expelled the Tar- quins, and abolished regal government, though they used sometimes aristocracy, sometimes democracy, or a form mixed of both, yet never were so idle, or ill advised, as to think of setting up monarchy again, till usurpers and tyrants oppressed them, and, by main force, wrung their liberties out of their • See Dr Cave, Primit. Christ. Part I. Chap. viii. p. 225. PRESBYTERMN GOVE«NMENT. '59 liatids. Lycurgus and Solon were the wisest men of their age, by the verdict of all the world ; yet they set up, the one aristocracy, the other democracy, and recommended them for ever to their people. Plato and Aristotle, are names will be ever had in veneration, yet they had but very indifferent thoughts of monarchy, because of its liableness to degenerate into tyranny; and that which makes the British mo- narchy so desirable, is, that the two Houses of Par- liament qualify it, and give it a mixture both of aris- tocracy and democracy; whereas the prelacy con- tended for by its late patrons, is a downright tyran- ny, a monarchy after the French form-— none daring to say to the Bishop, what doest thou ? as we shall hear afterward. 4/o, Is it not strange, that the Church of England Divines, (Dr Whitaker, for instance, ■Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge), when disputing against the Church of Rome, should argue against a monarchical government in the Church ; and yet that Mr Rhind, who pretends to be of that communion, should argue for it, when disputing against the Presbyterians ? I want mightily to be sa- tisfied about his conduct in this. His second argument from the principles of the Presbyterians runs thus, page 34. I would know of them, why they are for a subordination of judica- tories, while they are, at the same time, against an imparity of rulers? Really the Presbyterians own themselves so dull, as not to be able to give a rea- son' for that which is not. Let Mr Rhind once prove that they are against an imparity of rulers, and then it will be soon enough to give a reason why they are so : For they are not disposed to philoso- phise on the golden tooth. He never suspected that his medium wanted truth, and therefore he goes on very innocently in his harangue thus : * To what pur- * pose, I would ask them, serves a subordination of ' judicatories, where the judges are supposed to be • still the same ?* Did Mr Rhind never hear that plus H^iclent Oculi quam Oculus, Two eyes see better than one ? Does he not know that' all the apostles were 60 DEFENCE OF THE equal in their apostolical character, and when the controversy about circumcision was started at An- tioch, Acts XV. doubtless Paul, being under an in- falHble conduct, could have determined it as ortho- doxly as the whole college of them ; yet, for satis- fying people's minds, it was judged expedient that the advice of the rest should be had, and their authority interposed. O, but, saith he, in the Pres- byterian subordination the judges are still the same. Now, what could put this in his head, or how he could possibly stumble into it, I cannot conjecture. Was he so long among the Presbyterians and does not know it to be false ? Could he meet with never one in the whole country to tell him it was so ? when I am sure there are very few in the nation but could have done it. All matters that come from a subordinate to a superior judicatory are trans- mitted either by way of reference or appeal. In the first of these cases the judges are not merely the same, but a vast plurality added to them j for in- stance, when a matter is referred from a Presbytery to a Synod, the whole ministers of the province, with a ruling elder from each parish, are the judges in the latter. Whereas in the former, only the ministers of that particular Presbytery, with one ruling elder from each of its parishes, are the judges. In the case of appeals, not one member of the inferior judicatory is admitted to be a judge in the superior. They are indeed allowed to plead, but the pleading being over, they are not allowed to advise, much less to vote in the process. The use, then, of a subordination of judicatories is obvious, to wit, that the superior may rectify the mistakes, &c. of the inferior. But this will not go down with Mr Rhind : For * he cannot understand how their . * fellow members (to whom they are supposed in ' all respects equal) shall judge better than they." I know nobody obliged to find him in understand- ing. The thing is abundantly intelligible in itself; Solomon, a wise enough master, having told us, that in multitude of counsellors there is safety. But 2 PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 61 whence did Mr Rhind learn that all the members of the Presbyterian judicatory were to be supposed in all respects equal ? Was it from the Presbyterians ? Surely not. They willingly own, that all the mini- sters, for instance, in one Presbytery, are not equal in all respects. One of them is more learned than another. Another perhaps, though he has not much learning, is yet wiser, for the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men. Was it from his fellow wri- ters of the Episcopal side ? No. On the contrary, they plainly declare, that the Presbyterians neither plead nor suppose any such thing. Thus, the au- thor of the Seventh Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 3d : * They,* saith he, ' which cannot * brook the superiority which bishops have, do not- ' withstanding themselves admit that some kind of * difference and inequality there may be lawfully * amongst ministers. Inequality, as touching gifts * and graces they grant, because this is so plain that ' no mist in the world can be cast before men's eyes 'so thick, but they needs must discern through * it, that one minister of the gospel may be more * learned, holier, and wiser ; better able to instruct, ' more apt to rule and guide, than another ?' Let Mr Rhind then say, at his best leisure, whence he got that supposed equality in all respects. His third argument is taken from the practices of the Presbyterians themselves, the sum of which, in his own \vords, page 35, is, * That, though by their ' principles all church officers are allowed an equal * authority, yet, in effect, the whole, or at least the 'chief power, is in the hands of a few, who are the « most knowing and wise. And for proof of this he * brings an instance, how, that in three several ge- « neral assemblies, though the most numerous party * in the assembly were earnest to have the intrinsic ' power of the church asserted by an act, yet the au- * thority of a leading junto, who were upon the mat- « ter so many bishops, crushed that dangerous af- ' fair. Why then,' saith he, page 37. * do they op- * pose that kind of government, which is not only 60 DEFENCE OF THE equal in their apostolical character, and when the controversy about circumcision was started at An- tioch, Acts XV. doubtless Paul, being under an in- fiiUible conduct, could have determined it as ortho- doxly as the whole college of them ; yet, for satis- fying people's minds, it was judged expedient that the advice of the rest should be had, and their authority interposed. O, but, saith he, in the Pres- byterian subordination the judges are still the same. Now, what could put this in his head, or how he could possibly stumble into it, I cannot conjecture. A¥as he so long among the Presbyterians and does not know it to be false ? Could he meet with never one in the whole country to tell him it was so ? when I am sure there are very few in the nation but could have done it. All matters that come from a subordinate to a superior judicatory are trans- mitted either by way of reference or appeal. In the first of these cases the judges are not merely the same, but a vast plurality added to them ; for in- stance, when a matter is referred from a Presbytery to a Synod, the whole ministers of the province, with a ruling elder from each parish, are the judges in the latter. Whereas in the former, only the ministers of that particular Presbytery, with one ruling elder from each of its parishes, are the judges. In the case of appeals, not one member of the inferior judicatory is admitted to be a judge in the superior. They are indeed allowed to plead, but the pleading being over, they are not allowed to advise, much less to vote in the process. The use, then, of a subordination of judicatories is obvious, to wit, that the superior may rectify the mistakes, &c. of the inferior. But this will not go down with Mr Rhind : For « he cannot understand how their . * fellow members (to whom they are supposed in * all respects equal) shall judge better than they." I know nobody obliged to find him in understand- ing. The thing is abundantly intelHgible in itself; Solomon, a wise enough master, having told us, that in multitude of counsellors there is safety. But 2 PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 61 whence did Mr Rhind learn that all the members of the Presbyterian judicatory were to be supposed in all respects equal ? Was it from the Presbyterians ? Surely not. They willingly own, that all the mini- sters, for instance, in one Presbytery, are not equal in all respects. One of them is more learned than another. Another perhaps, though he has not much learning, is yet wiser, for the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men. Was it from his fellow wri- ters of the Episcopal side ? No. On the contrary, they plainly declare, that the Presbyterians neither plead nor suppose any such thing. Thus, the au- thor of the Seventh Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. Sd : * They,* saith he, ' which cannot * brook the superiority which bishops have, do not- ' withstanding themselves admit that some kind of * difference and inequality there may be lawfully * amongst ministers. Inequality, as touching gifts * and graces they grant, because this is so plain that ' no mist in the world can be cast before men's eyes ' so thick, but they needs must discern through * it, that one minister of the gospel may be more * learned, holier, and wiser ; better able to instruct, ' more apt to rule and guide, than another ?' Let Mr Rhind then say, at his best leisure, whence he got that supposed equality in all respects. His third argument is taken from the practices of the Presbyterians themselves, the sum of which, in his own words, page 35, is, ' That, though by their ' principles all church officers are allowed an equal * authority, yet, in effect, the whole, or at least the ' chief power, is in the hands of a few, who are the < most knowing and wise. And for proof of this he * brings an instance, how, that in three several ge- « neral assemblies, though the most numerous party * in the assembly were earnest to have the intrinsic ' power of the church asserted by an act, yet the au- * thority of a leading junto, who were upon the mat- ' ter so many bishops, crushed that dangerous af- « fair. Why then,' saith he, page 37. * do they op- * pose that kind of government, which is not only 6^ DEFENCE OF-XH^ ' indispensably necessary in itself, but does, in desr * pite of their principles, actually obtain among them- * selves ?* Thus he. In answer to which : How lucky soever Mr Rhind may be in some of his minutes, yet perhaps he is the most unlucky in his arguments ever man was : they being generally so ill-natured as to cut their own throat. For, 1 wo, who told him that it is against Presbyterian principles, that one minister should have a greater hand in managing than ano- ther ? Not the Presbyterians j they refuse it. Not his brethren, the authors on the Episcopal side ; witness him last cited, who tells us (Ibid J, ' A pri- * ority of order they deny not but that there may * be, yea, such a priority as maketh one man amongst * many a principal actor in those things whereunto * sundry of tlyem must necessarily concur, so that * the same be admitted only during the time of such * actions, and no longer.' 'Ido^ Is it indeed true, that the Presbyterian government is in effect in the hands of a few, who are upon the matter bishops ? Then it is certainly true, that they are not Schismatics, conr sequently that Mr Rhind's separating from them on that score is unjustifiable. Is this my reasoning on-, ly ? No; but of one of the best men that ever w:ore raitre, I mean Dr Bedell, afterwards Bishop of Kil- raore, in his answer to IVIr Waddesworth, once 21^ minister in Sufibik, then a Roman Catholic and pen- sioner of the Holy Inquisition in Seville. Waddes- worth, in his scripts after liis revolt, fell foul upon the reformation in these words: * In France, Holland, and ' Germany, they have no bishops.' To this Dr Be- dell answers,* ' What if I should defend they have ? ' Because a bishop and a l^resbyter ai*e all one,* as St Jerome maintains, ' and proves out of holy * Scripture, and the use of antiquity. Of which 'judgment, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of the * ancient fathers,^ both Greek and Latin, St Am- * brose, Augustine, Seciulius, Primasius, Clirysos- * tQm, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylagt; : *' Burnet*ai Life of Bisil)0|>. Bedell, ]^ i^^ 454. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 63 * which point t have largely treated of in another 'place.* Thus he. But Mr Waddesworth was an adversary much of Mr Rhind's temper, not to be sa- tisfied without bishops superior to presbyters. Dr Be- dell therefore finds a way to make all the Protestant churches Episcopal. In Germany the superintend^, ents were bishops. But what was to be done with France and Geneva where these were not. ' Why/ saith he, ' there are usually certain chief men, tliat •^ do'in a' manner bear ail the sway. And what are * these but bishops, indeed^ unless we shall wrangle * about names.' I hope Mr Rliind is here fitted with a' wedge of his ov/n timber. Common sense dic- tates that superiority in wisdom and dexterity for managing business, attended with a due integrity^ should bear sway among all^ societies, even wher« the constituent members are otherwise equal in their character : Which amounts to. no more than thisi that the weaker should follow the counsel; of the wiser, and no other superiority but this could the Doctor find necessary by the word of God among ministers : ' But,' saith Mr Rhind, * why do ' those whose superior abilities entitle them to * the chief power, and who exercise the same in * fact, refuse to be regularly admitted to the ex- * ercise thereof, that is, plainly, to be consecrated * bishops ?* I answer from the excellent Lord Falk- land', who died in the bed of honour, fighting for the royal martyr.* ' There was once a hen in * ^sop, which, upon a moderate proportion of barley * laid every day an egg. Her mistress enlarging her * diet, in hopes she would proportionally encrease * her eggs, she grew so fat upon that addition, that * she never laid more.' Dignities and preferments often turn men's heads, blunt their wits, or rebate th'C edge of their diligence. How often has it been seen, that a very good minister has made but a very in- different bishop? So long as they are equal in au- thority, they know it is only their superior wisdom • See his Speecli before tlie House af Commons!, concerai»g B- plscopacy, in RushvYorlh^a Collect. Vol. I. Fart ill. p. 182, 64 DEFENCE OP THE and virtue that can entitle them to respect from, or sway among their brethren. This first excites their spirits, and then keeps them on the bend ; but when once they are settled in the dignity by a formal in- stalment, they know that reverence is due to their character, how unaccountable soever their conduct is. Of all sorts of bishops, these are the most de- sirable, whose dignity rises and falls in proportion with their real merit and wise management. This puts them upon their good behaviour, which is ne- cessary for clergymen, as well as for other people. And this is plainly the case of our Presbyterian Bi- shops. To all this, Mr Rhind may please to add, that they refuse, and their brethren will not allow them, to be consecrated to the dignity ; because it is not only without warrant, but against the precept of our Lord, Matth. xx. 25, whereof afterwards. In the meantime, Mr Rhind having acknowledged that the Presbyterians have such as are bishops upon the matter ; it is plain, he has separated from them for the want of what is not material. Stio, As to his in- stance of the act, assertory of the intrinsic power. If he had said, that the Junto, as he calls them, by importunity prevailed on, or by pure dint of reason, persuaded the rest that such an act was either not necessary, or not seasonable at that time ; I believe he had spoken truth, but nothing to the purpose, be- cause Presbyterians still own, that some, who in point of authority are only on a level with their bre- thren, may yet be superior to them in the ecclesias- tical politics. But to say that they got it crushed by their authority, was to be too prodigal of his cre- dit, the whole nation knowing it to be false. 4/o, I know that Mr Rhind mentioned this instance by way of reflection against the Presbyterians, and therefore, I must take the freedom to tell him, that the General Assembly has done more, even since the revolution, for asserting the intrinsic power, than all the Prelatists in Scotland ever had the cour- age to do. These latter, upon the restoration of King Charles II. meanly truckled to an avowed PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 65 Erastian usurpation, without the least remonstrance or reclaiming. And when the late King James sent down his proclamation of the date, Feb. 12, 1687, for an unbounded toleration, wherein by his absolute power and prerogative royal, he annulled and revok- ed the penal laws against papists ; the Archbishop of St Andrews, and the elect Archbishop of Glas- gow, were the second and third persons who sub- scribed a letter of thanks to him for the said tolera- tion and proclamation. The letter bears date, Feb. 24, 1687. It is stuffed with the most fulsome flat- tery, and a soothing of the king in those measures which took away the barrier of the Protestant reli- gion, and at last ruined himself. So unwilling were that unfortunate prince's best friends, to venture their posts by giving him free and honest counsel ; when they might have possibly saved their king, and certainly their own consciences, by the doing it. The General Assembly on the other hand, have acted a somewhat better part : for when, in the year 1692, the Earl of Lothian would needs dissolve it in a very abrupt manner, to say no worse, the moderator, with all due respect to the civil powers, and yet with that courage that became a churchman possessed of the chair in the highest judicatory, boldly asserted the intrinsic power, even in the face of a frowning go- vernment, and the whole Assembly adhered to him in so doing. I hope then Mr Rhind will see that he should have been wise in his wrath, and not needless- ly have given occasion to such a piece of history. 5to, His reasoning concludes alike against Bishops, as weli as the members of the General Assembly ; for the world does not want to know that Bishops are not always the wisest, any more than the best men. And he himself was aware of this: ' But,' saith he, p. 38, * when such is the government of the church, that * there are different spheres in which men are to act, * it is presumed they are chosen with qualifications * proportioned to each.' But why should that be presumed which no man can prove, and every man will deny ? And does not he himself own, that it has 66 DEFENCE OF THE too frequently happened, that men of inferior abili' ties have attained to the Inchest ecclesiastical di'sni- ties r And does not the history of the late times confirm this ? Witness Mr Wallace, who, in the year 1662, was preferred to be Bishop of the Isles, though he understood not one syllable of the native language of his diocese : yet a powerful recommendation, and the good quality of pliancy procured him the crosier. But, saith Mr Rhind, this is not the fault of the con- stitution, but of thf)se who prefer them. Very man- nerly ! And so all the faults of the bishops must be charged upon the prince. But the very constitution has been always such in Scotland, that it was at least a very great hazard if ever a worthy person was chosen. Generally men of merit ai'e modest, and love obscurity ; the most unworthy persons are most forward to put in for preferments ; courtiers, by whose eyes and ears the Prince must see and hear, are most ready to recommend such as are likely to be the most serviceable tools to themselves in their political designs. The Prince's conge (TeUre makes the election of the chapter a sham. So that upon the whole, there was a fault in the very constitution,. even though the office had been in itself lawful. III. Mr Rhind is resolved to end this argument with one bold stroke. ' According,' saith he, p. 38, ' to the Presbyterian platform, the less known and ' wise are allowed an equal authority with those who * deserve it best: an establishment which seems to ' bid defiance to common sense.' Did Mr Rhind never hear of the Roman senate ? It was reckoned the most venerable bench in the world j yet there did parity reign in perfection, and that notwithstand- ing the inequality among the constituent members in point of prudence. That fine gentleman the younger Pliny, giving his friend Arrianus an account of an ac- tion hei'ore the senate, in which he had been employed to plead, tells him*. Thus it seemed good to the * Sed hoc pluribus visum est. Numcrantur enim sententlscj nou pomlerantur. Ncc aliud in puhlico concilio potest fieri, in quo. Oihil est tani incquale quam aeqiialitas ipsa: nam cum sit iropac prudentia, par omnium jus est. — Plin. lib. ii. Ep. xii. PRESBYTEIJIAN GOVERNMENT. 67 plurality : For the votes are numbered, not weighed. Nor can it otherwise be in public council, in which there is nothing so unequal as the equality itself: For the right of all is equal, though their prudence is unequal. Did Mr Rhind never hear of the House of Lords, or Commons in Parliament ? Are not all the members in these several houses allowed an equal authority ? yet who ever said that they were equally qualified, or that it was necessary they should be so ? If he has never travelled so far as Westmin- ster in his views, yet did he never hear of the Lords of Session, or Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland ? Does he not know that none of them have a negative on the rest ; that they have all an equal authority, though they never had, nor proba- bly ever will have equal abilities ? Yet one would be very void of common sense, that would venture to say, that their constitution bids a defiance to it. So much for his argument from the nature of the thing, of which he is so vain, that he affirms, p. 39, it may in some measure serve to determine the con- troversy about church government : and I hope, after what has been said, every reader will grant that he may for ever enjoy that good opinion of it without fear of a rival. ARTICLE n. Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for the Necessity/ of ins ti tut 'nig Prelacy from the Form of Governmeiit in the Jewish Church, is Ea:amined. From p, 39 to J). 45, Before I state this argument, I must put (yet once more) the reader in mind, that though the Presbyterians are against a subordination of pastors, yettiiey are for a subordination of officers, as well as the Prelatists arc. And tiiat, therefore, when his arguments conclude against a parity of officers, or i: 2 68 DEFENCE OP THE for a subordinate form of Government, It is only 3 parcel of empty insignificant words huddled to- getiier, unless by the former we understand Pres- bytery, and by the latter Prelacy. This premised, his argument stands thus : ' A government constituted by a subordination ' of rulers was actually approven of by God under * the Old Testament : For the form of govern- * ment, which, by divine institution, obtained in the * Jewish Church, was constituted by officers acting ' in an imparity ; such as the High Priest, Priests,, * and Levites ; each of which were orders distinct * from, and subordinate to the other.' p. 40. This is his whole medium, and the only inference that can justly be made from it is, (which every Presbyte- rian grants), that such an imparity was not only lawful, but also best for that state of the church. But Mr Rhind's inferences from which are of a high- er nature, viz. That if it was best under that dis- pensation, he cannot conceive how it can be reck- oned unlawful in the Christian Church. I cannot but pity the weakness of his conception : For if our Lord has changed the Jewish Priesthood, and dissolved their polity, and set up the Christian very different from it, will not this make it unlawful I O but, by Mr Rhind's account, our Lord did not this, he could not do it, it was not consistent with his wisdom to do it ; plainly, ' it is,' saith he, p. 41, * an impeachment of the divine wisdom to think * that God would alter that form of government * which he had instituted, to establish another quite * different from it.' And now you have his whole argument, an argument which he thinks sufficient to prove the perpetuity of that form. In discoursing it I shall shew, First, That as he has laid it, it is horridly impious. Se- cond/j/y That his management of it against the Presbyterians, is ridiculous. Thirdly, That it is in itself weak, and concludes nothing to the pur- pose in this controversy. Fourthlij, That if it conclude at all, it concludes for an universal Pa- PERSBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. (50 pacy rather than a diocesan Prelacy. And, Lastly ^ That it is rejected as insufficient by the Episcopal authors themselves. I. The argument, as he has laid it, is horridly impious. God must not be wise, that is, he must not be God, unless Mr Rhind please. No Christian ought to pass that way of talking he has got into without resentment. Sauciness against the Al- mighty is intolerable. What! Was it not consis- tent with the wisdom of God to alter a form of go- vernment he had formerly instituted? Has Mr BJiind read the Bible, and knows not that God go- verned Israel, first by Judges and then by Kings, and yet was infinitely wise in both ? If he did this in the state, why should it reflect on his wisdom to do it in the church ? Nay, has he not actually done it in the church ? For, was not both the civil and ecclesiastical power originally in the same person, in Adam, the Patriarchs, and Moses ; and yet, imder the law, did he not put the ecclesiastical regi- ment into the hands of the High Priest, Priests and Levites, so that the King was no longer Priest ? And might he not have learned this from Dr L — y him- self? * Tlie Jews fondly dreamed that their polity was to last with the world, and persecuted the first martyr, Stephen, to death, because he had taught, that Jesus of Nazareth would change the customs which Moses delivered, Acts, vi. 14. But, if Mr llhind's argument is good, Stephen's doctrine was fixlse, and the Jews murdering of him was only the effect of a laudable zeal. Is it not more agreeable to the divine wisdom to think, that the circumstan- ces of the church being so vastly altered, her govcrn- mentshould be so too. Underthe Jewish dispensation, the church was empaled within a narrow enclosure, but the Gospel was to be preached to every creature. And is not here a fair foundation for altering the go- vernment ? And does not the Apostle to the He- brews, c. vii. V. 12, lay it down for a principle, that the Priesthood being changed, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law. How impious * Finishing Stroke, p. 2. 70 DEFENCE OF THE is it then to insinuate, that such a change is incon-' sistent with the divine wisdom ! II. His management of this argument against the Presbyterians is ridiculous. Take it in his own Words, p. 43. « Seeing there was one of the highest * order in the Jewish Church, it follows unanswer- * abl}^ (taking along with you what I have said a- * bove upon this head,) that there ought to be one * at least in the Christian Church. This,' saith he, * is enough to prove the point against the Presby- * terians, and I defy themj if they sliall answer di- * rectly, to evade it/ This defiance of Mr Rhind's, is the prettiest I ever heard of. Let the Presbyte- rians ' take along with them what he has said above * upon his own head, that is, let them grant that it ' is an impeachment of the divine wisdom, to think * that God would alter that form of government * which he had instituted among the Jews, to esta- * blish another quite different from it among the * Christians ;' and then it will follow unanswerabl}^, that as there was one High Priestin the Jewish Church, there ought to be one at least in the Christian Church. That is, as if he had said, pray, you Pres- byterians, let me bind your hands, and then I'll un- dertake to knock out your brains. I truly cannot imagine what class of men Mr Rhind wrote for. Presbyterians will be so far from taking along with them his assertion, that they cannot otherwise look on it than as a most rude attack on the Divine Ma- jesty. He goes on with his reasonings. ' I ask ' them,' saith he, p. 44, ' whether it be just to con- * demn the order as useless among Christians, * because one is not able to perform all the offices * belonging to it? Or whether it be not rather rea- * sonable to acknowledge, that as there was in the * Jewish Church one ecclesiastical ruler of the high- * est order, and no more, because one was sufficient ; * so should Christians have one at least, and as many * more as are needful ?* The Presbyterians are heartily content with the proposal : For, they believe every Gospv^.l Minister to be an ecclesiastical ruler PP.ESBTTERIAX GOVERNMENT. 71 of til e highest order, and are very well persuaded that one of them is needful in every congregatioE. They are 60 far from being against multiplying of Bishops, that where there is one in England, they wish there were three hundred. But, saith Mr llhind, * let them allow one Bishop for every district, in *■ proportion to that to which the High Priest's autho- •' rity did extend, and the debate is at an end.* The Presbyterians will be content with this likewise upon two very reasonable conditions : \st. If he can prove that there is any divine institution appointing it to be so. But MrRhind's dictating to God, and thinking it j-easonable it should be «o, will not be admitted by them as a proof of this. 2^, If he can prove that the ecclesiastical rulers of the highest order in the Christian Church are appointed for the same fimc- tions the High Priest was under the law. The Priest, that Imayspeak in MrDodwell's style, was to offer up the national or popular sacrifices, for appropriating to the Jews, only (whether by birth or proseiytism, it is the same thing,) the privilege of the SeguUah, and the patronage of the Supreme Being. But in all the New Testament, I cannot find that any such, either national or provincial appropriation was ever designed to be the end of any of the functions of any Gospel ruler. Nay, we find all on the contrary : For, by the Gospel Institution, all that worship the same Supreme Being, and in the same way that he has appointed, are within the Church, whatever na- tional distinctions they have. HI. The argument is in itself weak, and con- cludes nothing to the purpose in this controversy ; because, from the whole strain of the Scriptures, it is plain, that the Aaronick Priesthood was typical, and had at once both its end and accomplishment in Christ. Mr Rhind was aware of this exception, and therefore essays to take it off by two answers, 1. If the constitution of the Levitical priesthood was subordinate, the Christian must be so too, o- therwise the type is not adequately represented by the antitype, p. 42. This the Presbyterians grant: For Christ is the great high-priest of our profession. 72 DEFENCE OF THE Heb. iii. 1., and all other Christians are a royal priesthood, i Pet. ii. 9., subordinate to him. But otherwise, that the orders of the clergy among Chris- tians should be adjusted to those among the Jews, is a ridiculous dream ; seeing from the one end of the New Testament to the other, the title of Priest is never given to the ministers of the gospel as such. His 2d answer is, ' That though these parts of the * priestly office which did prefigure the sacrifice and * intercession of Jesus Christ were to cease upon * his crucifixion and ascension, yet that the High ' Priest was also a governor in the Jewish Church, ' and that the ordinary priest had a share in the * government with him, though subordinate to him, * and that the Levites were subservient to both. ' And he is confident that the Presbyterians will not * affirm that the Pligh Priest, or inferior priests, did * typify any thing under the reduplication of rulers, * or the Levites as under them, or that there was * any thing typical in their subordination as such.' But this answer is in all its parts unserviceable, and in some of them quite opposite to himself. For, 1. We have already * heard Mr Dodwell declaring. That it is the Bishops precedency, not in the Chris- tian assemblies only, but in their sacrifices, which can entitle to a principle of unity. Therefore Mr Rhind destroys the argument by abstracting from the sacrifices and insisting on the government, and by considering the Jewish church officers not as priests, but as rulers. 2. If the subordination as such among the Jewish church rulers was not typi- cal, then, where is there any necessity, by that ar- gument, for any such subordination in the Chris- tian Church ? 3. Why is he so confident that the Presbyterians will not affirm, that the High Priest or inferior priests did typify any thing under the re- duplication of rulers ? He owns he had read the Presbyterian authors with a scrupulous exactness, particularly the Altare Diimascenum. Now the author of that work expressly affirms it+. ' The * See Lcfore, Chap. ii. Sect. 2. •f Alt. Daniasc. p, HO. Sed cum sancti omncs sinl Deo sacer- PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 73 < very eminency,' saith he, ' of the High Priest, in * which the Episcopal writers place the order and * eutaxyof thatgovernment, was typical, and shadow- < ed the super-eminent dignity of our High Priest * above all other priests, whose priesthood has an * influence on all the faithful, and makes them * priests and pastors in an ethical, though not poli- * tical sense.' It is then plain that Mr Rjiind's con- fidence in this point has been much greater than his caution. 4. Seeing under the Jewish dispensation the ordinary priests had a share in the government with the High Priest, why did not Mr Rhind tell us what share the ordinary priests in the Church of England have with their diocesans, or high priests, in the government ? I cannot find it : No wonder, truly, for the great Bacon, Lord Verulam, could not. This is one of the things, wherein he con- fesses he could never be satisfied, viz. the sole exercise of their authority. * The bishop,* saith he, * * giveth orders alone, excommunicateth ' alone, judgeth alone. Tins seems to be a thing * almost without example in government, and there- ' fore not unlikely to have crept in, in the degene- * rate and corrupt times.' Thus he. Where is then the subordination in government which Mr Rhind pleads for ? IV. His argument, if it conclude at all, con- cludes for an universal Pa})acy rather than a Dio- cesan Prelacy : For there was but one high priest over the Jews, and consequently there should be but one supreme bishop over the Christian Cliurch. And indeed Mr Dodwell has roundly asserted, that the original government of the Christian Church was a Papacy; — that the whole Cinistian churches were subject to the church at Jerusalem, and that dotes, annon ilia ip«a eminevtia summi saccidotis In qua illl pommt ordincm ct eutaxium, lijpica fuit, et super eviinentem summi pontificis nostri supra alios cnincs sacertlotcs dignitatem adiimbrabat, cujus saccidotium in onincs litlclcs iiifluil, cL ciliicos licet non poli- ticos in exttrno legimine sacerdotes tt pastores facit ? * Certain Consideration* touching the Church of England, p, 14. 74 DEFENCE OF THE the bishop of Jerusalem was the principle of Catho- lic unity, and that there were no other bishops in the world but himself, and that the settling of bi- shops in particular dioceses was an after-game. This is Mr Dodwell's doctrine. * And it agrees very well with the argument from the Jewish priesthood. He indeed took pains to prevent the consequence that this doctrine might seem to have in favours of the Church of Rome, by teaching, as we shall hear afterwards, that the government was altered in the second century ; but Mr Rhind, by declaring an al- teration inconsistent with the wisdom of our Lord, has plainly betrayed the Protestant cause. He fore- saw that this objection would be made against his argument. Let us hear how he wards it oft'. ' This * cavil,* saith he, p. 43, * is, I confess, very plausible, * and our adversaries do triumph upon it as unanswer- * able ; but they do not know, perhaps, whom they * oblige by this.' Well, pray, who are they ? ' Let * me tell them,' saith he ' that the Roman Catho- * lies are no less fond of it than they.' But let me tell Mr Rhind, that this is to write not only weakly but ridiculously. When the Prelatists go in to the worst part of Popery, by insisting on an argument which, supposing its solidity, must needs found the Pope's supremacy, must not the Presbyterians, (who have proved a hundred times, that it is absurd to in- fer the form of government in the Christian, from that of the Jewish Church), tell them so much for fear of obliging the Romian Catholics ? This is a new way he has got of turning the chace, which may be admired, but I believe will scarcely be fol- lowed by any wise man. But after all this, how does he defend his argument against the Papists ? Lie indeed refers his readers to the authors who have managed this controversy against them ; but his * Paiicncs. Sect. 6, p 9. Ecclesisc Catliolicae univeisoe, prima- tumteniiit Eplscopus llierosol) niitanus. Partm ill! quem simllitev tenuit pontifex teiiipll Hierosolyniitani Jiulacus in synogogas Judae- oinni per oibeni terraruni ubUjue dispersas. Et parem illi qucm sibi vcndica per Christianuni Ofbcm universum pontifex Roniaaus. Presbyterian government. 75 own defence is absolutely naught. It is this, p. 43. * In so confined a society as was the Jewish Churchy * any more than one officer of the highest order was ' needless, seeing the people could easily repair to * him from the remotest corners of Judea, upon all ' the proper occasions ; and one was sufficient for * the discharge of all the duties of that office. But ' since the partition wall is broken down, the church * is become a society of so large an extent, that all * the faithful cannot have access to one, nor can * one serve all the purposes of that office.' But •why may not one serve all the purposes of that of- fice now, as well as during the whole first century, and a part of the second, according to Mr Dodwell ? It is true the professors of Christianity are more numerous now than they were then, yet not more widely dispersed. For, if we may believe antiqui- ty, Christianity got considerable footing in the apos- tles days, even in the nations most remote from Je- rusalem, the centre. And that St Andrew, St Simon the Canaanite, and, as some say, St Paul himself, planted the gospel in Britain. And if the bishop sitting at Jerusalem could be a principle of unity to us then, why might not the bishop of Rome, who is much nearer hand, be so to us now ? Let Mr Rhind satisfy the Roman Catholics how, for in- stance, all the faithful in the cities of London and Westminster, amounting to about a milHon of souls; how all the faithful in the rest of Middlesex, Essex, and part of Hertfordshire, on this side the globe; how all the faithful in the foreign English plantations on the other side of the globe, and in both the Indies, can have access to the bishop of London, their dio- cesan, or how he can serve all the purposes of that office to them. — Let Mr Rhind, I say, satisfy the Roman Catholics in this ; and then I believe they will find it no hard matter to shew how all the faith- ful through the world may have access to one Pope at Rome, and how one Pope alone may serve all the purposes of that office to the Church Universal. It is plain, then, that Mr Rhind's argument must needs infer the necessity of the Pope's supremacy. erior apostles, notwithstanding it was otherwise at the begin- ning, how is it inconsistent with his wisdom, that there should be presbyters w'ithout superior bishops? But then, lastly, to complete all, if Mr Rhind*s assertion be true, then Prelacy is undone for ever : For it has already been proved, from the Episcopal writers of the best note, that our Lord did not esta- blish an imparity — that the Twelve were equal among • Parecnes. Sect. 13, p. 54. Hodicrni Ecgiminis Ecclesiastici Conslitutio, Jicet emanarit ab Apostolis, est tamen scriptis N. T« emnibus recentior, et proinile noii ibi cxpectanda. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 99 themselves, the Seventy among themselves, and the Twelve and the Seventy completely equal, without any subordination of the latter to the former. If, then, the first institution could not be altered, pa- rity must obtain for ever. IL I am to examine Mr Rhind's general reason- ings from the Acts and Epistles. He cannot find in his heart to enter on them till he have spent a page, the 62d, in philippics against the Presbyterians for their invincible obstinacy, which will not yield, even when he levels demonstrations against them. Hard-hearted creatures they ! But Mr Rhind must even comfort himself with this, how small soever his success is likely to be, that yet he is in the way of his duty. I shall give the reader every word of his reasonings, that he may judge whether his party must not be (to use his own courtly phrase), an im- plicit herd indeed, that keeps itself in countenance by them. ' The acts and epistles,' saith he, page i 3, * favour the Presbyterians as little as the four gospels.' Nay, if they favour them as much, they are not like- ly to be great losers. ' These acts and epistles,' adds he, * are so far from intimating that the first * establishment was altered by the Apostles, that on ' the contrary they plainly shew its continuance.' Why, then, adieu prelacy for ever ; for the first establishment was only of the Apostles — they were the first officers in the church, for a while the only officers, and still acted in a perfect parity. * Do not ' the acts and epistles,' proceeds he, * all along * make mention of several orders of men who were * undisputedly clun-ch officers, that is, who were * soleuuily separated for ecclesiastical offices by the * imposition of hands ? And do not they assign to * each their difl^'erent powers?' I answer, not all along ; for, as I have said just now, there was at first but one order, viz. that of the Apostles, and even these, too, solemnly separated for their office without imposition of hands, at least we read nothing of it in the Scripture. * What,' he goes on, * does more * frequently occur through these sacred writings, than c 2 ICO DEFENCE OF THE * the mention that is made of presbyters and deaconsr, * the one subordinate to the other, and of the apostles * paramount to them alb* It is answered : There is indeed frequent mention of presbyters and deacons, the one subordinate to the other, and of the Apostles paramount to them all ; but how came he to lose prelates in his enumeration, who ought to have been inserted betwixt the Apostles and Presbyters ? Were there none such in the days of the Apostles ? If not, what hath the Church to do with them now ? If there were, why did he drop them in his catalogue in this place, when he avers it afterward, though at the distance of sixteen pages, that Timothy and Ti- tus were the ordinary and fixed prelates of Ephesus and Crete ? The reason of this artifice is obvious. The inserting prelates here would have quite spoiled his reasoning ; it would have made four orders of officers in the apostolic times, viz. apostles, prelates^ presbyters, and deacons ; and if there ought to be as many different orders now as there were at first, W'hich is the scope of Mr Rhind*s reasoning, and without which it signifies nothing, then prelacy is lost : for they have but three different orders among them, viz. Prelates, Presbyters, and Deacons, for which they do so much as pretend divine right. But to go on with Mr Ilhind*s reasonings. What though the Acts and Epistles make mention of the different and subordinate orders of Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons, what follows ? ' Why,' saith he, ' could one * wish a clearer proof than this, to evince that there ' was then an imparity among Church officers ?* I an-' swer, none. For every Presbyterian owns that there- was then, viz. in the days of the Apostles, an im- parity not only among the Church officers, but pas- tors too» No doubt the Apostles were superior to the Presbyters. But he has a second inference to make, viz. ' That the same also is a most clear proof * that that imparity was of divine institution.' The Presbyterians grant it : for the Apostles were cer- tainly acted by the divine spirit. His third infe- rence, which completes the whole, is, that conse- PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 101 quently that imparity, viz. of pastors, ought to be still continued. But here the Presbyterians and Mr Rhind part ways : for, though the Presbyterians ac- knowledge that the Apostles were superior to the Presbyters ; yet they affirm that a superiority among pastors is unlawful now, because the apostolate was an extraordinary office not to be continued, — the Apostles extraordinary officers not to be succeeded to, except in the ordinary functions, preaching, dis- pensing the sacraments, and governing the church, in which they are succeeded to by every minister. And this brings me to examine, « III. His particular argument from 1, succession in the Apostolate. He expressly denies, p. 64, &c., that * the Apostolate was an extraordinary office, or * that the Apostolic government was temporary, * and asserts that the Bishops of the Church, mean- * ing Prelates, as superior to Presbyters, do succeed * them therein.' Is this true? 1^/, Davenant, Bishop of Sarum, not only denies but disproves it;* multitudes of others of the Church of England do the same* The Church of Rome, a society of a very large extent, of a long standing, and such as has produced not a few wise and great men, expressly contradict it, denying that any of the Apostles had successors, save Peter, in the Papal chair. 2dly, Which must conclude Mr Rhind, Mr Dodwell t himself has denied it, and asserts that the office of the Apostolate failed with the last Apostle, and that never any of them had a successor but Judas, the traitor. Did this escape Mr Dodwell through in- advertency ? He repeats it over and over, and over again, in different places. But, Sdly, which is worst of all, Ignatius himself, who is both stem and stern of the Episcopal cause, always makes the Presbyters to succeed to, and represent the Apostles, but the • In Coloss. p. 4, 5. \ Defecerat cum ultimo Apostolo etlum Apostolatus officium ; cum nulli unqaam proeterqufim Jiulx pi-oditori, biifficcreiitur Apos- toloram successores.— Parwues. Sec. vi. p. 11 j Sec. xv. p. 62 j Sec. xvi. p. 68. 3 104 DEFENCE OF THE * these extraordinary gifts to be an argument of an * extraordinary office, yet must they, at the same * time, grant, that that office should continue as ' long as these gifts were necessary, at least as long * as they actually lasted.* And, upon this conces- sion, he attempts to prove, p. 67, 68, by the instance of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons, Gregory the wonder-worker, Bishop of Neo- caasaria, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and by the testimony of Eusebius, that these extraordinary gifts lasted for several ages ; and from thence infers, that, consequently, Episcopacy must have lasted so long. * This reasoning,' saith he, ' is good enough, ' ad hominem^ and does sufficiently expose the * weakness of the Presbyterian evasion.' But it is neither good ad hominem nor ad rem, nor exposes any thing but Mr Rhind's want of arguments. First, It is not good ad hominem ; for the Presbyterians make no such evasion, as we have already heard. Nor, ^dly, is it good ad rem ; for the instances of miraculous Bishops, v»'hich he has insisted on, are very injudiciously chosen. I do not deny that ex- traordinary gifts were continued, in the Church, even down to the third or fourth century, or longer, if Mr Rhind please ; but then, so far as relates to their having been possessed by Bishops, he has had the ill luck to pitch upon the most suspected in- stances. \st. As for Melito, (this was the eunuch who was Bishop of Sardis), I shall easily be- lieve what Tertuliian, as cited by St Jerome, and Polycrates, as cited by Eusebius, say of him, viz, * That he was a man divinely inspired, and in all ' things directed by the afflatus and suggestion of * the Holy Ghost,' if no more be meant thereby, than that he was a man of eminent piety ; for the Spirit of Christ dwells and acts in every man that is Christ's ; and 1 think it is plain Polycrates in Euse- bius meant no more ; for he says only, that * he was « led in all things by the grace of the Holy Spirit.* But if Mr Rhind will needs have us to understand thereby, that he was, in all things, under an infallible PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 105 conduct, I assure him I do not believe it ; for the Apostles themselves were not always so ; even Peter sometimes stept awry, and walked not with a straight foot. Gal. ii. 14. ; and I hope to make Mr Rhind himself confess that good Melito was wrong in some things. The Church of England never keeps Easter upon the day of the full moon, but upon the Sun- day after, when it falls upon a working day ; or that day se'ennight, when it falls upon a Sunday. But Melito always kept Easter, after the Jewish fashion, upon the very day of the full moon, whether it fell on Sunday or Saturday, &c. ; and Polycrates, in Eusebius, cites him, for that very purpose, in oppo- sition to Pope Victor. It is plain, then, that Mehto was sometimes wrong, or the Church of England is. Mr llhind may choose as likes him best. ^dJij^ As for Irenaaus, Bishop of Lyons, Mr Rhind says, that ' he converted many pagans in his diocese by * the miracles which he wrought ;' but he has not instanced any of them, nor told us where the relation of them is to be found, and I am not willing to condescend, lest I should l)e suspected to do it too favourably for myself. He tells us, indeed, both from Irenasus himself, and Eusebius, that mira- culous gifts and powers were very common in his time J but what says this to Irenasus's share in them ? When Mr Rhind is more particular I shall be so too. 3^/y, As for Cyprian, all that Mr Rhiud alleges is, that he assures us, concerning himself, that he was blessed with uncommon measures of the Divine Spirit, and so, I believe is every good Christian, and do think Mr Rhind was very wise in not being more particular upon Cyprian's miraculous gifts. But, then, lastly^ Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the wonder-worker, is Mr Rhind's great man, yea, even a second Moses for miracles. Well, what vouchers does he bring for them ? Two, indeed, of a very great name, viz. Gregory Nyssen, in the life of the Wonder-worker, and St Basil de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 29. But what credit is to be given to them ? 103 DEFENCE OF THE In the ^/^s^ place, hear the great Spanliehn.* The ' learned,' saith he, * deservedly doubt about the ' canonical epistle ascribed to the Wonder-worker. * But much more about the prodigies and miracles, * which, almost without end, are attributed to him * by Nyssen, in his life, and by Basil himself; whence ' he got the name of the Wonder-worker, and * Another Moses. Certainly many things in Nyssen * breathe the credulity even of an old wife.* Thus Spanheim. 2dli^^ Erasmus, in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to Basil's works, rejects the latter half of his book de Spiritu Sancto, as spurious ; and, at the end of cap. 14, observes, on the margin, ' that here ' the author changes.' Consequently the 29th chap- ter, which Mr lihind insists on, is of no credit. Sdlijy Coke, a Church of England divine, and some time Fellow of Brazen-Nose College, Oxford, proveSjt from the body itself of that 29th chapter, that it is spurious. And, lastlj/y which is worst of all, Dodwell himself t reprobates these dreams and miracles of the Wonder-worker. Was not, now, Mr Rhind very well provided with miracle-working Bishops, when these were the best he could pitch on? Secondly, Mr Rhind having vainly spent ten pages in pleading for a succession in the Apostolate, without the least limitation, or dropping so much as one syllable ibr explaining himself; at length, p. 70. he tells us : that by ' the Apostolic office, abstract- ' ing from it all accidentals, he means that superio- * rity of power with which the Apostles were invest- * ed in the ordination of inferior church officers, and * in governing them and the Church : And pleads, 1 that it was not extraordinary in this respect ; and * Introd. ad HJst. Nov. Test. Sec. Hi. p. 332- De Epistola Ca- nonica eiilem ad sciipta, mcrito ambiount eruditi. At ninlto magis de piodigiis et nijraculis, piopemodum sine fine, quae illi a Nysseno in ejus vita, et jtassim a Basilio ipso, &c. tiibuuntur. Unde Tliauniaturgi nomcu et alterius Mosis. Multa certe apud Nyssca- um aniluin quandani credulitatcm spirant. \ Censuia quorundam Script, vet. p. l23' X Dissert, iv. in Cyi'i- Num. l6. rRESBYTEIlIAN GOVERNMENT. 107 ' as such to cease.* But the Prelates (supposing there were then any such), were church officers in- ferior to the Apostles ; the Apostles were invested with a superiority of power in the ordination of them. I ask now, whether that superiority was ordinary or extraordinary ? If ordinary, then there ought still to he officers superior to bishops. If extraordinary, then the superiority of power with whicli the Apostles were invested in the ordination of inferior church officers, and in governing them and the church, must be extraordinary too. I challenge Mr Rhind and all his party to take oft* this by a sufficient answer. Thirdly^ He argues, p. 72. * If that form by ' which the Church was governed in the days of the ' Apostles, be in all respects as good, and in many * undeniably, better than any other, then I think I ' may safely conchide, that it never ought to be al- ' tered.' Vi Mr Dodwell's judgment be of any weight, then this reasoning is horridly false : For he teaches* that the form of government which obtain- ed in the days of the Apostles was altered, notwith- standing that it was better calculated for gathering and planting Churches, for suppressing heresies, for propagating the faith, for the public good of all the Churches, than that which took place afterward. Lastly y ' If,' saith he, p. 72, ' the Presbyterian were * designed to be the standing form of Church go- ' vernment, it would seem to reflect disparagingly on * the wisdom of Christ and his Apostles, that they * could not make it serve all the purposes for which * such a government ought to be appointed j but ' that to supply its defects, they must usher it in * Paraenes. Sect. 39. p. 180, 181. Dum ColIIgendae essent et plantaiidae Ecclesiae, admodum utilis erat Primatus ille Ecclesias, Hierosolymitaiiae, — Et quo latius Collegii Apostolicl ct Episcopi Hierosoiyniitani patuit auctoritas (diini eani piorsus infallibilem esse constabat) eo erat etiam utilior bono Ecclesiaruin oniniuni publico. Id sane docet Hegesippus, tanti per Haereticos prodire la publicum lion Ausos, dum unius P.cclesiae sententia damnati, spes nulla deinde esset ut ab aliqua alia ecclcsia reciperentur. — Et quideni ad lidem propugandam utilior erat unius ecclesiae aulorilas quae aliarum omnium longe latcque Dominaretur. 108 DEFENCE OF THE * with a form, not only inconsistent with it, but * which also in after ages would be declared an in- * supportable yoke. Is it to be supposed, if they * had foreseen that parity would be ever after the * fittest form of government in the Church, or that * it could be useful in it, that any other would have * at all obtained ? No. Or was there any necessity ' that any other should obtain ? Doubtless none at * all.* Is not this a very mannerly harangue ? Mr Rhind must discipline both Christ and his Apostles into their duty, and teach them what was consistent "with their wisdom, — what would reflect disparagingly upon it. But admitting it were mannerly, is there any truth in it ? No, not one syllable, even accord- ing to the principles of his own master, the great Dodwell, according to whom the Apostles did not appoint several orders of men, as Mr Rhind alleges, for the work of the ministry, but one order only, viz. of simple Presbyters. Plainly, Mr Dodwell's account of the matter is this, * that the Bishop of Jerusalem ^ (as we have already observed), was Primate of the ' Chiistian Ch.urch all the world over. That the * Church of Jerusalem by her itinerant missionaries * exercised the whole discipHne in all the Christian * world.* That these itinerant missionaries,^ whe- * ther Apostles or others, were extraordinary officers. * That wherever they came, they never ordained * any Bishops, but simple Presbyters only, with a ' chairman among them, for order's sake ; all which * had indeed a power of preaching the v/ord, and * dispensing the sacraments,* but neither they nor their chairman were to. touch the government • Ilaec erfTO, cum ita se Ijabueriiit, fiiclle inde coUlginius, miicuin fulsse, in hoc universo iatervallo, Cliristianis omni'ous uiiitatis Prin- ciplum, Eplscopum Hierosolymitanuni. — Piimis autem tempoiibus vix fere alii potestatem in obnoxias Ecclesice Hievosolyniitanae Ecclesias exercuerunt quam Ecclesiae Hieiosolymitanse, Ministri missi Hierosolymis ad res eoruni in paitibus remotioribus prociivan- das. — Paiaeiies. Sect. 10. p. SO, 32, ■f Nam ab extraordinaiiis ubique constituta sunt F-cclesiarum cxterarum Presbyter!, extraordinariorum autem rectorum sumuios sacras literas ipsse agnoscunt Apostoios. — Ibid. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 109 "with one of their fingers. Plainly, * they had no * power to exauctorate or dispose any of their num- * ber, how criminal soever, nor to surrogate new * Presbyters in place of such as died, nor to exclude * any from the communion, nor to restore such as * had been excluded, though never so penitent.'* This establishment continued till after the des- truction of Jerusalem, and the death of Simon, the son of Cleophas. At length, about the year JOG, the name of Bishop, before common to all Presbyters, was appropriated to one in each Presbytery. And this was the first year, says he,i of settling Episcopacy. The Bishop thus set up, was, if we will believe Mr Dodwell, endued with a swinging power indeed. * The dispensing all rewards and punishments in the * Christian society was in his hands alo7ie ; in his hands * was the whole government, and that legislative * power that is competent to the Church, and that * without a rival or mate.'l^ Yea, so uncontrolable was his power, that though he might cast himself out of the Church by his schism, heresy, or sacrifi- cing to idols ; in which case, the Episcopal college might supply his place with another, yet it was not in the power of that college, much less of his Pres- bytersj nay, not of any creature, to depose him, how immoral soever he were in his life, how ill soever he governed the Church, but he was to be left to the judgment of God alone. § This was the Ignatian, • Piirsenes. Sect. 10. p. 32. S3. Munlis sane Ecclesiarum pa- blici-! obcuiulis ita vacaliant, ut tamcn disciplinae partem nullani aut rcgiminis admini^tralint. Nee legimiis umjuam ab his Eccleslaruta PiesliYltris scu exauctoratos, cum ita meiercntur, Presbyteros j sea novos ia demoituoium loca suilcctos. Nee pulsum aliquem core- munioue, nee liorum Presbytcrioium dccrcto restitutum. f J bid. Sect. 23. p. 102. Non longe, ut opinor, aberrabimuj si annum constltuti tplscopatus piimordialcm statuamus Cliristi CVL ut scilicet luerit anno il!o paulo vel antiqulor vel lecentior. jl Ibid. Sect. 37- ?• 176. Sic penes solum Episcopum ciunt socie- tatis Chiislianac Priemia omnia atque panse. Indc sequetur penes «undcm esse vi^ibiiis Ectlcsiai Kegiinen onine, Potestatemque, quaiis in liac Societale locum babet, Legiblativam. Et quidem sine § Ibid- Sect. 42. p. 192. Nee opus erat Judice qui euni exuat, sed quo scdes iilius aatea vacua suppleatur. Talc crimen erat idoliv 110 DEFENCE OF THE this the Cyprlanic Bishop, this the Episcopacy that should always obtain.* I am fully persuaded that this Dodvvellian scheme, so far as it narrates the powers of Bishops, is the most extravagant, chimerical and false ; yea, indeed the most scandalous to Christianity, that ever was, or perhaps will be heard of j but let his followers look to that the best way they can : only, it is plain, that so far as Mr Dodweli's judgment or authority reaches, Mr Rhind's argument is utterly lost : And the first form of government certainly might be altered ; be- cause, by the preceding scheme, it actually was al- tered. 1 am then longing after this representation, to hear what judgment Mr Rhind will pass upon his above reasonings. I should now proceed to the next particular, but I crave leave, before I go farther, to make an observe or two. In \hejirst place, I observe that there is nothing, the Episcopal authors, and Mr Rhind as much as any, more frequently and willingly slide into, than Jiarangues against a government by parity. Here they lay out all their colours, exert their utmost elo- quence, and even bear down their reader with a tor- rent of rhetoric. But I hope by this time, the read- er is abundantly convinced, that these same ha- rangues against parity are very senseless things. For, first, by tiie former account from Mr Dodwell, we have heard that Presbyters had not the least share in the government, and that the whole government w^as in the Bishop's hands, and in his alo7ie. Secondly. sacrifiicasse; Tale Crimen erat Hcercsis, — SImilis erat causa Scisma- tis, Ituqiie sententia nulla opus est quie illos ejiciut ex Ecclesia, vel exuat officio. Huciisque ergo nulla est Potestas in Episcopos. Sed vero nullas legimus liis tempoiibus Episcopoiuni depcsitiones propter Crimlna quae non potestatem ipsam Episcopalem sustulerint. Nullas propter morura vitia sola. Nullas propter Ecclesiam male administratam. * Ibid. sect. 57. p. l76. Rccte ergo sine Episcopo Ecclesiam ncquidem esse posse censuit Ignatius, Sect. 40- p. 186. supremos enim, in sua quemque Ditione, Christoque Soli obnoxios Episcopos agnoscit ibi S. Cyprianus, Sect. 54. p. 240. Bono fieret reforoiationis publico, si Episcopi primsevis illorura juribus restaurentur. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. Ill The same Mr DocUvell assures us, and he is certain- ly right in it, that all Bishops were originally equal. By divine right are so, and continued to be so till towards the reign of Constantine the Great, that Archbishops and Metropolitans were brought in, not upon any divine warrant, but by pactions among themselves.* Thirdly, He assures us, in like man- ner, that the Church in each nation and province was governed by the Episcopal college,t and that too acting in a parity. Fourtiily, ' That the said parity ' of all Bishops t was most consistent, even with a * flourishing discipline, both of faith and manners, * and that the very parity itself would take away all * these contentions which often arise from worldly * pride, emulation or envy.' Is it not then plain, that the government of the Church universal, and the government of every national Church, was and ought to be by parity ? And what then signify all their declamations against parity ? Will they not equally serve the Presbyterians against an Episcopal j^arity, as they do the Episcopalians against a Pres- byterian parity ? Or is'parity so nimble a thing, as to alter its nature according as the side is that espouses it ? I would then advise our Episcopal brethren to reserve their harangues on that subject, till they hear of a new edition of the Formuke Oratories ; lor though they import nothing in the controversy of Church government, yet they may be worth their iQom there, and possibly be useful to some school- boy of a barren fancy, to furnish out his oration with. * Paraenes. Sect. 40. p. 184. Sequitur ergo, qiijcciinque deinceps oblinULiit imparltus, earn oninem singuloinm Episcopornm pactis esse tribuendani, tantnndenique valere quantum ilia valent pacta. Qiiamdiu obtinuerit Paritas statuere difficile est, tot priniaevis iDoniimentis depeiditis. Suspicor autem obtinuisse ad tcmi)ova fere Constuntini. f One Priestliood. Preface, Sect. 8. % Partcnes. Sect. 39. Sic nihil obstabit quo minus, in Iiac ipsa Episcoporum omnium Paritate, vigeat tamen Disciplina tarn Fidei, quam iVIorum, consentientissima Paiitas ccrte ipsa iites illas omnes ablatura erat, quae e typlio seculari, ex aemulatione, vel ex invidia saepe oriuntur. 112 DEFENCE OF THE In the second place, What a very jest do the great- est authors on the Episcopal side make themselves, Dr Hammond, in innumerable places, * will have us believe, that the Apostles at first ordained no mere Presbyters, but Bishops only. ' No,' saith Mr Dod- well, * the Apostles at first ordained no Bishops, but * simple Presbyters only.* « Here are the two greatest champions of the cause by the ears together, on the most material point of the controversy. What can the Presbyterians do in the mean while, but ga- ther the spoil ; which, I think, very plainly falls to their share, which soever of them tv/o gains the vic- tory. For, if Dr Hammond be right, the Presby- terians cannot be wrong — a Bishop, without Presby- ters under him, being the likest thing in the w^orld to a Presbyterian minister. But if Mr Dodv/ell is right, the Presbyterians clearly gain the cause 5 there being no mention of Episcopal government in the New Testament ; and the year of Christ 506, being the first of its settlement. For my own part, I am perfectly convinced, that the Apostles ordain- ed no Presbyters, but such as were Bishops, too, in the full Scripture extent of that word ; that is, who had power of ordaining, exercising discipline, and governing the Church, as well as of preaching and dispensing the sacraments. But that these Bishops had (as Dr Hammond fancies) a power of ordain- ing, under themselves, simple Presbyters, as they call them ; that is, men empowered to preach, and dispense the sacraments, which is the worthier part of the office, and on the account of which, especi- ally, the double honour is due, without power of or- daining and governing, which is the lesser part of the office, I shall believe it when I see it proved. In the mean time, I am not more persuaded, that there is such a book as the Bible, than I am that there is no mention in it of any such creature as a Simple Presbyter, or of a power lodged in the hands * Diss. 4, cap. 19, 20, 21, 22. Vind. 'of the Diss. Chap. ii. AuQot. on Act. i\y h. aud 14. a. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 113 of a Bishop to make any such ; or that there is in all the kingdom a Presbyterian Minister, who is not as much a Bishop, in all that sense the New Testa- ment means the word, as the Primate of all England is. I now proceed to examine — IV. His demonstration for the divine right of Pre- lacy, from its being confirmed by miracles. The reader heard before of Mr Rhind's miracle-working Bishops. * This,' he tells us, p. 69, ' has given him ' the hint of a thing, which, in his opinion, is a ' plain demonstration for Episcopacy j* which is this, in his own words : * Seeing, after that time, in which a proper Epis- copacy is acknowledged to have universally ob- tained, severals (whom the adversaries of that ve- nerable order cannot deny to have been Bishops in the ordinary acceptation of that term), were al- lowed the gifts of the Holy Ghost, it is certain that their office was o^ divine institution. For it is not to be supposed, that our Lord would have vouchsafed them these special donatives of Heaven, which they employed in the discharge of the Epis- copal office, had it been (what the Presbyterians commonly call it) an antichristian usurpation. — Thus, if the office of an Apostle be of Divine in- stitution, that of a Bishop must be so too — the credentials for the mission of both being of the same authority.' This is his demonstration. I do not wonder to find Mr Dodwell * hint at this argument — his scheme had need of it. For he ingenuously owns, that Episcopacy is not to be found, in the New Testament ; nor indeed can be, as being later than all the writings thereof. But for Mr llhind, who was so well furnished with arguments from the Scripture, to oppress us with these, and with miracles too, was very unmerciful. However, • Parjcnes, Sect. 17- p. T^. Erant praeterea, illo quoijue se- culo dona spiritus S. et miracula illustria, qui^i Deum sub ilia quo- que disciplina praesentissimum probarint. Quae sane sperari non poterant, si ab Antichristo et iniquitatis mysterio mutatio tanta processisset, quod voluut nuperi magistri. 11 114 DEFENCE OP THE seeing he will needs go upon the topic of miracles and extraordinary gifts, I think it but reasonable that Presbytery should put in for its share. Bishop Spottiswood himself relates* of John Knox, that he prophesied of Thomas Maitland, a younger brother of Lethington's, who had insulted upon the murder of the good Regent Murray, that ' he should die * where none should be to lament him.' And the prophesy was literally accomplished. He relates al- so, t that he foretold of the Earl of Morton, that * his end should be with shame and ignominy, if he ' did not mend his manners,' which the Earl remem- bered at the time of his execution, and said, ' that ' he found these words to be true, and John Knox ' therein to be a prophet.' He relates also, t how he prophesied that the Laird of' Grange should be pulled * out of his nest, and his carcase hung before the sun,' which accordingly came to pass. He relates also §, a couple of miraculous providences, interposed in behalf of Mr John Cr^ig, another Presbyterian mi- nister. Twenty other things, as miraculous, and at least as well attested, as those of Melito. Irenaeus, or Gregory, might be related of other Presbyte- rian ministers ; but, for the greater credit, I have satisfied myself with these recorded by the Episco- pal historian. In the mean time, I am fully convinced, that there cannot be a greater weakness, than to bring such things in argument on the one side or the other. Had ever a» Bishop, or any body else, come, ' and preached to the world, that Episcopacy is of Divine right, and that all the passages of the New Testament relating to Church government are to be understood in a sense consistent with that doctrine, and had offered to work a miracle for confirmation of all this. Had the event answered, and an uncon- tested miracle been wrought, I acknowledge it might have superseded all other arguments, and put an. • Church Hist. p. 234-. f Ibid. p. 264. t Ibid» p. 266. i Ibid. p. 462. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 115 end to all further disputes. But I suppose it will puzzle Mr Rhind to find where this was ever done ; nay, which is a great unhappiness to him, by his ac- count, such a miracle in those early days had been unnecessary, because nobody then was in any doubt about the Divine right of Prelacy. No ; Calvin was not born for many hundreds of years after ; nay, Aerius himself, that father of Presbyterian Schis- matics, was yet sleeping in his original causes. There are several good Protestants that do not think that all the miracles, reported to be wrought by the Je- suits in their missions among the Pagans, are mere forgeries. If there was any thing real in them, it was a . seal to the truth of Christianity in general, which was the great avowed end of their mission. But will any body infer thence, that the order of the Jesuits is of divine institution ? Balaam was en- dued with extraordinary gifts ; does it, therefore, follow, that God approved of his character as a di- viner or soothsayer? Cyprian, discoursing of some who had broken off the Church by schism, yet sup- poses it possible for them to signalize themselves by miracles. * In like manner, Augustine :•— * Let no * man,* saith he, t * vend fables among you. Both ' Pontius wrought a miracle, and Donatus prayed, ' and God answered him from heaven. First, ei- * ther they are deceived themselves, or else they de- * ceive others. However, suppose he ' could re- " move mountains,* yet, saith the Apostle, * If I * Cyprian de Unitat. Ecclesiae. Nam et prophetare, et dae- mona excludere, et virtutes magnas in terris facere, sublimis uti- que et admirabilis res est ; non tamen regnum coeleste consequi- tur quisquis in his omnibus invenitur, nisi recti et justi itineris observatione [h. e. unitatis ecclesiae] gradiatur. f Augustinus, Tom. ix. Tract. IJJ. in Evan. Jaan. p. 122. Ne- mo ergo vobis fabulas vendat. Et Pontius fecit miraculum, et Do- natus oravit et respondit ei Deus de ca>lo. Primo aut falluntur aut falluiit. Postremo fiic ilium monies transferre. Charitatem autem, inquit, non liabeam, nihil sum, Videamus utrum habue- rit charitatem, Crederem, si non divisisset unitatem. Nam et' contra istos, ut sic loquar, mirabiiiarios cautum me fecit Deus meus dicens ; in novissimis temporibus exsurgent pseudoprophe- ue, facientes signa et ponenta. H 2 116 DEFENCE OF THE " have not charity, I am nothing.' Let us see, whe- * ther he hath not charity. I should have beheved * it, if he had not divided the unity : For my God * hath warned me against all such wonder-mon2;ers, * saying, ' In the latter days, there shall arise false. *' prophets, doing signs and wonders.'* Thus Au- gustine. Here, then, is one demonstration for Epis- copacy fairly spoiled. But as it is not the first, so it is not likely to be the last. ARTICLE IIL Wherein Mr Kiiind's Proof for the Instihition of Prelacy from the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, is eU3 Eroget. Can. 3S. Ca- I'anza. Sum. Concil, K 2 148 DEFENCE OF THE of Christ to tbe people. And Justin Martyr * tells us, that it was usual in his days, for the Deacons to carry the Eucharist to the absents. But not the Deacons only, but even lay-persons were sometimes thus employed. Thus Eusebius tells ust of Serapion, that desiring the Eucharist on his death-bed, he sent his grandchild to bring a Presbyter to administer it to him. The Presbyter happened to be sick, and was not able to come ; but he sent the Eucharist with the boy, ordering him to administer it to his grandfather, which accordingly was done. And who knows not, that the Eucharist used to be given to infants after their baptism ? But I very much doubt, if there was always a church officer at the doing of it. Plainly, the elements used to be consecrated by the Bishop, and the people oft times kept them, and by his allowance, gave them to others. How then does it appear from the testimonies produced by Mr Rhind, that the Ignatian Presbyters did either preach or administrate the sacraments, when there is neither mention in either of them of Presbyters ; nor, sup- pose there were, is there any thing ascribed to them, but what might be, and w^as frequently done by Dea- cons, yea by every lay Christian ? So much for his first argument. His second is in these words, p. 103, 104. * But * I add, that the Presbyters in St Ignatius^s days, * were subject to the Bishop : This does fully appear ' from the testimonies formerly cited : If then these * Presbyters were such as the modern ruling elders,. ' either this their subjection must relate to the Bi- * shop's superior power in the administration of sa- * craments and ordination, or to the power of juris- * diction : Not the former, for how can they be ac- ' countable in these respects, when they are not sup- ' posed to be at all concerned in these matters ; and * to say that this subjection relates to acts of juris- * diction, is to destroy that parity of power, of which * all Presbyters, whether preaching or ruling, are * Apol. 2. p. 97. Edit. Colonlte. 1686. f Hist. Eccles. Lib, vi. cap. 43.. niESBYTEKIAN GOVERNMENT. 149 « equally possessed, according to the Presbyterians.' Thus he. The answer to which is very easy, and therefore may be very short. Through all the Ignatian Epis- tles, there is no subjection required from the Presby- ters to the Bishop, but what every Presbyterian rul- ing elder will own, and that too, agreeably to Pres- byterian principles, to be his duty to pay to the mi- nister. Every Presbyterian ruling elder, owns the minister to be an officer superior to himself, as hav- ing the key of doctrine, as well as of discipline, whereas himself has that of discipline only. Every Presbyterian ruling elder gives, though not a nega- tive, yet the precedency to the minister in all acts of jurisdiction. In a word, every Presbyterian ruling elder is ready to yield all reverence to the minister, which is all that is required of the Ignatian Presby- ter to the Bishop. So much for his second argument. And this is our second defence against the Ignatian Epistles, that as to the main of the controversy, they contain nothing contrary to the Presbyterian scheme. And I hope every reader is satisfied that there is no more needful on this subject. Yet because Mr Rhind mentions another defence, which the Presbyterians make against them, viz. that these Epistles are either spurious or corrupted, though I do not think such a defence needful, yet I homologate the same, and justify my brethren in it. And therefore. In the third place, I assert that these Epistles which go under the name of Ignatius, either are not genuine, or at least that they are vitiated and interpo- lated. For proving this, 1 am not to insist on what the learned Stillingfleet has suggested,* that the story of transporting Ignatius from Antioch Avhere he was condemned, to Rome where he suffered, and of his many excursions by the way, and of the free- dom he got to write these Epistles, smells rank of the legend ; seeing Ignatius himself informs us, that he was bound to ten leopards, that is to say, to such a * Ep. to the Romans, Sect. 5. 150 DEFENCE OF THE band of soldiers ; who, though treated with all man- ner of kindness, were the worse for it. Waving this, I affirm that nothing Mr Rhind has advanced, though lie has taken very great pains on this particu- lar, is in the least sufficient to vindicate tliem. He insists on these six topics : I. That several Pathers do mention these Epistles, and cite sundry- passages from them, which are to be found in those now extant. II. That Calvin, who was a party, was the first who ever alleged such an interpolation. Hi. That at least Vossius's and Usher's editions of these Epistles, are the genuine issue of that holy Father. IV. That such an interpolation was hardly, if at all, practicable. V. That the alleging that these pas- sages which assert the Episcopal authority are inter- polations, is a mean begging of the question. VI. That no one can give a reasonable account, why any such interpolation should have been attempted. Of each of these in order. I. He alleges, p. 95, 96. S. Polycarp, Irenseus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius and Theodoret. ' All * which,' saith he, ' with many other authors, domen- * tion these Epistles, and cite sundry passages from * them, which are tobe found in them now extant.* To which it is answered, that this proves only that Ig- natius did write epistles, and that some sentences of them are still preserved. But how will it follow thence, either that these epistles are genuine, or that they are not vitiated ? Especially when we consider, 1st, That all the passages cited from Ignatius by the ancients are not to be found, even in the best edi- tions of him which we have. For instance, there is a passage cited by Jerome, thus ;* * Ignatius an aposto- * lie man, and martyr, writes boldly, ' the Lord chused " Apostles who were sinners above all men.*' Now, in which of the Ignatian epistles is there any such passage to be found ? Dr Hammond answers,! ' that * Ignatius vJr Apostolicus et Martyr scribit Audacter. Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super onincs Homines* Peccatores eraut* Hierom Dial. 3. con. Pelag. - f Ans. to the Animadver. ou the Dissert. Chap. iii. Sect, h PRESCYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 151 * it may well be his saying, though it is not found in * these epistles : Just as our Saviour spake many * things which are not written in the gospels.' But this is a mere whim ; for Jerome is not testifying a- bout what Ignatius spoke, but what he wrote. This is a pretty good presumption, that the Epistles are at least mutilated. 2dlij, If the ancients' citing of him be an argument, is it not very strange that no one of them has cited these passages that are insisted on in favours of Episcopacy ? Is it not strange that his au- thority was never insisted on, in the dispute with Aerius, where there was so fair occasion for it ? Would not one be tempted from this, to think that such passages are. foisted in? '3dlij, Some of these ex- pressions that the ancients cite, which are now found in these Epistles, are neither cited as from Ignatius, nor as from epistles, either of his or any body else. For instance, that passage which Mr llhind, p. 95, cites from Irenaeus, * I am the wheat of God, and * shall be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I ' may become the bread of Jesus Christ,' though it is found in Ignatius's Epistles, yet Irenaius does not say that it was written, much less that it was written in an epistle, least of all, that it was written in any epistle from Ignatius, but only indefinitely, ' one ' of our brethren hath said,'* which Eusebius under- stands of Ignatius. 11. He alleges, p. 97, that the Presbyterians ' canuot name an author who ever allecjeil such an in- * terpolation before Calvin, whom all men know to ' have been a party.' And this, (he thinks) might be allowed ' a sulHcient answer.* This sufficient answer of his, is so gross an imposition upon people's un- derstanding, that I am even amazed he should have been so very prodigal of his credit. The matter is plainly this. Calvin wrote that excellent book of his Institutions in the year 1536. Therein he has occasion to defend the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, against which doctrine the Anti-trinitarians objected the authority and testimony of Ignatius. * Quemadmodam quidam dc no"truunt. Calvin, Instit. ib. T. Cap. xiii. Sect> 29. ■f Ccnsura. quorundam Script, vet. I PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 153 tianity to the reputation of Ignatius's Epistles ? But let us here Dr Wake, Bishop of Lincoln :* ' Be- ' fore I enter upon that account which it will be * fitting for me to give of the episles of St Ignatius, * it will be necessary for me to observe, that there * havebeen considerable differences in the editions of ' the Epistles of this holy man, no less than in the * judgment of our latter critics concerning them. * To pass by the first, and most imperfect of them, * the best that for a long time was extant, contained * not only a great number of epistles'^falsely ascribed * to this author, but even those that were genuine * so altered and corrupted, that it was hard to find * out the true Ignatius in them. The first that be- « gan to remedy this confusion, and to restore this ' great writer to his primitive simplicity, was our * most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher, in ^ his edition of them at Oxford, anno 1644.' Thus Dr Wake. Now, if by the judgment of the most learned of the Episcopalians, there was not so much as any tolerable copy of the Ignatian epistles ex- tant till the year 1644, that is, 108 years after Calvin had excepted against them ; who, that has not thrown ofl^'all modesty, would talk at Mr Rhind*s rate, or would seek to blast the fame of that great man, Calvin, in a matter wherein the Episcopalians them- selves have justified him ; or would represent him as a party man, when he was defending the common cause of Christianity. But it seems Ignatius's Epis- tles must stand, though the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of our blessed Saviour should sink. Dear Episcopacy, what art thou not worth ! Who would not sell even his religion to purchase thee, without which all religion is nothing ! III. He adds, p. 97, * That however the name of * the holy man Ignatius may have been abused by ig- * norant or designing men, who have fathered upon * him their own spurious and interpolated work, yet ' the epistles of Usher's and Vossius's edition are * The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, 2(1 edit. p. 30. 2 154 DEFENCE OF THE *■ his genuine issue.' But does not Dr Wake him- self own,* 'that no one that reads (even these edi- * tions of) them witli any care or judgment, can * make any doubt of it, but tliat letters or words ' have been mistaken, and perhaps even pieces of * some sentences, too, corrupted.* And does not every one know what a great alteration tiie mistake of one letter sometimes will make ? I shall give one sii^nal instance of this, wliich is related bv Dr Wake.t In the acts of the martyrdom of St Poly- carp, as set out from the Barroccian manuscript by Archbishop Usher, there is this passage : ' That the * souldier or officer having struck his launce into * the side of the saint, there came forth a pigeon, * together with a great quantity of blood.' Here is a fair plump miracle. A pigeon coming out of a man's side being a very curious sight; but now, by the alteration of one single letter in the origi- nal,t it dwindles into no miracle at all ; and the passage imports only that there came out of his left side a great quantity of blood ; the Greek word which signihes the left, and that which signifies a pigeon, being near in sound to one another. Jf the mistake of one letter can make such a change, what may the mistake of a word do ? And what may the corruption of a piece of a sentence do? But Mr llhind is a writer of courage, who sticks at nothing. IV. He alleges, p. 99, ' That such an interpola- .* tion was hardly, if at all, practicable.' But pray, why not practicable ? For, 1st, Did Mr Rhind never hear of the ignorance or knavery of tran- scribers ? Does he not know that the works of the Fathers were a long time in the hands of monks, or others of the like stamp, who, with all their reli- gion, were yet so familiar, and used such freedoms witli the Fathers, as not only to pare their nails, that they might not be scratched by them, but even to • Ul)i Kiipra, p. I Ubi supra, p. 58. 5Q. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 155 alter their habit and dres'?, to fit them to the modes of their own times, and make them fashionable ?* Even the Vossian Greek manuscript is not judged to be above 1 lOO years okl, that is, about JOOy ears hiterthan tlie times of Ignatius; and how corrupt the church was about the 600th year of God needs not be told. 2d, Is it not a very good argument that the Ignatiaii Epistles miglit be interpolated, when it is plain be- yond contradiction, that they actually were interpo- Lited ? What security had Bishop Usher's or Isaac Vossius's copies against the possibility of interpola- tion, any more than other co}»ies ? Why, saith Mr Ilhind, p. 98, ' considering the great simplicity of * these pious times, it is scarce credible that the * greatest ornaments of the Christian Church, after ' the apostles, were wicked enough to be guilty of ' so base a fraud, or weak enough to be imposed on « by those who might be thus wicked.* Is not this a powerful orator, who will needs harangue people out of matter of fact ? Let the great ornaments of the church be as far from being either wicked or weak as Mr Ilhind pleases, yet that some persons were so wicked as to be guilty of such a fraud, and others so weak as to be imposed on by it, is so far from beinijc incredible, tluit it is confessed on all hands, that not only that, but even twenty other thinirs of the like nature have been done. And all Mr Rhind's reasonings against the possibility or practicableness of interpolating Ignatius's Epibtles, labour under this one small absurdity, that it' they prove any thing, they will prove that no false writ- ing could have been palmed on the church, nor any genuine one corrupted. And whence, then, came so many s})urious ])ieces, such as Abgarus's Letter to our blessed^aviour, and our Saviour's Answer to him; which Eusebius tells us, with as much confidence as he does the story of the Jgnatian Epistles, he had faithfully translated out of the Syriac language, as + Sherlock's Preservative against Popery. Part. I. Chap. il. Sect. 3. p. ?♦. 156 DEFENCE OF THE he found tliem in the archives of Edessa ? Whence came St Paul's epistles to the Laodiceans ? Whence came the letters that passed betwixt Seneca and him ? Whence came St Peter's, St Mark's, St Mat- thew's, and St James's liturgies, which Mr Rhind* makes an argument of, as being of considerable an- tiquity, thougli Dr Wake t, twenty years ago, de- clared, that the learned world seemed to be univer- sally agreed about the falsity of them. Not to speak of many others mentioned by Hottinger, Coke, Dupin, and Dr Wake, whence came the Aposto- lical Constitutions, which Mr Whiston, an advo- cate for Episcopacy, asserts t to be the most sacred of the canonical books of the New Testament ? Is there any age can be named upon which more false pieces were fathered than the first and second ? And what charm, then, was there in Ignatius's name, that none should be fathered on him ? Or w^hy should we believe there were not, when the contrary is manifest and confessed by all the world ? For let us take a short view of them ? The Ignatian Epistles, says Coke,§ a Church of England divine, were first published at Strasburg, anno 1502. And though they are now only seven, yet, then, they were eleven in number. In process of time, it seems they begot another among them ; for when, in the year 1562, they were published, in Greek and Latin, at Paris, they were found to be twelve. At length, as if the blessing, ' Be fruitful * and multiply,' had been pronounced on them, they encreased to the number of fifteen, with a letter, also, annexed from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius. Nor did they alter in number only, but in bulk too ; for, in some editions, some of the epistles were twice as large as in others. Notv;ithstanding all this variety, yet some of the Church of Rome, Canisius by name, insulted the world, as our Episcopal friends do us now, with a great deal of scorn, because they doubt- * SeiTTion on Liturgy, p. l-i. f Ubi supra, first edit. p. 145. I^ Essay upon the Apostolical Constitutions. § Centura (^uorunilara. Script. Vet p. 56. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 157 ed of any of these epistles. But the world is never all at once, to be bullied out of their senses. Mas- tra3us, a Parisian doctor, published a new edition of them, and, without scruple, discarded four of them as apocryphal, viz. two to St John the Evangelist, one to the Virgin Mary, and her letter to him. Yet, even so, the remaining twelve did not please learned men. Archbishop Usher has asserted, and proves,* that six of them were spurious, six of them mixed, and so none of them sincere and genuine. Vedclius, in the year 1623, pubHshed an edition of the Ignatian Epistles, at Geneva; but he went so near to work, and castigated them so severely, that the Church of England divines were not pleased with him,t as, indeed, they seldom are with any thing that comes from that quarter, or almost any other except their own. Hitherto, then, the Igna- tian Epistles made but a sorry figure with all who were not willing to sacrifice their sense to their zeal. At length Archbishop Usher fell upon tv/o copies of them, one in Cambridge, another in Bishop Mon- tague's library ; yet these were not originals but Latin translations, and these, too, very barbarous. But then, to supply this defect, Isaac Vossius found, in the Medicean Library, a Greek manuscript of them, and published it at Amsterdam, 1 646. Yet, even after all this, the Latin editions are thought to be the best, by learned men ; and Archbishop Usher doubts whether the seventh Epistle, viz. that to Polycarp, be genuine or not. Nay, he was so ill satisfied with it that he would not publish it with the rest- ' Nor,' says Dr Wake,1: ' does Isaac Vossius * himself deny but that there are some things in it ' that may seem to render it suspicious.' Besides, the Epistle to the Romans was not found in the Medicean or Florentine manuscript ; but made up, in some measure, from the Latin versions, by the conjectures of learned men, as the same Dr Wake * Dissert, de Ep. Ign, proleg. •}• Montac. appar. L. v. Sec, 46- p. 19. j Ubi supra, 2d edit. p. 40. 158 D£FENCK OF THE takes notice.* And even as to the whole of the Epistles, though the Doctor translated from the text of Vossius, yet he owns, that where a place was ma- nifestly imperfect, he has, sometimes, taken the liberty to express his own conjectures. And, now, after all, let any man, who can, doubt of the possi- bility or practicableness of these Epistles havinijj been interpolated. But, adds Mr Rhind, p. 98, * if that * should be granted, I see not how the Presbyterians * can answer the enemies of our religion, who com- * plain that the like freedom may have been used * with the Bible, in some fundamental points, much * about the same time.' Pray, good Mr Ilhind, were the Ignatian Epistles as universally spread as the Bible was? Or was it of as great importance to keep them uncorrupted as the Scriptures? I do not think but either of these thoughts, much more both jointly, besides what else might be added, would, answer the enemies of our religion. But, to com- plete the answer, does not Mr Rhind know that there were false gospels obtruded uj)on the world — obtruded, too, in Ignatius's own days ? Does he not know that Ignatius himself m.istook the spurious gospel for the true one ? Does he not know that Mr Dodwell himself has owned that Ignatius was thus mistaken ? ' The holy Martyr/ saith he,t ' did * not cautiously enough distinguish betwixt the ge-* * nuine Gospel of St Matthew and the interpolated ' one which the Ebionite heretics, now raging in * Asia, used.' Now, if filse gospels could be mint- ed in those days, could not false Ignatian Epistles- be so too ? If so great an ornament of the Church as Ignatius himself could be imposed on by them,, why might not others, as great ornaments, be impos-f * Ubi supra, 2<1 edit. p. 41. •f Paraint's, Sec. 23, p. 9S. Ncmpe in Aoxirxg, Haereticos lo- ctim proUilerat. Ignatius ex. Evangelio S, Mattliai, quo ilegavisse dicebatur Christus se DcEirionium esse incorporeuni. Non satis caute distiuxit S. Martyr iiTtcr S. Mattliai Evanirclium sincerum, et quale usurpabant Ebionael jam in Asia grassantes interpolatum. Hie ergo negant HEerctici, et quidtm recte, verba ilia in Evangeli* fuisse quale prodiit a S. Mattliao. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 159 ed on by false or interpolated pieces fathered on • him ? V. But Mr Rhind, p. 98, * would know, of his * adversaries, what tliese interpolations are. He * hopes they will not allege that there are any favour- * ing the then or after heresies ; and to say that * these passages, which assert the distinction of * Ecclesiastical orders and the Episcopal authority, * are of this kind, is a mean begging of the question ; * and so much the meaner still, that this can be ' proven from other monuments, of that age, though ' Ignatius had never written an epistle.* For an- swer, in the 1 5/ place. Has he read the authors on this controversy, with a scrupulous exactness, and knows nothing of what these interpolations are ? Yv'hy, then, I recommend him to Coke, Daiiie, Sal- masius, Blondel, Owen, the Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, L'Arroque, Jameson, Scultet, Rivet: For why should 1 repeat what has been so often in- sisted on ? After all that Hammond, Pearson, Beveridge, Wake, or Dupin have advanced, in vin- dication of these Epistles, 1 am as well satisfied as 1 can be ot" any thing, that they are either counterfeit or corrupted, 'i^/y, It is true such interpolations as favoured the then or after heresies are pretty well weeded out of the new editions ; but I have already shewn what gross heresies were in the old ones. Now, I ask Mr Rhind, how they could creep in when the genuine E{)istles were scattered through Rome, Antioch, and several cities of Greece? The de})ositories, themselves, of this sacred treasure could have confrontetl these interpolated pieces with the genuine Epistles. They themselves could not be the criminals : And persons removed at such a distance could not have universally conspired to- wards such a deceit ; or, if people had been inclin- ed, they would rather have made bold with the Bible than any inferior authority. 'J his is certainly good reasoning, because it is Mr Rhind's, p. 1)9. And yet, how impossible soever it was that such in- terpolations should creep in, all the world knows, 160 DEFENCE OF THE and confesses, that they did creep in. 3dhj, Why does Mr Rliind say, that it is a begging of the ques- tion to allege that the expressions about Episcopacy are interpolations ? It is so far frow begging, that it is a proving of the point directly. For, when the pretended Ignatius, extravagantly, ascribes that to his Bishops, (whether they be supposed parochial or diocesan, it alters not the case), which the Apostles never assumed to themselves, it is a plain evidence that the author of such expressions was a man of no judgment or conscience — consequently was not the holy martyr Ignatius. Is not this the very reason why the Church of England Divines, themselves, have rejected the old editions of these Epistles, be- cause they are so very immoderate in their exalta- tion of the Bishop ? For instance, when in the Epistle to the Trallians, in the old editions, the Bishop is said to be ' above all principality and ' power, and more excellent than all, as far as it is * possible for man to excel.' And when, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, all, of what sort so- ever, not only presbyters, deacons, and the whole clergy, but all the people, soldiers, princes, Caesar hiinself, are enjoined to perform obedience to the Bishop. And when, in the Epistle to the Smyrneans, the Bishop is placed betwixt God and the king, and that by way of correction of the words of Scripture, * My son fear God (the Bishop) and the king,' does not Dr Hammond, himself,* call these immo- derate expressions ? Does he not pronounce the doctrine contained in them to be rebellious, extra- vagant, and senseless ? Does he not conclude that they were inserted by some impostor ? And, is there not as good reason why we should except against the new editions, when there is in them a great deal of such extravagant stuff yet unpurged out? Can any one read even the Usherian and Vossian edii-ions and not observe such a turgid, affected, hyperbolical style as would never, probably, have been used by • Ans. to the Anlmadver. on the Dissert. Chap. iil. Sec. 3. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 161 one that had heard and conversed with the Apostles, the character of whose writings was sim- phcity : Is it possible one of Ignatius's spirit and character could have made that boast,* that he was * able to know things heavenly, the orders of an- ' gels, tiieir constitutions, principalities, things vi- * sible and invisible?' It is true Dr Hammond t has criticised, and Dr Wake translated that passage to a contrary sense ; as if he had said, ' I am not able * to know things heavenly' . But both these doc- tors have done despite to the context, as well as forced the words ; for the very paragraph, in which the passage is, begins thus, even according to Dr Wake's translation, in his second edition : — ' Am I ' not able to write to you of heavenly things ? But _ * I fear lest I should harm you, who are yet but * babes in Christ, (excuse me this care) ; and lest, ' perchance, being not able to receive them, ye * should be choked with them,' Could so wise and holy a man have dropped such unguarded assertions as tliese, ' Whatsoever the Bishop approves is ac- ' ceptable to God. My soul for such as obey the * Bishop, presbyters, and deacons.* — Is not the very foundation of Popery, viz. an implicit faith, wa^apt lip in these expressions ? 4//^///, Why did Mr Rhind say that the Episco})al authority can be proven from other monuments of that age ? Where are these monuments ? Why did he not produce them, or, at least, name them ? Had Mr Rhind considered that things were not to be taken upon his mere assertion, I am sure he had found cause to make his book at least a hundred times bigger than it is, or to leave out five hundred things he has put into it. Polycarp was the most contemporary writer with Ignatius / that can be named. But though he prescribes dea- J cons and presbyters their duty, yet he does not so ^ much as once name Bishops, or any thing equiva- lent to them above the degree of presbyters j but * Ep, to flie Trail. Sect. 5. f Viiul. of the Diiscit. Chap. iii. Sect. 3. L 162 DErEXCE OF THE plainly supposes that tliere were then no other orders in the Church but those of priests and deacons. ' Wherefore ye must needs abstain from all these * things ; being subject to ihe priests and deacons, * as unto God and Christ.' * VI. Mr Rhind asks further, page TOO, * Why « any such interpolation should have been attempt- * ed. For if the testimonies in these epistles that * favour the Episcopal authority are not agreeable * to the fliith and practice of the Ignatian age ; then * many living about the time of the interpolation * might have been sensible of this. And as it was^ * next to impossible to deceive such by spurious * epistles, so it is highly improbable that they would * suffer others to be deceived :* To this purpose he. But this is the very same thing he has said so often over, and which I have so largely exposed. It is beyond contradiction, and is confessed on all hands, that there were interpolations made, and that too in the matter of Episcopacy, whereof I just now give instances. This being clear, where is the ne- cessity of giving eiiher the how or the wiiy of such interpolations ? Let Mr Rhind, or any of his bre- thren, give us the how or the why, these extravagant expressions in the matter of Episcopacy, whi(.'h I have just now instanced, and which are confessed to be interpolations, were foisted into the Igna- tian epistles ; and I here promise to give him the how or the why of all the rest which he thinks do make for his purpose. So much then for Mr Rhind's vindication of the Ignatian Epistles. To conclude it, he refers his readers, page 107, if ' any of them are not yet fully satisfied, to the in- « comparable Dr Pearson's, and the learned Dupin's * performances on that head.' And I refer my read- er to the authors whom I have already cited. It is true the greatest men of the Church of England have made their utmost efforts in behalf of these Ig- natian Epistles : but it is as true they have been ta- * Ep. to the Philip. Sec 5, 5. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 163 ken up by as great men as themselves. It is true likewise, the Church of England divines got the last word : but it is as true, it was not because they won it, but because they begged it, and owed their keep- ing the field, not to the strength of their reasons, but to the earnestness of their importunity, as ap- pears from Monsieur L'Arroque's Life, prefixed to his Adversaria Sacra, from Walker's translation of L'Arroque's History of the Eucharist, and from the author of the Eulogium on Monsieur L'Arroque in the NouveUes de RepubUque de Lettres. They have been told of this before,* but it was needful to tell them over again, because they sometimes af- fect to be dull of hearing. But enough of Ignatius. CLEMENS ROMANUS. The next testimony he produces, is from Cle- mens Bishop of Rome, in his first epistle to the Co- rinthians, Sect. 40. in which the argumentative words are, ' For the Chief Priest has his proper ser- ' vices, and to the priests their proper place is ap- * pointed ; and to the Levites appertain their pro- * per ministers ; and the lay-man is confined with- * in the bounds of what is commanded to lay-men.* From which he infers, p. 109, * that to the Bishop, ' Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian Church, * such a distinction of offices does belong, as for- * merly obtained among the High Priests and Le- * vites, under the Jewish dispensation ; which is * further confirmed by the authority of St Jerome, * (that pretended patron of parity), who says, what ' Aaron and his sons were, that we know the Bishops ' and Presbyters are.* Thus Mr llhind. Now let us examine all this. In the Jirst place, was Clemens Bishop of Rome when he wrote this epistle ? Hear Dr Wake :t * I * conclude then,' saith he, ' that this epistle was * written shortly after the persecution under Nero. * between the G4.th and 70th year of Christ : and * Jameson'^ N;ii, Qticrcl. Bovsc, Fojicstcr. f Ui)i kupia, IsL ctlil. p. ."i. L '2 164 DEFENCE OF THE ' that, as the learned defender of this period sup- * poses, in the vacancy of the see of Home, before ' the promotion of St Clement to the government * of it.' Thus he. Plainly, this epistle was written at least forty-two years before Episcopacy was insti- tuted, by Mr DodwelPs account, and before there was any such thing as a bishop in the world, except James, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was in the place of universal Pope. This, I hope, is more than suf- ficient to take off Clement's testimony : for how could he speak of a thing which was not yet in be- ing ? Yet, lest Mr Rhind should complain of ne- glect, In the second place, I ask, does that passage, which he has cited from Clemens, in the least tend to prove that there were then three distinct orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Chris- tian Church ? No. He uses it only by way of ge- neral accommodation, that the Christians at Corinth should be subject to their spiritual guides, as the Jews, whose polity was yet standing, were to their's. But it never entered into his thoughts to run a pa- rallel betwixt the officers in the one and the other polity. And Mr Rhind might as well have proved that the officers in the Christian Church corresponded to those in the Roman army, because the same Cle- ment says. Sect. 37. ' Let us consider the soldiers ' who obey their leaders in war, how orderly, rea- * dily, and with all subjection, they execute their * orders. All are not Praetors, nor Chilliarchs, nor ' Centurions, nor Commanders of Fifty. Every one * performs, in his order and station, what is com- * manded by the king and the leaders.' Plainly, one needs no more to convince him that Episcopacy did not obtain in that time, but to read Clement's epistle. The occasion and subject of it is this : The people of Corinth had raised a sedition against their Presbyters, and would not be regulated by them. Clement wrote his epistle on purpose to compesce that sedition. ' They are shameful, yea, very shame- * ful things, beloved,' saith he, Sect. 47. * to be heard^ PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 165 ' that the most firm and ancient church of the Co- * rinthians should, by (or for the sake of) one or * two persons, rise up in sedition against the pres- * byters.' Does he ever recommend it to them to refer their quarrel to the bishop ? Not once. What could be the reason of this ? had he been absent, Clement might have entreated them to wait his re- turn. Had he been dead, he might have desired them to keep quiet till there were a new one cho- sen. Yet Clement advises to neither of these, no, not by a hint. Does he acknowledge any more than two orders of officers in the church. Bishops and Deacons ? No. * The Apostles,' saith he, Sect. 42, * preaching through countries and cities, constitut- * ed their first fruits, having proved them by the * spirit, for Bishops and Deacons of those that * should afterwards believe.' No mention of Pres- byters here. Did he not positively own that these Bishops were no other than Presbyters ? Yes. ' For * it would be our no small sin,' saith he. Sect. 44, * should we cast off those from their bishopric who, ' without blame, and holily offer the gifts. Blessed ' are those Presbyters who, having finished their * course, have obtained a fruitful and perfect disso- * lution.' To confirm all, Grotius, in his epistle to Bignonius, proves this epistle of Clement to be of undoubted antiquity. ' Because,' saith he,* * no * where therein does he make mention of that para- ' mount or peculiar authority of bishops, which, by * ecclesiastical custom, began after the death of ' Mark to be introduced at Alexandria, and from ' that precedent into other places ; but he plainly * shews, as the Apostle Paul had done, that the ' churches were governed by the common council * of the Presbyters, who are all called Bishops, both « by him and Paul.* Thus Grotius. But Grotius was a Dutchman. True. But his reasoning was • Quod nusquam meminit exsortls illius Eplscoporum auctorila- tis, quae Ecclesiae consuetiuline, post Marci mortem, Alexanclrise, atqueeo excmplo, alibi intioduci cepitj sed plane ut Paulus Apos- tolis ostendit, ecclcsias communi Presbytevoriim, qui iidem omnes ct Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur, consilio fuisse gubernatas. 166 DEFENCE OF THE right English. * They,' saith the learned Stilling- fleet,* ' that can find any one single bishop at Co- rinth when Clement wrote his epistle to them, must have better eyes and judgment than the de- servedly admired Grotius. In the third place, 1 ask how Jerome's words, ' what * Aaron and his sons were, that we know the Bishops * and Presbyters are,' contribute to the clearing or confirming Cie nent*s testimony. Why did not Mr Rhind tell where Jerome has these words ? It was loo much niceness in him to think, that citing au- thors in such a case as this would be reckoned pe- dantry : The industrious avoiding of it rather de- serves that name. But the reason is evident : Mr Rhind knew very well, that if any one would look the place, he would see how absurdly it were alleg- ed. Plainly, the words are taken out of Jerome's famous epistles to Evagrius, the occasion and con- tents of which are these. A certain deacon of the Church of Rome, had started a pretty odd opinion, viz. * that Deacons were superior to Pesbyters.' — Eor chastising the arrogance of that spark, Jerome wrote the said epistle. ' A fool,* saith he, t 'will * speak foolish things. I hear there is one who has ' broke out into such a height of folly, as to prefer * Deacons to Presbyters ; that is, to Bishops.' Then he proceeds to confute him by arguments. And the great argument upon which he goes, is this, — * Bishops and Presbyters were, in the Apostles' time, ' all one. But it were a palpable folly to prefer Dea- * cons to Bishops.' ErgOy it is the same folly to pre- fer Deacons to Presbyters. The first of these pro- • Irenic. p. 280. + Legimus in Esala. Fatuiis fatna loqnetur. Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vccordinm. Ut Diaconos Fresbyteris, itl est Episcopis anteleiret. Nam cum Apostolus persplcue tloceat eosdeni esse Presbyteios qiios Eplscopos, quid patitur niensarum et vidua- rum ministei", ut supra eos se lumidiis efFeiat Quod autem pos- tea unus electns est, qui caeteris pi seponeretur, in scliismatis reme- dium factum est.... Nam et Alexandrine a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysiuni Episcopos, Presbyteri semper ununi ex «e electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant.... Quid enim facit, exccpta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter iaon faclat, PUESBYTEIUAN GOVERNMENT. 167 positions, viz. that Bishops and Presbyters were in the Apostles' time all one, he proves from the very same Scriptures, which the Presbyterians have ever insisted on. And though Ej)iscopacy was so far ad- vanced in his time, which had been set on foot af- ter the Apostles' days, for a remedy of schism; yet even then he declares, ' that excepting ordination, * the Bishop does nothing which the Presbyter might ' not do.* Is it then imaginable, that, after all this, Jerome, in that very same epistle, should allow Bishops to be superior to Presbyters by divine right, as the High Priest under the law was to the ordinary priests? No. It is plain, that the comparison runs, not be- tween Aaron and his sons under the law, and bi- shops and presbyters under the gospel ; but between Aaron and his sons, as one part of the comparison under the law, and the Levites under them, as the ^ther. So, under the gospel, bishops and presby- ters make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and his sons, in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of priesthood ; and the other part, un- der the gospel, is that of Deacons, answering to the Levites, under the law. And this gloss upon Jerome's words, as the context necessarily requires, so the learned Stillingfleet* has expressly confirmed. And besides, Dr Hammond, as we have before observed, by denying the middle order of presbyters in the Apostles* days, has quite destroyed the argument from the Jewish priesthood. Was not, then, Mr Rhind very well advised, when he would press Je- rome into his service, in the very face of his own protestation to the contrary ; and that, too, for con- firming Clement's testimony, who never dropt so much as one syllable in favours of a bishop above a presbyter. So much for Clement j and I do not think but the reader is by this time convinced, that Mr Khind could have been at no loss, though he had never mentioned him. THE EMPEROR ADRIAN. His third testimony, is from a Letter of the Em- •* Irenic. p. 268. 168 DEFENCE OF THE peror Adrian to Servianus ; but, supposing it were for his purpose, it is so very shameful a one, that, for the honour of the Episcopal order, it ought to have been buried in silence. But Dr Monro * had touclied upon it, and therefore Mr Rhind thought it necessary he shoukl do so too. The words of the letter insisted on by Mr Rhind, p. 109, are : * There * are Christians, who worship Se?^apis, and they are * devoted to Serapis, who call themselves the Bishops of Christ. There, no ruler of the Synagogue, no ' CJmstian Presbyter, who does not,' &c. From this he infers, « That when Adrian was in Egypt, an7io * Christ. 13], the distinction of Bishops and Presby- * ters was so notorious, that the Emperor supposeth ' it as an undoubted truth.' But the very contrary is evident from the Emperor's words. And it is clear as light, that these whom he calls Bishops in the first clause, are the same with those he calls Fresbijtej^s in the next ; — a way of speaking, which every body knows to be according to the constant style of the Scripture, and consequently of all such as knew any thing of the Christian aliairs. I have set down t the Emperor's words as he wrote them, that the reader may see this the more evidently. IREXJr:US. His fourth testimony, p. 110, is from Irena^us, Lib. III. cap. iii. contra Heres, who says : ' We can * reckon them, who were appointed Bishops by the * Apostles in the Churches, and their successors, to ' our day ; to whom also they committed these * Churches, delivering to them the same dignity of * power.' It is answered. First, Supposing Irenijeus were against us, yet his * Enquiry into tlie New Opinions. f AdrianMS Aug, Serviano Cos. S. j^gyptum quern mihi lau- dabas, Serviano charissime, totam didici, levem, pendulam, et ad omnia fanue nnomenta volitantem. Illi qui Serapin colunt Chris- tiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi. Qui se Christ! Episcopos di- cunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Juda^orum nemo Samarites, no- mo Christianorum Presbyter, noii Mathematicus, &c. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. l69 judgment about traditions is of no great weight. — For, in that same Cliapter, which Mr Rhind has cited, he asserts * not only tiie pre-eminence of the Church of Home, but the necessary dependence of all other cliurches upon her. And elsewhere, t he asserts Christ to have been past the fortieth^ and near the fiflieth, year of his age, when he suffered ; and that the elders, who were with John in Asia, testified, that they had that by tradition from John himself; yea, that the Gospel itself teaches it; and he is very angry with those who think otherwise. When he stumbled so prodigiously in so plain a case, pray what credit is to be given to his traditions about the succession of Bishops, which is generally ac- knowledged by the Episcopalians themselves to be a most perplexed and uncertain piece of history ? Secondlij, Does Irenaaus say, as Mr Rhind has translated him, that the Apostles delivered to the Bishops the same dignity of power ? No : His words are : X ' Whom also,' (viz. the Bishops), ' they left ' their successors, delivering to them their own place * of mastership ;' that is, the Apostles constituted them the supreme officers in the Church, so that they were to have none above them any more than the Apostles had. But, that they delivered either to Bishop or Presbyter, the same dignity of power, Ire- naeus never said. But, Thirdly^ There is no need either of declining Ire- naius's testimony, or refining upon his words. Mr Rhind tells he could improve upon his testimony : And I cannot but wish he had made all the improve- ment of it he could. For that the Apostles appoint- * Ad haiic enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, neeesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam. f Lib. II. cap. 39> 40. — A quadragesimo aut quinquagesimo an- no declinat jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus nos- ier docebat, sicut Evangelium et omnes seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt, idipsum tradidisse eis Joannem. — Quinquagcsimum autem annmn nondum attigit, non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno abstitit. \ Quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum ma-^ gistcrii tradcntes. 170 DEFENCE OF THE ed Bishops in the Churches, every Presbyterian owns. But that he appointed Prelates, or Diocesan Bishops, no EpiscopaHan has yet proved. If they will still iio on to expose themselves, by insisting upon the word Bishop, nobody can help it. Presbyterians must take care they be not imposed upon by mere sounds. It is certain, that Irenaeus took Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same officer. * Wherefore,' saith he, * ' it behoves us to hearken to those who are Pres- * byters in the Church — to those who, as we have * shewn, have their succession from the Apostles ; * who, together with the succession of the E})isco- * pate, have also received the gift of the truth, ac- * cording to the pleasure of the Father.' Thus Ire- naeus. — ' And what strange confusion,' says Stilling- lingiieet, t ' must this raise in any one's mind, that ' seeks for a succession of Episcopal power over * Presbyters from the Apostles by the testimony of f Irenaeus, when he so plainly attributes both the suc- * cession to Presbyters, and the Episcopacy too which * he speaks of.* So much for Irenaeus. TEKTULLIAN. His last testimony, p. 110, is from Tertullian, * who,' saith he, * began to flourish at the same time * with Irenaeus, that is, in the declension of the second * century;' and says, Lib. de Baptismo, * The High « Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving * baptism, after him the Presbyters and Deacons — • * but not withoutthe Bishop's authority,' For answer: In i\\Qjirst place, I should be glad to know where Mr llhind came by this piece of chronology. It is true, Tertullian began to flourish in the declension of the second century, viz. after the year 1^2; and wrote his book, de BapUsmo, from which Mr Bhind cites, about the year 201. t But Irenaeus's flourish- " Qua propter eis qui in ecclesia sunt. Presbyteris obaudire oportet. His qui successionem Iiabent ab Apostolis, sicut osteu- dimus, qui cum Episcopatus successione, ciiari&ma veritatis cer- tum, secundum placitum I'atris acceperunt. f Irenic. p. 307. % Spanheim, Hist. Eccles. p. 719. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 171 ing was well nigh blown off ere that time. * For « he died,* says Mr Dodwell, * * before the persecu- * tion under Severus, which began in the year 202 * or 203.' It is, then, something hard to conceive, how Tertullian began to flourish at the same time with Irenaeus. But passing this: In the second place, 1 ask, What would Mr Rhind infer from Tertullian's testimony ? Is it, that there were three distinct orders of ecclesiastical officers. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the beginning of the tliird century ? Every Presbyterian owns it. Is it, that the Bishops had this paramount power of baptising, beyond the Presbyters and Deacons, by Divine right ? Tertullian himself denies it, and that in the very next words to those cited by Mr Rhind. ' It remains,' saith he, t ' for concluding this little * matter, to advise also concerning the observation ' of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving, in- * deed, the High Priest, who is the Bishop, has the ' right, then the Presbyters and Deacons ; yet not * without the authority of the Bishop, ^r the ho- * noiir of the Church ; which being safe, peace is safe, * — otherwise even laymen have the right ; for what * is equally received, may be equally given :' Thus Tertullian. Say, now, good reader, if JMr Rliind was not either very ill furnished of testimonies, or very well with assurance, when he insisted on this. And thus, now, I have gone through his Antiqui- ty ; and hope that it is plain, that when he was en- tering on it, he migiU have spared his harangue, "wherein he would persuade the Presbyterians to ap- peal to the Fathers ; for I can hardly believe he has gained much by referring to these Judges. And if * Dissert. 3. in Iren. f Superest, ad concludendam materiolam, de observatlone quo- que dandi et accipicndi baptismum coninionefacere. Dandi qui- dem Jiabet jus summus sacerdos, qui et Episcopus. Deiiinc Presbyteii et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, ])rop- ter Ecclesiae bonorem, quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari po- test. 172 DEFENCE OF THE his own conscience was satisfied witli these testi- monies he has produced, I must needs say it is no ill-natured one. AUTICLE VL Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for Prelacij, frovi the impossihilitij of its obtaining so early ^ and uni- versally, if it had not been of Divine Institution^ is examined. From p. Ill to p. 119, There can be nothing more ridiculous, than to dispute against the possibility of a matter of fact. I'i I had seen Mr Rhind some time at Edinburgh, and, within a short while after, had heard from unexceptionable witnesses, that he was at a hundred miles distance from it, must I believe, notwithstand- ing, that he never changed places j because I am not able to tell how or when he did it, nor perhaps answer all the objections one might puzzle me with, against either the physical or moral impossibility of his hav- ing done so. Because Mr Rhind was educated pres- byterian, was a zealot in that way, and profited (more ways than one) above many of his equals ; must 1, therefore, deny, that he is now Episcopalian, and of the new cut too ; because neither I, nor indeed any body else, can account for his change. Has he not heard Mr Dodwell so often affirming, that the go- vernment was changed about the year 106 — changed too, not only without any account of it, but with- out any w^arrant for it, contained in the Scriptures ? Why, then, will he dispute against the possibihty of a change ? But it was his pleasure, as it has been of many of his brethren writers, to do so j and we must attend him in his performance. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 173 Thcit a change of the government of the church, by a parity of pastors into a government by Prelacy, had been morally impossible, he argues, I. From the piety and zeal of the primitive times. II. From the universal spread of Episcopacy. III. From the vio'ilance of the Governors of the Church. IV. o From the unparalleledness of the case. V. From the non-opposition made to the change, and the want of any insinuation that ever the church was govern- ed according to the Presbyterian model. Of these in order. I. He argues, p. Ill, 112, from the piety and zeal of the primitive times. * If the Presbyterian * had been the divine form of government, it * could never once have entered into the thoughts * of men, who had shared in or been subject to this ' form of government, to attempt or allow its change. ' Would these primitive persons, who were bishops * in the first ages, have usurped an anti-scriptural au- * thority ? What could have tempted them to it ? * Not the love of riches, they forsook all for the * love of Christ. Not ambition, for they knew their ' promotion rendered them more obnoxious to their ' persecutors. Suppose they had been actuated either * by worldliness or ambition, yet would the Presby- * ters and Deacons have suffered such an encroach- * ment to be made upon their divine right ? Or ' would the people have submitted to such an usur- * pation ?' To this purpose he. For answer. It cannot be denied, that the zeal and piety of the pri- mitive times was much greater than of ours : But why would he impose upon people by a chimerical representation of these times, contrary to the faith of all history ? Men still were, and always will be men ; that is, very corrupt, how holy soever the religion is which they profess. The churchmen are men too ; and, even in the primitive times, gave many and very scandalous examples, and were the greatest cause of the corruption of Christians, and sometimes of their persecution too. What a 174 DEFENCE OP THE complaint does Eusebius * make of the wickedness of Christians in general, and of churchmen in particular ? * Bishops,' saith he, * rushed (Hke mad ' beasts) against bishops. Most detestable hypo- * crisy and dissimulation advanced even to the very * height of wickedness. We were not touched with * any sense of the divine judgment creeping in up- « on us, used no endeavours to regain his favour ; ' but wickedly thinking, that God neither did re- * gard nor would visit our crimes, we heaped one * wickedness upon another. And those who seem- * ed to be our pastors, rejecting the rule of piety, * were inflamed with mutual contentions against < one another ; and while they were jonly taken up * with contentions, threatenings, emulations, mutual * hatred and enmity, and every one eagerly pursued * his ambition in a tyrannical manner, then the * Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud « in his anger, and remembered not his footstool in * the day of his anger, but raised up the Dioclesian * persecution against them.* Thus Eusebius, and a great deal more to this purpose. Fifty years be- fore that, Cyprian t complained of an universal depravation in the clergy as well as the laity. « That the priests had no devotion, the ministers' * or deacons no fidelity, that there was no charity * in works, no discipline in manners.' And does not Jerome t tell us, that * the primitive churches * were tainted with many gross errors whilst the A- * postles were alive, and the blood of Christ yet * warm in Judaea ?' But why do I insist on human testimony ? Does not the Apostle Paul himself make the like complaint. Phil. iii. 18. « ma7i2/ walk, of whom * I told you often, and now tell you, even weeping, * that they are the enemies of the cross of Cin'ist ; * whose God is their belly, who mind earthly things.* » Hist. Eccles. Lib. VIII. Cup. i. •^ Noil in Sacerdotibus lleiigio devota, non In Ministris fides inlegra, non in operlbns midcricordia, uon in nioribus disciplina, &c. Cyprian de Lapsis. \ Advt'iJiua Luciferian. mESBYTEllIAN GOVERNMENT. 175 And chap. ii. 21. * all seek their own, not the things * which are Jesus Christ's.' Even in those early times, and while the Chiucii was under persecution, a Dio- trephes could aspire to the pre-eminence, 3 John, ix. And even the people's liberahty made so consider- able a provision for the maintenance of church-men, that the Apostles found cause, oftener than once, to caution them against taking the office for filthy lucres sake, I Peter v. 2. 1 Tim. iii. 3. Where then was the impossibility of a change, even upon the principles of and)ition and covetousness ? Might not one, at Mr Rhind's rate of reasoning, prove, that it was not possible there should have been any such officers as sub-deacons ? The deacons, (good men) would not be so ambitious as to seek to have underlings. There could be none so mean-spirited as to submit to be such. Suppose both these, the peo- ple (of whose charity the deacons were the trustees) would not have suffered it. Yet Cyprian * makes mention of them as undisputed officers in his time ; though it is certain there was no divine institution. for them, any more than for Acolyths and Exorcists, whom he also speaks of. Again, it is certain all bishops were originally equal; how is it possible, then, that ever there could arise archbishops or metropo- litans ? Would any of the bishops have usurped the honour ? Would their fellow bishops have sub- mitted to the encroachment ? Would the people have suffered it ? Yet, how impossible soever it was that they should be, Mr llh.ind himself, I hope, will not deny that they were ; yea, and that they were brought in so early, and with so little noise, that some learned men have thought they were from the beginning. We see, then, how insufficient Mr Rhind's iirst argument is. II. lie argues, p. 112, from the universal spread of Episcopacy. Though such a change might have iiappened in a corner, yet, if Prelacy had not been of divine institution, how could it have ob- tained universally ? Which yet it did : ' For,* saith he, p. 117, * it was fully established over all * Ep. 24. 176 DEFENCE OF THE * the earth, without any opposition or noise, a do- ' zen of years or so after the seahng of the sacred 'canon.* It is answered, It is a very insufficient argument. ' Episcopacy spread itself through the ' whole earth.* Why, so did Arianism. * The * whole world," says Jerome,* 'groaned and wondered * to see itself turned Arian.' Besides, it is false that Prelacy prevailed universally. Many instances might be given to the contrary ; but not to wander from home : Though Christianity was planted here in Scotland in the days of the Apostles, and got the legal establishment in the beginning of the third cen- tury ; yet we had no such thing as prelacy till near the middle of the fifth, that Palladius brouglit it hither from Rome ; as Bede, Fordun, John Major, Hector Bocthius, Buchanan and Craig, with others, do testify. III. He argues from the vigilance of the Gover- nors of the Church. * For,' saith he, p. 1 15, ' if errors * in doctrine, which may more easily pass without ' notice, did not escape their observation and cen- * sure ; how can it be supposed that they would not * have observed and condemned any encroachments * made upon the constitution of their Society ?' But who sees not how false this way of arguing is ? Whence came all the usurpations and corruptions, both in principle and practice, which began to take place from the earliest ages of Christianity ? Does not every body know, that at least a great many of them crept in insensibly ; and that the tares were sown while men slept? No, says Mr Rhind, p. 117, ' these did not obtain till after some centuries. They « were remonstrated against by many.* They were never allowed by one half of the Church. This, I must needs say, is confident enough talking. I shall give one instance for Mr Rhind to try his skill on ; it is the giving of the Eucharist to infants. It ob- tained early. Cyprian t speaks of it, not as a new thing, but as an ordinary practice. It obtained uni- Ibld. UbI supra. + Sorm. y ex- * ercised it only at the king's courtesy, an J t'lat as * they had it of his bounty, so they would be ready * to deliver it up at his pleasure ; and therefore tiie * king did empower them, in liis stead, to or !ain, * give institution, and do all the other parts of the * Episcopal function.' Upon which the historian makes this remark, * By this they were made the * king's bishops indeed.' Nor was the matter mended by King Edward VL, * in the first year of whose reign,' says the same historian,* * all that held offices were required to come * and renew their commissions. Among the rest ' the bishops came, and took out such commissions * as were granted in the former reign, viz. to hold * their bisliopricks during pleasure, and were em- * powered in the king's name, as his delegates, to * perform all the parts of the Episcopal function ; * and Cranmer set an example to the rest in taking * cut one of them.' And indeed Heylin acknow- ledges, t that King Edward's first parliament forced the Episcopal order from their strong-hold of divine institution, and made them no other than the king's ministers only. Upon this footing w^as prelacy settled even in Eng- land at the reformation : and 1 challenge any man to produce documents where, ever to this day, they have bettered its foundation, or settled it upon scrip- ture authority or divine institution. And must the Scots Presbyterians be schismatics for not believing what the whole foreign Protestant Churches have de- clared against, and England herself durst never as- sert .'' Gentlemen, I can assure you there is nothing in the world makes a party appear with a more con- temptible figure than weak arguments and a high air. Please, therefore, only to lower your air in pro- portion to your arguments, and I hope it will be no hard matter to deal with you. It is true, your late • Ubi supra, Vol. II. p. 4-. f Hist. Edw. VI. p. 51. 222 DEFENCE OF THE writers will needs persuadp you that all Christianity depends on prelacy, and that there cannot be any church where it obtains not ; and their plot, viz. the ruin of the whole Protestant interest through the world, is too evident either to be mistaken by us, or coloured by themselves. But I must tell you, that Cranmer, Therleby, Redman, Cox, Whitgift, Cosins, Low, Bridges, Hooker, Downham, Willet, Mason, Chillingworth, SutclifFe, and all those great names who, for several scores of years after the re- formation, baffled Popery by their arguments, or gave testimony against it by their blood — though they were deeply engaged in the interests of prela- cy, and loved it with their soul — yet they still either denied the necessity of it, or frankly disowned its being founded on Scripture. And when the Scrip- ture fort is forsaken, pray, what will ye betake your- selves to ? For, II. Will you found on the Fathers ? It is true your writers amuse you with their names, and dazzle your eyes with citations out of them, which mention Bi- shop and Presbyter as distinct. But, pray desire them to cite the Fathers declaring for the divine right of that distinction, as the Presbyterians cite them declaring for their Scripture identity. With- out this, all their endeavours are only a learned la- bour to bubble the world, and does either discover their own, or presume their readers' want of judg- ment. Stillingfleet has spoken ingenuously on this head. ' As to the matter itself,* saith he,* ' I be- ' lieve upon the strictest enquiry, Medina's judg- ' ment will prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Am- ' brose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodo- « ret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment ' as to the identity of both name and order of Bi- * shops and Presbyters in the primitive church.' I have shewn how, not only these, but several others of the Fathers, are on the Presbyterian side ; and ac- knowledge not only that the names Bishop and Pres- byter are common, but also that th« office and cha- * Irenic. p. 276. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 223 racter was the same in the Apostolic times. I have produced them interpreting the Scriptures that relate to this controversy, as the Presbyterians now do. I have shewn that the Divines of the Church of Eng- land, even her bishops and doctors, acknowledge the Fathers to be on the side of Presbytery. If the Epis- copal writers can produce as many of the Fathers de- claring as expressly for the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters by divine right ; if they can find them interpreting the Scriptures that way, and then back all with the approbation of our Presbyterian writers, as I have done what I alleged with the ap- probation of the Episcopal ; I hereby engage to be- come their proselyte. If this is not to be done, you must blame yourselves you have not more disciples. But it is high time to proceed with Mr Rhind. CHAPTER III. WHEREIN MR RHIND's SFXOND REASON FOR SEPARAT- ING FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEIR ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FALSI': AND PERNICIOUS, IS EXAMINED. FROM P. 119 TO P. 148. This is a very high charge, and for making it good, he insists against the doctrine of the decrees in general ; the decrees of predestination and repro- bation in particular ; the doctrine of the efficacy of grace, and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. For answer, I shall first particularly consi- der his objections against tliese doctrines ; and, se- condly, prove that they arc the doctrines of the whole Christian church. 224 DEFENCE OF THE Sect. III. WJierein Mr Rhind's Objections against tJie'Presbyterian Arti- cles of Faith, are cofisidered, OF THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL. In thej^r.9^ place, Mr Rhine! insists against the doctrine of the eternal decrees in general, which, in the Westminster lesser Catechism, are defined to be * God's eternal purpose, according to the counsel of * his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath * fore-ordained whatsoevercomes to pass.' One would think the truth of such a doctrine was beyond debate. For, doth not the infinite perfection of the divine nature, and the dependence of the creature upon God, in its actions as well as being, argue sucli de- crees? Does not the infallible omniscience of God necessarily infer them ? Is it possible otherwise to conceive how events, that flow from rational free agents, or depend upon contingent causes, should be certainly known, when they are not certainly to be? Does Mr Rhind think that God has forsaken the earthjOrlaid the reins on the neck of the creatures, allowing them to hurry both themselves and him whither they list ? Has he formed his notions of the Deity upon Lucretius's system, who would com- pliment him out of his concernment for the world. Immortnli cevo snmma cum pace fruntur Semota a noslris Rebus icjunctague longe. Or doth he think him such a one as himself, to take his measures upon the spot as he sees things are like- ly to frame ? In the confidence of what did he op- pose such a doctrine ? ' Why,' saithhe, p. 120, * nothing comes to pas3 * more frequently than sin : And therefore if God ' has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then ' it will follow that God has ordained sin, and con- * sequently must be the author of sin, which is blas- * phemous, and destroys the essential distinction be- I-KESBYTERIAN FAITH. 225 « twixtgood and evil, ail just notions of God, the * natural freedom of man's will, takes away rewards ' and punishments, and in a word, excuses the sinner « and lays tlie blame upon God.' This is the full sum of what he has offered against the Presbyterian doctrine of the decrees. But, I. These are not arguments against, but conse- quences wrung from it ; consequences, too, which the Presbyterians refuse with abhorrence, and that in their public formulas. Thus, in their Confession of Faith* they teach, ' That God from all eternity did, * by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, * freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes ' to pass : Yet so, as that neither is God the author * of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the * creatures, nor is the liberty or contingenc}'' of se- * cond causes taken away but rather established.' It is therefore not only uncharitable but unjust to load the doctrine with such consequences, when they ex- pressly declare, that they do not understand the doc- trine in such a sense, as to admit of these consequen- ces. II. Cannot Mr Rhind conceive, that it is very possible for the Divine majesty to decree the event, without decreeing the sin that adheres to it, any further than that he will permit, direct, and over- rule it, to serve his own wise and holy ends ? Whe- ther he can conceive it or not, there is no one thing more expressly laid down in the Scripture than this. I am very sure that Shimei sinned grievously in curs- ing David, and yet I am as sure that the Lord said unto him. Curse David.t I am sure it was with wick- ed hands tliat Herod, Pontius Pilate and the people of the Jews took and crucified and slew the Son of God.t But I am as sure, not only that he was de- livered by the determinate counsel and foreknow- ledge of God, but also that they did nothing to him but what God's hand and counsel determined before to be done.§ Are the expressions in the Presby- * Chap. iii. Sect. 1. f 2 Sara. xvi. 10. % Acts, ii. 23. § Acts, iv. 37. 28. P 226 DEFENci: or the terian Catechism harder than these of the Scripture ? And must not Presbyterians teach as the Scriptures do, because Mr llhind will needs harangue a little against them ? HI. How does the decree of God excuse the sin- ner ? Does not Mr llhind know, that it is not the decree, but the precept, tiiatis given to be the stand- ard of our obedience ? No, indeed ; this Mr Rhind knew not, or did not advert to : For he has expressly made the decrees and the commands of God the same thing ; and the decrees to be the rule of our duty. ' If,* saith he, p. 121, 'God has decreed sin, ' it is our duty to commit it, his commands being the * standard of our obedience.' This is a horrid blun- der he has made. So far are the decrees from be- ing the rule of our duty, that it is both impossible to know them, and a crime to enquire into them, any further than as God has revealed them in his word. * Secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; But * those things which are revealed belong unto us.'* And therefore God very justly punishes the sinner, not for fulfilling his decrees, in which he was not con- cerned, but for transgressing his precepts, which he had revealed to him. God decreed that the son of man should be betrayed, and betrayed by Judas too. ' The ' son of man goethas it was determined;' tyet this de- cree could not excuse Judas, because he neither de- signed the fulfilling of it by his treachery, nor indeed was it given him as the rule of his behaviour : And therefore it is presently added, ' wo unto that man * by whom he is betrayed.' And therefore when Mr llhind affirms, p. 130, * that it is nonsensical and blas- ' phemous to suppose that God's secret and reveal- * ed win arenotone, he contradicts express Scripture, * and thereby makes him-^elf guilty of that blasphe- * my he imputes to others.' IV. Whatever difficulties there are in the Presby- terian doctrine of the decrees, the Arminians must be intolerably fanciful, if they do not own that they are at least equal on their side j with this very * Deut. xxix, 29. f Luke, xxii. U2. PIIESBYTEHIAX FAITH. 227 considerable liiiToience, that generally the objec- tions against the Presbyterian doctrine arise from pretended reason, whereas the objections against the Arminian doctrine are founded, not only upon plain reason, but express declarations of Scripture : And where these are, and the contest is betwixt seeming reason and the clear revelation of God; it. seems but good manners to yield to God, Mr Rhind cannot digest this doctrine of the decrees, because he cannot (without submitting his judgment to the Scriptures), by mere strength of natural reason, an- swer all the difficulties and objections that may be brouf^ht aii^ainst it. But can he answer all difficulties and objections agains a Trinity of persons in the Divine nature ? Can he answer all the objections that may be made against the resurrection of the body after the infinite and inconceivable changes which time and corruption bring upon it ? If he can answer these, I say, upon the mere strength of reason, it must be owned he is the ablest divinethe world was ever yet blessed with. If he will not believe them, because he cannot answer all objections against them ; then it is plain he ought to have continued in his state of discreet scepticism to this day. But if he can believe these doctrines notwithstanding his inability to solve the difficulties that hang on them ; why might he not also believe that God has decree^ whatsoever comes to pass ; for the one is as plain- ly revealed in the Scripture as the other ? And, V. There is so much the more reason for this, that the belief of the decrees is necessary in order to the conduct of life. For when I am afflicted by the hands of wicked men, and suffer from their sins, how shall I possess my soul in })atiencer, or keep my- self from revenge, if I do not believe that, thongli God is absolutely free of their sin, yet he uses theai as the tools and instruments of his providence for serving his purposes upon me, and that such things were measured out for me by his decree ? It was upon this consideration that Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly, notwithstanding the injuries P 2 228 DEFENCE OF THE the Sabeans and Chaldeans had done him. — It was this preserved Joseph from all resentment against his brethren for their barbarous usage of him : * Ye * thought evil against me, but God meant it unto * good.' Gen. 1. 20. — It was upon this that David quieted his spirit, * and was dumb, not opening his ' mouth, because the Lord had done it.' Psalm xxxix. 9: And what God does in lime without sin, mioht he not trom all eternity decree without sin ? — It was upon this argument that our blessed Saviour bore the contradictions and cruelty of sinners with a perfect composure of spirit : ' The cup that my Father hath * given me to drink shall 1 not drink it ?' John xviii. II. Nay, even a heathen Seneca prescribes the belief of the doctrine of the decrees to his friend as a remedy against all ruffling of spirit under inju- ries and troubles. * Losses,' saith he, * * wounds, * fears are come upon you ; these things are usual. * That is little, these things are needful, they are ' decreed and do not come by chance.' I hope, then, in all this doctrine there is nothing either false or pernicious, much less any thing that is fundament- ally so. OF THE DECREE OF PREDESTINATION. In the second place, Mr Rhind insists against the Presbyterian doctrine of God's irrespective decrees relating to mankind, contained in their Confession of Faith, Chap. III. viz. ' That God has, by his * eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret * counsel aiad good pleasure of his own will, chosen * some to everlasting life, without any foresight of * faith or good works, or perseverance in either of * them. And that he hath, by the same eternal and * unchangeable counsel of his own will, passed by, * and ordaine'd others to wrath for their sin.' ' This * doctrine,' he argues, * contradicts the holiness, jus- ' tice and truth of God, is contrary to the design of ' all revelation, and to express testimonies of Scrip- • Damna, Vulnera, Metus inciderunt; solet fieri. Hoc parum est, debuit fieri. Decernuntur ista, non accidunt, Senec. Ep» 96. PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 229 * ture, and is perniciously influential upon Christian « life,' p. 122 — 135. It is against my will that I engage in this mysterious controversy, in which every man ouglit to be wise to sobriety. But, I hope it will not be difficult to suggest as much as will take off Mr Rhind's objections, without going beyond my line. For answer, then, I. It is abundantly strange that this doctrine should be opposed by such as have read the Scrip- ture and the Epistles of Paul, who has insisted on it at large in the eighth arid ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans ; and besides, has frequently asserted it here and there, in particular hints, which Mr Rhind, p. 182, very mannerly calls dismember- ed shreds, as if the Apostle had lost his connection always when he touched on that doctrine. But what can Mr Rhind say to those many places of Scripture, which he cannot but know are insisted on by the Presbyterians in defence of that doctrine ? Why, he has rid his hands of them by one fearless stroke, boldly pronouncing, in the place just now cited, that these are the passages hard to be understood pointed at by the Apostle Peter, 2 Ep. iii. 16, * which * some wrest to their own destruction.' But who told him that Peter pointed at these passages ? Did any spirit reveal it to him ? Do the Church of Eng- land doctors teach him so ? No, surely. Drs Plam- mond and Whitby, the two most famous expositors that have yet appeared, assert, that it is the doctrine of the coming of our Lord that Peter there points at, and not the doctrine of predestination, or any thing near it. And, if Mr Khind had consulted the Greek original, he had seen that Peter did not refer to Paul's Epistles, but to the subjects he had been treating of, when he used these words, ' in which * there are some things hard to be understood.' II. It is very true the Presbyterians teach, that by the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death : And there does indeed lie a shrewd objection against 230 DEFEXCE OF THE it, viz. * That it is not in the power of man to pre- * vent his own damnation, if he has been fore-or- * dained to it :* But then (which might have dis- couraged Mr Rhind to bring it into the field again), the Apostle Paul both foresaw it and silenced it, Kom. ix. 14. &c. ' What shall we say then ? Is there * unrighteousness with God ? God forbid. For he ' saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will * have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom * I will have compassion. So then it is not of him * that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God ' that sheweth mercy. — Therefore hath he mercy on * whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he * hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why * doth he yet find fault ? For who hath resisted his ' will ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest ' against God ?' Here is a full assertion and fair vindication of the Presbyterian doctrine ; and what- ever objections our minds may raise against it, yet there is no one doctrine more clearly expressed, or strongly asserted, in all the Scripture, than this. And, which confirms all, it is beyond all controversy, by observations from Providence, that God acts with an absolute sovereignty, even in the dispensations of the means of grace in time, which is a certain docu- ment that he acted the same way in his eternal de- crees. The world was for many ages delivered up to idolatry ; and, since the Christian religion has ap- peared, we see vast tracts of countries which have continued ever since in idolatry ; others are fallen under Mahometanism ; and the state of Christen- dom is, in the Eastern parts of it, under so much ig- norance, and the greatest part of the West is under so much corruption, that we must confess the far greatest part of mankind has been in all ages left destitute of the means of grace, and great numbers of men are born in such circumstances, that it is morally impossible that they should not perish in them. If God thus leaves whole nations in such darkness and corruption, and freely chuses others to communicate the knowledge of himself to them, PUESBYTEEIAX FAITH. 231 then we need not wonder that he holds the same method with individuals, that he doth with whole bodies : for, the rejecting of whole nations by the lump for so many ages, is more hard to be account- ed for by us than the selecting of a few, and the leaving others in that state of ignorance and bruta- lity. * But it becomes no man to quarrel with God, and impeach him on his other attributes, because he will exercise his sovereignty, when we are both as- sured by the sacred oracles, and see it with our eyes in the course of his providence, that ' his judgments ' are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.* III. There lies no just objection from this doc- trine against the holiness, justice or sincerity of God. Firsts Not against his holiness. He has given men holy laws, lie forces none to transgress them. It is true they cannot keep them without his grace ; but is God a debtor of that to any man, * who has f first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed t* Secondly, Not against his justice : for he damns no man but for sin, nor does he damn one repenting sinner and save another ; but he damns all impeni- tents and saves all penitents, without respect of per- sons. It is true he gives repentance to some which he denies to others ; but that is an act of his grace, upon which liis justice can no more be quarrelled, than for his giving the means of grace to Christians, which he has denied to Pagans. Plainly, be created our first parents perfect and upright, he gave them a power to stand, he did not force them to fall ; yet he permitted them to do so through the freedom of then- own will, to which they were left. By their fall their whole posterity became at once guilty and cor- rupt, just as a leperous parent begets a leperous child, and a rebel father forfeits the estate, not only for himself, but for all his posterity that are, by the mere strength of nature, to descend from him, unless they be restored by the prince's grace. ^\\ when God found all mankind in this condition, and from all eternity foresaw that, by his permission, ti^ey would throw themselves into itj where is the injus* * Set Bp. Burnet on the xxxlx. Art. p. 154. 232 DEFENCE OF THE lice in chasing some of them as vessels of mercy ; and passing by others, leaving them to inherit the choice which their first parents or themselves, or both, had made for them, and then reprobating them to damnation for their sins ? Where is there any thing of injustice in all this ? Nay, is there not here a most glorious scene opened, wherein at once justice is magnified, and mercy gratified ; and both love and reverence secured to the divine majesty ? And it is upon this consideration that we find the Apostle sa- tisfying the objection which formerly we heard him silencing. ' What if God, willing to shew his wrath, ' and to make his power known, endured with much *■ long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruc- ' tion : And that he might make known the riches ' of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had ' afore prepared unto glory,* Rom. ix. 22, 23. Tliirdlijy Not against his sincerity. For, why may not God require obedience from the eleci, when his very requiring it is one of the means by which he de- termines them to it. AVhy may not he threaten them with damnation in case of disobedience, when the threatening is the mean appointed for scaring them from it. Is there any thing here but the use of a most rational mean for compassing a most holy end ? Is it any objection against Providence, that the sun is suffered to shine, and the rain to fall, on the tares as well as the wheat growing together in the same common field, though the first are to be burned, the latter to be gathered into the barn ? As little objec- tion is it in this case, that, while the elect and re- probate live mixed together in the visible church, the exhortations of the gospel are directed, and the offers of life and salvation made in a general style. And, to call this dissimulation, and a cruel and disin- genuous procedure, as Mr Uhind does, p. 129, when it is so easy to be accounted for by reason, even upon the Presbyterian hypothesis, was the most pre- sumptuous blasphemy. IV. The said Presbyterian doctrine is no way contrary to the design of revelation, nor to any PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 233 one testimony of Scripture. 1st, It is no way contrary to the design of revelation : And Mr Rhind's medium, for proving that it is, discovers either a most vicious mind, or a most prodigious igno- rance of the controversy. * According to this doc- * trine,' saith he, p. 130, •• our faith and obedience ' cannot make our case better nor worse ; it being * unalterably fixed by a prior will, without regard to * either.* Was it malice or mistake made him talk at this rate ? Does not the Apostle teach * that God has chosen us to salvation through sanctifica- tion of the spirit and belief of the truth ? Did ever any Presbyterian teach otherwise ? Do they ever separate betwixt the end and the means ? Do not they constantly affirm that holiness and happiness, sin and misery, are linked together, as in the nature of the thing, so also in the decree of God ? To assert, then, that the doctrine of the decrees sup- poseth God to admit to heaven, and dispatch to hell, without respect either to faith and obedience on the one hand, or infidelity and impenitence on the other, was to bid a defiance both to modesty and truth. 2d, It is not contrary to any testimony of Scripture. Mr Rhind instances two, 1 Tim. ii. 4. ' That God would have all men to be saved.* But, were that to be understood of God*s secret will, pray, how could any man be lost ; ' For who hath * resisted his will ? The counsel of the Lord stand- ' eth fast, and the thoughts of his heart to all ge- * nerations.'t The meaning of the place, then, is obvious, viz. That we should pray for kings, and all that are in authority, as well as for others, be- cause there is no rank or order of men whose faith and obedience he will not accept of, and upon it save them at the last ; in token whereof he has given them his revealed will, which commands all men every where to repent : and it is with respect to this, that he is said to will that they should be saved, and not with respect to any uncertain hover- ing purpose to be determined by the creature, which * 2 Tbess. ii, 13. f Rom. ix. 19. Psal. xxxlli. 11. 234 DEFENCE OF THE is a thing inconsistent with the pprfection of his na- ture. The other Scripture is Mark xvi. 16. * He ' that beheveth and is baptised shall be saved, but * he that beheveth not shall be damned.' — * Which,' saith he, * plainly supposeth, that a man may or * may not believe.' But this is manifestly false. The design of the text is not to shew what man may or may not do, but to express the connection there is betw^ixt faith and salvation, infidelity and damna- tion. Faith is not of the growth of our own nature or will, but is the effect of the operation of the Spi- rit of God ; and to deny this, as Mr Rhind does all along, is quite to subvert the gospel. To these two scriptures he adds, p. 131, an argument, which is this : ' All to whom the gospel is preached areoblig- * ed to believe that Christ is their Saviour, and die4 * for them. But none can be bound to believe a * lie, therefore Christ most certainly died lor all to ' whom the gospel is revealed ; and if so, then the * doctiine, winch asserts the salvability only of a * select few, is demonstratively false.' But this ar- gument stands on a lame foot. All to whom the gospel is preached are indeed obliged to believe, in the general, that Christ died for, and is the Saviour of all that believe ; and from thence, if they (with the joint testimony of God's Spirit), are conscious to themselves, that they do believe with such a faith as is necessary to salvation, they may confidently infer that Christ died for them, and is their Saviour: but to believe that Christ died for me in particular, while 1 make no conscience of answering the terms of the gospel, is to believe both v.ilhout warrant and evidence. The foundation, then, of his argu- ment being false, the whole frame of it must needs fall to the ground. V. I add, that this doctrine has no pernicious in- fluence on the Christian life, when it is improved as it ought to be. Mr llhind expressly asserts, p. 132, that it has, as running j)e()ple into the most sinful security, or into the height of despair, be- yond the capacity of a Calvinist cauist to give TRESBYTERIAN FAITH. £35 check to either. But, in opposition to Mr Rhind, I affirm, with the Church of England, in her 17th Article, * That though, for curious and carnal per- * sons, lacking the spirit of Cluist, to have conti- * nually before their eyes the sentence of God*s Pre- * destination, is a most dangerous downfall, where- * by the devil doth thrust them eitiier into despe- * ration, or into wretchlessness of most unclean * living, no less perilous than desperation. Yet the * godly consideration of predestination and our e- * lection in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and * unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as ' feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of ' Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and * their earthly members, and drawing up their mind * to high and heavenly things, as well, because it * doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of * eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as ' because it doth fervently kindle tlieir love towards « God.' Thus far the Church of England. Be- sides, it is plain, from the nature of the thing, that the said doctrine teaclies one to think meanly of himself, and to ascribe the honour of all to God, which lays in him a deep foundation for humility ; and that it inclines to secret prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God ; which naturally both brings his mind to a good state, and fixes it in it.* And, which confirms all, we see in fact that these that believe that doctrine are generally serious and con- cerned about their soul, so that the goodness of their heart is an argument of the rightness of their head. I do not know if as much can be said of such as go on a contrary system. Sure I am, they are under shrewd temptations to procrastinate the work of their souls : For when the Scripture tells one, that all that believe and repent (at wiiat time soever it be), shall be saved. And Mr Rhind tells him, that he may repent and believe when he will, ' that he has it in his own power to do so, without the assistance of any uncommon grace, if the man • Bp, Burnet, ubi supia, p. 1 66. 236 DEFENCE OF THE believe both these ; I mean, both the Scriptures and Mr Rhind's doctrine. I refer it to any one to say, whether, in that case, corruption will not incline him to take his swing in sin, in hopes that he may have a quiet hour at death to dispatch all his busi- ness. But enough of this. OF THE EFFICACY OF GRACE. In the third place, the next Presbyterian doc-. trine which Mr Rhind attacks, is that concerning the efficacy of grace. ' They teach,' saith he, p. 135, ' that God, to attain his eternal purpose, does, by * an irresistible force, work grace in the elect, and, ' at the same time, denies it to the reprobate.' This is horridly false: for they expressly disown all force re- sistible or irresistible in the operation of grace ; and teach,* that though the elect are eifectually drawn to Christ, yet it is so, as that they come most freely, being made willing by his grace. And is it not very easy to conceive how there may be efficacy, yea, and in- superable efficacy too, (which the Presbyterians own in this case), without the least force ? Is it not plain, that the greater evidence there is for any truth, and the stronger motives there are to any duty, the more pleasure the soul feels, and, conse- quently, the greater freedom it exercises in assent- ing to the one, or complying with the other ? Is this to make machines of men ? When a man tells me that two and three make five, the native evi- dence of the proposition commands my assent. But is there, therefore, any force offisred to my under- standing ? Is it not very possible for the Spirit of God to set home the sense of my danger through sin upon my conscience so powerfully, that I shall be necessarily, though without the least force, de- termined to fall in with the overtures of the gospel, in order to my salvation ? And is it not needful that theSpirit of God do act thus, considering how deeply * Confess, of Faith, Chap. x. Sect. 1. PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 237 we are immersed in corruption, blind to duty, dead in trespasses and sins, who cannot of ourselves so much as think one good thought. And does not the Scripture assure us that the Spirit of God does act thus ; that he works in us both to will and to do ; that his people shall be willing in the day of his power ; that he puts his spirit within us, and causes us to walk in his statutes ? But Mr Rhind cannot away with this doctrine, it is with him opposite to truth, and destructive of Christian life. First, Saith he, p. 1 35, ' It is opposite to truth. * For how can I be reasonably commanded to believe ' and repent, who am supposed to have no strength * to do either ?' How could Christ reasonably bid Lazarus * Come forth,' or the lame man, ' Take up ' thy bed and walk,' when the one was dead, the other an absolute cripple ? Has Mr Rhind, with Presbytery, renounced the gospel too ? Does he believe there is never any secret efficacy attends the dispensation thereof ? ' But,' adds he, ' how can ' that, in propriety of speech, be called my act, * which was never elicited by me ?' Very strong ! Because another raised me up, therefore my stand- ing or walking is not my act ! Because, when I was lying dead in sin, the spirit of God quickened me to repent and believe ; therefore, repenting and be- lieving, when I am quickened, is not my act ? Be- cause Christ draws me, therefore it is not I that run, notwithstanding he has made me willing to it ! Was this to argue ? SecorulJij, ' It is,' saith he, p. 136, * destructive * of Christian life, in that it excuses the greatest * villaiiies under pretence of exalting the free grace * of God, and discourages all tlie good endeavours * that should be used.' To make this good, he in- troduces a Calvinist teacher endeavouring (but with- out possibility of success), to reclaim a debauchee of the party. Air Rhind has acted the debauchee, fur- nishing him with arguments, formed, as he imagines, upon the Presbyterian hypothesis. 1 shall crave leave 238 DSFEXCE OF THE to act the Calvinist teacher ; and dare promise, though not actually to convert the debauchee, (that is God's work,) yet to satisfy his objections, even by the Presbyterian scheme of principles. The dialogue then stands thus. Dialogue between a Calvinist Teacher and a Debauchee of the Party. Calv. Sir, I find you still go on in a course of de- bauchery ; I have often told you before, and now tell you once more, that unless you reform you will go to hell. Deb. Alas, Sir, you know, that I cannot effectu- ally reform without irresistible grace, and I am not to blame that I am not yet passive of it, p. 136. Cah. What, Sir! cannot you give over your de- baucheries, your drinking, cursing, swearing, whor- ing, gaming, without irresistible grace ? Did 1 ever teach you so? Have not I always told you, that a man may reform these vices without special grace? How can you say, that you are not to blame that you have not yet been passive of grace ? Have you used the means, cultivated your natural faculties, improved your reason ? When you have not been faithful in that which is less, why should God com- mit to your trust that which is more ? Are not you then to blame ? That which God has already given you was sufficient whereupon to have either prevent- ed or broken off a course of debauchery ; nay, as I have often told you before, you might have gone, upon the mere strength of nature, as far as ever a Plato or a Seneca went. Deb. True, Sir. But even then my best actions, without this grace, would be but so many splendid sins, p. 137. Calv. Right. But is it not better that you should be guilty only of these splendid sins ; that is, actions which, though not fully acceptable with God through want of a right principle and Christian motive ; yet PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 259 Iiave not only the colour, but matter too, of virtue ; and make one that he is not far from the kingdom of God ; were not this better, I say, than that you should swell (as you do) in vice and sensuality, and makeyourself the reproach of human nature, and the scandal of the town ? Deb. But, Sir, the reformation which you preach can be of no advantage to my soul vvithout grace ; and seeing this grace is not in my power, I hope you will, and it is but reasonable you should, allow me to gratify the body, seeing the contrary cannot in the least advance the interest of my soul. Ibid. Calv. What do I hear ! Would such a reformation be of no advantage to my soul ? — Not in the least advance the interest thereof ? Where did you learn such divinity ? Are there no degrees in guilt ? And is it not a huge advantage to want the least degree thereof, seeing your punishment in hell must rise in proportion thereto, in case you repent not : or the stings and remorse of your conscience here, even sup})ose you do ? And is the insincere and transitory pleasure of sin to be laid in the balance with either of these, even in point of plain reason ? But, ab- stracting from the advantage such a reformation Would be of to the soul, is it reasonable I should al- low you to gratify the body with vice ? Vice, I say, whose pleasures are hollow in the present enjoyment, and will at long-run ruin your body, and all your temporal interest : when even that virtue, which you may attain to by strength of reason, carries its own reward in its bosom ; and recommends itself both by the much more manly pleasures which at- tend its exercise, and the solid advantages that fol- low upon it even in this life. Do not you see the drunkard for the most part reduced to poverty, while the sober man, by good management and indus- trious frugality, enjoys a comfortable competency ? Have not you observed the first seized with burning fevers ; or surprised with a sudden death, drowning in his own vomit, while the other has enjoyed a healthful and vigorous age ? Did you never see the 240 DEFENCE OF THE ruins of lust in the old adulterer; his weak limbs, and meagre carcase, and his body as loathsome as his name ? Have you not observed what confusion, jealousies, discords, and misunderstandings such lewd persons have begot, both in their own and their neighbour's family ? Has not this one sin ruined some of the greatest families, and left the fairest estates without heirs ? While on the other hand, the chaste and continent person has retained a healthful body, a savory name, and left a numerous posterity behind him. So that, upon the whole, your reform- ing from your open debaucheries is in your power by the strength of nature : and is the most prefer- able course in point of reason. Del). But I am uncertain whether I be one of the elect or reprobate. Ibid. Calv. No wonder truly, seeing you still continue in your debaucheries : for, the sanctification of the spirit, and the belief of the truth, are both the fruits and evidences of election, of which no man can possibly be certain without them, nor in an ordinary way, but by them. Deb. But my practice depends upon my know- ledge of this. For if I be one of the elect, I will, some time, were it only at the hour of death, be de- termined by this grace, and so will certainly be sav- ed, notwithstanding the lewdness of my bygone life ; and if I be not, why should I abstain from sin, when an abstinence, without grace, can be of no use to me ? And this grace I cannot command :- and if I be none of the elect, I am not to expect it ; there- fore, seeing I am to forfeit the joys of heaven, which is my misfortune, not my fault, you must excuse me if I do not lose the pleasures of sin, which I may so freely enjoy ? Ibid. Calv. Pray, Sir, does either reason or Scripture dictate such a conduct to you ? Or are these ration- al inferences from the doctrines of election and grace which you have been taught ? Is it not necessary in all sciences to begin at what is most easy and ob- vious, and thence to come to the knowledge and 2 PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 241 certainty of what is more difficult ? Are you not sen- sible that (besides all the other flaws in your reason- ing, such as, the uselessness of an abstinence from sin, which I have already discoursed), you begin at the wrong end ? Whether you are of the elect or not is a secret with God ; not otherwise to be dis- covered by you, but by the fruit of it, I mean hoH- nessin heart and life. This God has enjoined in his revealed will ; and, therefore, it is your duty to study and endeavour it, without fear of any latent decree lying against you ; and if you attain to it, you may then most certainly infer trom it both your election and salvation. But you will needs invert God's order : you must needs first know his secret will, before you apply yourself to obey his revealed will ; whereas, he has enjoined you to obey his re- vealed will, and thence to gather his secret will con- cerning yourself. For shame, Sir, make better use of your reason. Apply yourself to your duty which you are sure you ought to do; and do not expect to be saved in the neglect of it upon the account of your election — when God has e::pressly said that he has chosen us that we should be holy. Neither be discouraged from it with the apprehension of your reprobation ; seeing you own yourself to be uncer- tain of it : for who would baulk certain duty for un- certain danger ? No rational man would reason so weakly about his temporal affairs. Deb. But, Sir, whether I be of the elect or repro- bate, there is no doing of my duty, should I never so much endeavour it, without grace ; and, therefore, whether I will or not, I must continue as I am until it shall please God to determine me by his irresist- ible power. Ibid. Calv. How, Sir ! May not ye do more than ye do ? Have not I shewn you how far you may go upon strength of nature or common grace ? What neces- sity then are you under to continue as you are ? Be- sides, if together with other means, you would pray to God for effectual grace, you should certainly ob- tain it J if you do not, you arc inexcusable. Q 242 DEFENCE OF THE Deh. Oh, Sir, what an idle exhortation is that? For, tell me, I beseech you, is it not the prayer of faith which only prevaileth with God ? Ibid, Calv. Right. It is so. Deb. And is not faith the effect of his irresistible grace ? Ibid. Calv. True. Of his insuperable grace it is : For, as for these terms of resistible and irresistible^ they were first contrived or occasioned by the Arminians in this controversy. Deb. Well, then, if my prayer be acceptable, I have this grace, and it is needless to pray for what I have already. P. 138. Calv. That is a false inference : For faith, and every other grace, is both preserved and increased by prayer, and other means to be used by us ; though it is indeed needless to pray for the first gift of faith, after I am sure that I have it, which I suppose you are hot. Deb. Well, then, if my prayer be not acceptable, why should I pray for what I am not to obtain ? Ibid. Calv. Poor sophistry. God commands you to pray, and that command makes it your duty ; and it is while people are in the way of their duty, that God ordinarily comes with his free grace ; whereas the neglect of it renders them certainly inexcusable. Up, then, and be doing. Break off your course of de- bauchery, which you are under no other necessity of continuing in, but what the habit of it has brought upon you ; and ply prayer with all your might, which you see you are obliged to do by virtue of God's authority j and assure yourself, that God will not condemn you for what you cannot^ but for what you mil not do. Observe these tilings, I say ; and I hope shortly to have a good account of you. And I hear- tily pray God it may be so. Adieu ! Thus I have allowed tlie Debauchee to argue with all the strength Mr Ilhind could furnish him with from the Presbyterian scheme. And upon the same PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 243 Bclieme I have answered him ; and I refer it to the reader, whether, if corruption do not prevail over principle, the Debauchee is not obliged, even by the Presbyterian principles, to mend his former lewd life, and in a hopeful way to make a good Christian (if he will be true to his principles), in spite of all his objections. Therefore, which was the thing to be proved, the Presbyterian doctrine concerning the efficacy of grace, is not destructive of Chris- tian Ijfe. And I have taken this pains, and been so large on this subject, that I might convince all Debauchees on the Presbyterian side, who yet, I hope, are not more numerous than those on the other, that their lewdness is not owing to their prin- ciples, but to their own vicious inclinations. And I pray God may bless what I have advanced for the re- claiming them. OF THE DOCTRINE OF PERSEVERANCE. In \hQ fourth place, The last Presbyterian doc- trine which Mr Rhind impugns, is that of perse- verance — that the saints cannot fall away totally, nor finally, from the estate of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and will be eternally saved. Now, too sad experience teaches, that even the saints may, through the temptations of Satan, and the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their pre- servation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time con- tinue therein ; whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and tlieir consciences wound- ed ; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. All this the Presbyte- rians acknowledge. * But that they should totally and finally fall away, the immutability of the de- cree of election flowing from the free and unchango* * Confess, of Faith, Chap. xvii. Sect. 5. (l2 244 DEFUNCE OF THE able love of God the flither ; the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them j and the nature of the covenant of grace, will not suf- fer us to believe. But Mr Rhind is of a contrary mind, and endea- vours to disprove this doctrine from four arguments. P. 138-148. I. * The exhortations to perseverance,' saith he, * the encouragements promised upon it, and the se- * vere threatenings in case of apostacy, do evident- ^ ly suppose the possibility of a fall.' I deny it ; they are only means appointed by God for their per. severance j and do in their own nature contribute to that end. * That cannot be,' saith Mr Rhind ; ' for that v/ere to contradict the Confession of Faith, ' which says, ' That the perseverance of the saints *' does not depend upon their own free will." Strong- ly argued ! Their perseverance does not depend up- on their own free will ; ergo, exhortations, encou- ragements, and threatenings, cannot contribute to determine and fix their will ! Our daily bread comes from God ; ergo, He cannot require our daily la- bour for gaining it ! God has infallibly promised, that the saints shall persevere ; ergo, he must not use rational means to make them do so ! Mr Rhind, it seems, must be incurably gone in the Logics. II. He argues from a text of Scripture, viz. Heb. vi. 5, 6. ' It is impossible for those who were ' once enlightened, and have tasted of the heaven- ^ ly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy ' Ghost, and of the powers of the world to come, * it" they shall fall away, to renew them again unto ' repentance.* ' These,' he alleges, p. 140, * are * epithets so peculiar to the truly faithful, that he ' challenges us to shew where any of them, much * less all together, are applied to any other in the ' Scriptures, and yet such might fall away.' A fair challenge. But then, very unhappily, there is not one of these epithets peculiar to the truly faithful. Not one of them but what is found to be applied to PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 245 wicked men or hypocrites ; yea, sometimes, they are all applied together to such. Plainly, the mean- ing of the text is, that such as have been convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, and have made public profession thereof by baptism, both which are included in the term enlightened ; and thereup- on have tasted of the heavenly gift ; that is, have not only been affected with a temporary joy, as peo- ple naturally are upon changes ; but also, which was very frequent in the Apostolic times, have been blessed with the extraordinary charismata^ miracles, tongues, gifts of healing, and the like, expressed in the text, by being made ' partakers of the Holy ' Ghost, and of the powers of the world to come j' if, saith the Apostle, such persons thus privileged shall afterwards apostatize to Paganism, their apos- tacy so hardens them, and lays waste their con- science in so dreadful a manner, that it is impossi- ble for them to return again by repentance ; nor ought they, as some say, be re-admitted to the peace of the Church. This is the sense of the text j but where is there any thing here peculiar to the truly faithful, any thing which notoriously wicked men or hypocrites have not been privileged with ? ' Balaam was enlightened ; he was the man whose * eyes were open, and who had a vision of the Al- ' mighty.' Numb, xxxiv. 3, 4. Simon Magus * be- ' lieved, and was baptized.' Acts, viii. 13. The stoney-ground hearers * received the word with joy, * and yet they had no root in themselves, and there- * fore endured but for a while.' Matth. xiii. 20, 21. And many will say to our Lord at the last day, ' Have * we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name ' cast out devils ? and in thy name done many won- * derful works ?' To whom our Lord, notwithstand- ing, will profess, not only that * He does not know * them,' but, that ' He never knew them.' \\\. He argues from exam[)lc, viz. the glorious angels who became incorrigible devils ; the inno- cent Adam, who became a child of wrath ; David, who was deliberately guilty of adultery and murder ; 246 DEFENCE OF THE Solomon, who was guilty of repeated adultery and idolatry ; Hymeneus and Alexander, who were guil- ty of apostacy and blasphemy. As for the two first examples, the Angels and Adam, they are impertinent. It is the perseverance of the saints under the covenant of grace which the Presbyterians affirm, and not of any creature in its natural state. It is true the best saints cannot pre- tend to equal either the angels or Adam in holi- ness ; but it is not upon the measure of holiness, but the immutability of God's decree, and such other grounds as I have already mentioned, that the per- severance of the saints depends. As for David and Solomon, Mr Rhind does not affirm that they fell finally away, and were damn- ed ; and therefore I need not stay to disprove that they were. The Presbyterians grant that their grace was not only impaired, but laid asleep for a time like live embers, raked up under the thick ashes, chok- ing both the light and the heat. But Mr Rhind avers it was totally lost. Let us consider on what grounds he avers this. First, As to David. — And here Mr Rhind falls into a couple of the most prodigious blunders I have readily heard. Take his words : ' If,* saith he, p. 142, * this commination, viz. * that murderers and " adulterers cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,* • be not false and delusory, David was, upon the ' commission of these sins, liable to damnation ; and * if so, he had certainly fallen from the state of grace ; ' seeing, according to our adversaries, none who are ' in that state can be thus liable.' Thus he. Now, First, Did ever the Presbyterians teach, that none who are in a state of grace can be liable to damna- tion ? So far from it, that they teach,that there is not one man, even in a state of grace, who is not liable to damnation. Secondlij, Is every one who is liable to damnation fallen from a^state of grace ? Why, then, the most righteous man on earth falls from a .state of grace every day : For he sinneth every day, and the least sin makes him liable to damnation,unless PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 247 Mr Rhind will distinguish sins into venial and mor- tal. He has another proof against David, viz. * That * having by his adultery become one with a harlot, * he must at that time have been disjoined from * Christ according to the Apostle's doctrine, 1. Cor. « vi. 15. ' know ye not that your bodies are the " members of Christ ?" But God is represented in Scripture as bearing the bowels of a father towards his people. Now, a father may have oft times cause to be angry with his son, and not only to frown upon him, but to chasten him. But to renounce the rela- tion of a father, and disinherit him, is the last thing he will do. So in this case, the thing that David had done displeased the Lord ; yet as God had a reserve of kindness for him, as appeared in the issue, so it is plain that David did not totally renounce God : And therefore, in his penitential psalm on that oc- casion, though he prayed indeed that God would re- store unto him the joy of his salvation, which in- timates that he was under the frownings of his coun- tenance, and tokens of his wrath, yet he does notpray that God would restore his Holy Spirit unto him, but that he would not take it from him, which is at once an acknowledgment of his justice, that he might do it ; and yet of his goodness, that he had not done it. As for Solomon, Mr Rhind aggravates his crimes at a mighty rate, and in the burlesque style ; and in- deed they were very great ; yet it does not become him, nor any man else, to be harder upon him than the Spirit of God in the Scriptures has been. The Scripture indeed says,* * that his heart wasnotper- * feet with the Lord his God, and that he went not ' fully after the Lord :' But no where does it in- sinuate that ever he fell quite off from him. Mr Rhind urges, ' that the j)lainest philosophy teacheth, * that two contrary habits cannot lodge at once in ' the same subject •,' and it is very true, that in the most intense degree they cannot : But all the piiilosophy that ever was heard of, teacheth, and ex- * I Kings, xi. 4-. 6. 248 DEFENCE OF THE perience convincetli, that in more remiss degrees they may ; and that this was Solomon's case, the forecited soft expressions of the Scripture allow us to believe. As for Hymeneus and Alexander, the Apostle in- deed says, 1. Tim. i. 19, 20, * that they had made * shipwreck concerning the faith,* that is, they had thrown off the Christian profession: But he does not say, that they had made shipwreck of the faith ; for indeed he never so much as insinuates that ever they had been endued with the genuine grace of faith. But, says Mr Rhind, Isty * how could it of- ' fend God, or harm them, to lose that which was * not the true and saving faith ?' It seems, then, that when a wicked man openly renounces Christ, it does not, by Mr Rhind's account, either offend God or harm himself. This is pretty strange doctrine. 2dii/, Saith he, ' why should they be delivered unto * Satan for renouncing the faith, if it was not that * genuine grace, when without tliis (according to * our adversaries) they were already in his clutches ? ' Strong sense ! A scandalously wicked man is in the clutches of Satan, why then should the Church, in case of his obstinacy, by excommunication, declare him to be so ? Is not this mighty judicious reason- ing ? 3dli/t Saith he, * it was the same faith which * Timothy is advised to hold in the 19th verse.' Right. It was the Christian faith, the profession whereof they had cast off: but how does it appear that ever they had been subjectively possessed of it ? 4thl^, He excepts, upon the 5th and 6th verses, where it is said, 2^^'*'^'--^ ' now the end of the commandment is charity, out * of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and * of faith unfeigned : from which some having swerv- * ed, have turned aside unto vain jangling.' But the original word ^<^7oxni «,**'" ^^V-C". In Luke's ^'^» '5,«<'i' TO y.nd' yifA'ie^xK In Matthew's Sipe? «^rv T«e o^c-iXi^f^XTci 'Yifiat, cii x.dt YtfAeii eitpkuiv ni; o^pUXiTcti; yi^UI. Ill Lukc S T<«j oi^u^Tioti itf/.m, K.ut yup ccvrol upkfAiv Ttuiri oipe-iXotii tiftiv. Jt is true, our Saviour probably did not sjieak in Greek. But when the Evangelists have varied so in their wording of it, it is plain that they did not under- stand our Saviour as meaning to bind them up to words and syllables. The like variation of phrase. PRESBYTEKTAN" WOUSIIIP. 279 •which I take notice of for the Engh'sh reader's sake, is observable in our translation. In Matthew's gospel we read, ' thy will be done in earth as it is in Hea- « ven.' In Luke's ' thy will be done, as in Heaven ^ so in earth.' In Matthew's ' give us this day our * daily bread.' In Luke's ' give us day by day our * daily bread,' and on the margin, * for the day-* In Matthew's * forgive us our debts, as we forgive * our debtors.' In Luke's ' forgive us our sins, for * we also forgive every one that is indebted to us/ And, which is strange enough, the English liturgy varies from both : For thus it has it, * forgive us ' our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass ^ against us ;' and in it generally the doxology ' for ' thine is the kingdom,' &c. is wanting. Now, after all this variety, is it to be thought that we are tied up to the form of words, or that the omission of them can be a fundamental defect ? In the third place, I ask Mr Rhind and his part}% if they are sure, even supposing it were a form, that the precept for using it was intended for public worship ? I do not now ask if it be lawful there, — that is granted. But that it was not originally in- tended for it, I conceive to be somewhat more than probable. \sty Because in all the public ministra- tions related in the New Testament we never find, it used. 2f//y, Because our Saviour took occasion, from discoursing on secret prayer, to prescribe and give the command for it. And Sdly^ The disciples did not then look upon themselves as ministers, nor ex- pected ever to be employed as officers in the church ; seeing, not only now, but even a long time after this, yea after Christ's resurrection, they still ima- gined that the Jewish polity was to continue, in which those of the family of Levi alone were by di- vine right church officers. Now, if it was not origi- nally intended for public worship, how can the omis- sion of it in public worship be a fundamental de- fect ? especially, when we are sure, that this, which I have given, was the sense which the primitive! church had of this matter. For thus Augustine ex- 280 DEFENCE OF THE pressly declares *, * that Christ, in the delivery oi' * these petitions, did not teach his disciples how * they should speak, or what words they should use * in prayer ; but to whom they were to pray, and * what things they were to pray for, when they were ' in the exercise of secret or mental prayer ?' In the fourth place, I ask how can the Episcopal party account for that sense which they have given of the precept? And how can they justify that hor- rid doctrine which they have founded it on ? In the Jirst place, They make the sense of the precept, * When ye pray,' say, to be, * when ye have done * with your own prayers, annex this.' This is such an insipid gloss, and so unheard-of among the an- cients, that I admire they are not ashamed of it. We are sure that the ancients either used it alone, or prefixed it to their prayers when they used it. Thus Tertullian,t after a large commendation of the Lord's Prayer, adds : — * We may add thereun- ' to; for since the Lord, the provider for all hu- * man necessities, has, in another place, after he ' had delivered this prayer, said, ' Ask, and ye " shall receive ;' and every one has particular cir- * cumstances to beg for ; therefore, having pre- * mised the lawful and ordinary prayer, there is * place for accidental requests.' Thus he. But whe- ther they prefixed it, or annexed it, they had no opi- nion of the fundamental necessity of doing so ; an infallible argum.ent of which is, that we find them • Augustin. de Magistro, cap. 1. Aug. Non te ergo movet Dominus sumnius Magister, cum orare doceret discipulos, verba quaedam docuit, in quo nihil aliud videtur i'ecisse, quam docuisse quomodo in orando loqui oporteret : Ad. Nihil me omnino istud movet ; non enim verba, sed res ipsas eos verbis docuit, quibus et se ipsi commone tacerent, a quo, quid esset orandum, cum in penetrahbus, ut dictum est, mentis orarent. Aug. recte inteU ligis. t Posse nos super adjicere. Quoniam tamen Dominus pros- pector Jiumanarum necessitarum seorsim post traditam orandi disciplinam, petite, inquil, et accipietis, et sunt quae petantur, pro circunistantia cuji.isque, proemissa Icgitima et ordinaria ora- tionc quasi lundanicnto, accidentiuui jus est desidcriorum. Jus est superstruendi. — De Orationc, p. 659. PRESBYTEIUAN WORSHIP. 281 fre(|ueiuly praying wiliiout tlie Lord's Prayer, either at tlic beginning or ending of their prayers. Thus, as Sir Peter King has already noted, * in the heavenly prayer of Polycarpus at the stake, the Loril's Prayer is neither at beginning nor ending. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus concludes his last Book of Paxlagogy, with a prayer, which neither ends nor begins with the Lord's Prayer ; and Origen, t prescrihing a method of prayer, speaks not a word of the Lord's Prayer ; but advises both to begin and end with doxology, or a giving praise to God. This they would never have done, had they believed that it was fundamentally necessary to join the Lord's Prayer with their own. With what reason, then, can our Scots Episcopalians make that the sense of the precept ? But then, 2dli/i The principle upon which they found this sense, is a most horrid one : For they assert, that the joining it with our own imperfect prayers, renders them acceptable before God ; as, on the other hand, the want of it makes them unaccei)table. This is plain from Mr llhind's words before cited. Now, what else is this but to turn that excellent prayer into an idolatrous charm, and to make the repetition of it supply the place of the merit and intercession of our Saviour ? I ask, now, whether the Presbyterians' omission of it, or the Episcopalians' usage of it, upon such a princi- ple, be the more accountable ? To conclude this matter : — It is true the Lord's Prayer was early used in the public assemblies of Christians. But it was not used more than once at one assembly ; not in prayers before or after ser- mon ; not at all in the Catechumen's office, but in the Eucharistical office ; and even there they did not apprehend that Christ enjoined them to use the words. And thus many others, X both of the Pro- * Enquiry into the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, Par. ii. p. 28. t Dc Orationc, Sect. 22. p. 134, 135. X Malclonat. in Matth. vi. 1). Non his ncccssario verbis, scJ hac aut simili scntcntia— nam non Apostolos orando his ipsis vcr- 282 DEFENCE OF THE testant and Roman communion, have understood it. So much for the exceptions against the matter of the prayers of the Presbyterians. Part of which excep- tions are manifestly false in fact, and all the rest of the things excepted against, justifiable, at least as lawful, and for the most part as duty. ARTICLE 11. Wherein Mr R hind's E:vception against the Manner of the Fresbyterians' Prayers is considered' From p. 156 to P' 177. Mr Rhind frequently affirms them to be highly imperfect in this respect. The only reason he gives is, that they are performed in the extemporary way, as he expresses it. For making this a high imper- fection, he, I. Insists upon the huge disadvantages of it. II. Essays by arguments to prove the excel- lency, if not the necessity, of the liturgic way. I. He insists upon the disadvantages of the ex- temporary way among the Presbyterians, which he lays out in three particulars. The first disadvantage is, ' That a man is dis- ' charged the use of all helps, and is desired to de- * pend only upon the motion of the spirit, p. 157. * The result of which is, that when one is not bless-* ' ed with the gift of prayer, lie is tempted to neglect * it altogether J or if he essay it once, and finds that bis usos fuisse Icgimus, aliis leglmus. Neque voluit Clin'stus, ut fjuotiescunque oraiiius, ista omnia, quss hac oratione continentur, peteremus, sed ut omnia, aut aliqiia, aut nihil certe his contra- riuni peterem. Casaubon. Exercit. 2S5. Christus vero non de predicatione Dei laudum agit, sed ut recte monet Augustinus, de mode concipiendi preces privatas. Jansen. in Luc. 11. Itaque ut disceremus in oratione, non tam de verbis, quam de rebus esse anxii, ac de spiritu orationis, diversis verbis orationem tradidit. Vide Cjarkson on Liturgies. PRESBYTERIAX WORSHIP. 283 * he cannot perform it to any tolerable purpose, he is ' discouraged from any further attempt ; and so * must continue in ignorance and irreligion ; the * obtaining of which among the generality of peo- ' pie/ saith he, ' is in a great measure owing to * the want of forms. Or if a person grossly ignor- * ant yet adventure to pray, his performance must * be crowded with flat impertinencies, substantial * nonsense and horrid blasphemies, ail which is un- ' avoidable in the extemporary way.' To this pur- pose he, p. 156, 1.57. Is it possible Mr Rhind could be 22 years among the Presbyterians, and not know that what he has laid down for the foundation of all this, is even a transparent falsehood. Was he not sensible that every one, that could open his eyes and read English, was in a capacity to convince him of the grossest calumny and slander? Do the Pres- byterians discharge the use of all helps in prayer, either to ministers or private Christians ? Was not the Directory for the public w-orship of God com- piled on purpose to give them both help and furni- ture ?* Is not every Minister therein exhorted to be careful to fin-nish both his heart and tongue with farther and other materials, as shall be needful upon all occasions ? Hath not the General Assembly given directions,! and suggested materials for private pray- er? Nay, do they not expressly recommend forms of prayer to the rude and weaker ? t What meant he then to say, that they are discharged the use of all helps ; and desired to de})end only upon the motion of the JSpirit ? Did he presume, that his party were given up to believe a lie ? With what confidence could he impute the stupid ignorance, and height of impiety, to the want of forms ? Does he not know, that in England, where there is no want of them, a brutal ignorance })revails among the vulgar, and impieties reign ; yet, I hope, un- * See Preface to the Directory. f See tlieni annexed to tlie Confess, of Faitli. Edinburgh, printed by James W'utson, J7:y at the Savoy conference) t ' that * great care may be taken to suppress those private * conceptions of prayer before and after sermon.' § Is not this to stint the spirit ? Are general peti- tions enough, as Mr Rhind would persuade us, p. 174, when we are called to be particular? If so, * Men'' moveat quippe, et Canlet si Naufragus assem Prutulerim? Canlas, cum Jr ad a te in trabe pictum Ex liumero partes. Veruni, 7iec node paratum Plorabit, qui me volet incurvasse quterela. F£KS. Sat. I. I. 88. •f" Sermon, Vol. IT. on F.ccles. v. 2. \ bee the Conference, j). o?* § ijee Second Dialogue on the Liturgy, p. 6, 7. 306 DEFENCE OF THE then I propose this prayer as sufficient for tlie whole : * Ahnighty and merciful God, we beg tliat ' thou may give us whatever thou knowest to be iie- * cessary arid convenient for us, through Jesus Christ * our Lord, Amen.' I will undertake, this prayer is as comprehensive, not only as any, but even as all the prayers of human composure in the liturgy : Yet, who would endure to be restricted to such a. general ? Yet, farther, when people are restricted to the liturgic way, not only necessary petitions are omitted, but they are oft-times forced upon petitions which are either absurd in themselves, or against which their conscience recoils, so they cannot put them up in faith. To give an instance or two, when the Prince of Orange landed in England, 1688, it was very well known the body of the Eng- lish clergy favoured his attempt, yet, for several months after, they not only were obliged in law, but actually did pray for King James, begging, in the words of the liturgy, that God would confound the devices of his enemies. Once more, when Prince George of Denmark, her Majesty^s husband, was dead, the clergy continued as formerly to pray for issue to her Majesty, till that clause of the liturgy was discharged by an order of the Council. This is no secret, for we had it in the public news prints. "Were these petitions either reasonable or decent ? I hope by this time Mr Rhind understands what the Presbyterians mean, when they say, the spirit is stinted by forms. SiJilij, He objects, p. 174, that ^ if the preparing the substance of a prayer does * stint the spirit, then are they who are obliged to ' follow the Westmiinster Directory, no less guilty * than they who use the liturgy of the Church of * England/ It is answered : No man is obliged to follow the Westminster Directory so closely, but that he may leave out some of the petitions men- tioned in it, or insert others as in prudence he shall think meet. Thus itself directs, * We judge this to be * a convenient order, in the ordinary public prayers, ' yet so, as the minister may defer (as in prudence PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 307 * he shall think meet), some part of these petitions, * till after his sermon, or offer up to God some ' of the thanksgivings hereafter appointed in his * prayer before his sermon.' And as to the very words in the Directory, the minister is not at all re- stricted to them, but only to call upon the Lord to this effect. But Mr Rhind has resolved to be throughout chimerical. Lastly^ He objects, p. 176, * that all public prayers are unavoidable forms to the * congregation, and, therefore, stint the spirit as * much as any liturgy in the world.' Senseless stuff! The people meet in the congregation, not to offer up their own separate prayers, but to join with the minister, who is their mouth to God in prayer, as he is God's mouth to them in preaching. There is, then, nothing required of them, in that case, but fervency and sincerity in joining with the petitions that are put up for them ; nor does the spirit operate other- wise, in that case, than to help them to such sinceri- ty and fervency, not at all to suggest to them prayers of their own, distinct from the public prayers. Thus, now, I have gone through Mr Ilhind's argu- ments, which, thougTi contemptible in the last de- gree, yet are not only the best, but, indeed, the whole of what the party have to offer. They are either ig- norant of, or wilfully mistake the Presbyterian prin- ciples concerning prayer, and then, instead of dis- puting against them, they dispute against their own frantic notions. They still dispute, as we heard Mr Rhind doing, against the infallible inspiration of the spirit in prayer. But such as cannot conceive how one may be assisted by the S])irit either in pray- er, or, indeed, in any holy exercise, without being under his infallible conduct, so as to be kept alto- gether from error of imperfection, such, I say, who cannot conceive this, are beyond arguing with, and should be left to themselves. That every good man is actuated by the spirit of God, is the common belief of the whole Christian world. But if any man should deny this, and allege that it would follow thence, that every good man were perfect and infallible, u2 308 DEFENCE OF THE what else should people do but pity and pray for the foolish objeclor? How often does the Church of England herself pray for inspiration ? Thus, in the Collect before the communion, « Cleanse the * thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of * Thy holy Spirit.' Thus, in the Collect on the fifth Sunday alter Easter, * Grant to us, thy humble ser- * vants, that by Thy holy inspiration we may think * those things that be good.* Thus, in the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant,- — * Beseeching Thee to inspire continually the univer- ' sal church with the spirit of truth.' Does any body think that those prayers import an infallible guidance and assistance ? As little do the Presby- terians mean, that they are under an infallible con- duct, when they say their prayers are inspired. But our Scotch Episcopal Clergy neither know the Scrip- tures, nor, indeed, the English Liturgy, which they are so fond of. Let them tell us in what sense they understand what is said in the preamble to the Liturgy, viz. ' That by an uniform agreement * it was concluded on by the aid of the Hohj Ghost/ and then we shall easily explain to them how our prayers are inspired. I shall conclude my defence of conceived prayer (which I have hitherto called extemporary, only in compliance with Mr Rhind's phrase), with^the words of Bishop Wilkins, who at once shews the meanness of Mr lihind's objections, and reproves the pro- faneness of his spirit.* * But now, in the second place, for any one so to * sit down and satisfy himself with this book-prayer, * or some prescript form, as to go no farther, this * were still to remain in his infancy, and not to * grow up in his new nature : This would be, as if a * man who had once need of crutches, should always * afterwards make use of tliem, and so necessitate * himself to a continual impotence. It is the duty * of every Christian to grow and encrease in all the * Ubi Supra, p. 9, 10. TRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 309 ' parts of Christianity, as well gifts as graces ; to ' exercise and improve every iioly gift, and not to * stifle any of those abiHties wherewith God hath * endued them : Now, how can a man be said to ' live suitable unto these rules, who does not put ' forth himself in some attempts and endeavours of * this kind ? And then, besides, how can such a * man suit his desires unto several emergencies ? * What one says of counsel to be had from books, ' may be fitly applied to this prayer by book ; that ' it is commonly, of itself, something flat and dead, * floating, for the most part, too much in generalities, * and not particular enough for each several occa- ' sion. There is not that life and vigour in it to f engage the affections, as when it proceeds imme- * diately from the soul itself, and is the natural ex- * pression of those particulars whereof we are most * sensible. And if it be a fault not to strive and * labour after this gift, much more is it to jeer * and despise it by the name of extempore prayer, ' and praying by the spirit ; which expressions (as * they are frequently used by some men by way of * reproach), are, for the most part, a sign of a pro- * fane heart, and such as are altogether strangers * from the power and comfort of this duty.* Thus Bishop Wilkins. And had others, more nearly con- cerned, treated Mr Rhind with the same freedom, he had never published such a book ; so much to the scandal of religion, and the shame of the party he writes for. StCT. II. Wherein Mr Rhind's Objections against the Presbyterian Doctrine concerning the Sacraments, and his Exceptions against their Manner of Dispensing them^arc considered ; from p, ill to p. 185. BAPTISM. To begin with baptism. Concerning this, Mr Rhind asserts roundly, and without fsai Firsts That 310 DEFENCE OF THE baptism with water is indispensibly necessary, see- ing without it none can reasonably expect to be baptized with the spirit, or tliat they shall enter into the kingdom of God — nay, that, if God*s extraordi- nary mercy does not interpose, they shall be damned without it. Secondly, That the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that the inward grace does always accompany the outward mean, when it encounters with no renitency in the recipient. Having laid down these principles, he objects, \st. That the Presbyterians teach that baptism is of no efficacy. 2dlij, That they suffer children to die without it. 2>dl2jy That their Confession of Faith, whereof some doctrines are dubious and some impious and false, is the creed into which they baptize. 4//z/j/, That the genuine Presbyterians urge the obli- gation of the Solemn League and Covenant, and press it as a necessary condition of the child's ad- mission to baptism. As for his first assertion, that baptism with water is indispensibly necessary, it is directly Popish. The Presbyterians willingly grant that the contempt or wilful neglect of baptism is damnable — I mean in an adult person, or to the parent who neglects to procure it for his child. But that the mere want of it is damnable to the child, or to an adult person, when he cannot have it in an orderly way, that is, according to Christ's institution, this, I affirm, is a damnable error — an error which gives one the most unworthy notions of God, an error which hath been the fruitful mother of many others, and of the most scandalous practices. It is to this error the Umhus infantum owes its being — to this is owing the practice of lay baptism, by women as well as men, in the Church of England; yea by Jews, Turks, and Pagans, as well as by Christians, as is allowed in the Church of Rome. It is to this error these hasty baptisms are owing, where there is no profession by, no spon- sion for the party baptized ; than which there can hardly be a greater scandal on the Christian religion ; for it exposes that holy mystery to the same re- PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 311 proaches wherewith the heathen lustrations were so justly loaded.* But I need not insist on this. The excellent Forbes a Corse, before cited, has suf- ficiently exposed that execrable doctrine, at large, in six chapters.! The Church of Rome has found it too hard for her to answer him on that head. But, indeed, there is nothing too hard for our mo- dern Episcopalians, who do all their business by as- sertion, proof being too great a drugery. Mr Rhind's second assertion is like unto the first. When the, Council of Trent decreed, 1: that the Sa- craments confer grace, N(m 'ponentlhus obicem, it gave scandal to all the world. For it turns these sacred ordinances into mere charms. Yet Mr Rhind has new vamped it, requiring nothing else but a non- renitency in the recipient ; whereas the Scripture expressly requires the positive qualifications of faith and repentance. Yea, the Scots Episcopal Liturgy supposes these qualifications even in infants. Thus, in the Catechism : « Q. What is i^e quired of persons to he baptized? * Ans. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin : and faith, whereby they stedflistly believe the promises of God, made to them in the sacrament. ' Q. Why then are infants baptized, zchen, by rea- son of their tender age, they cannot perform them ? « Ans, Yes : They do jJejform them by their sure- ties, who promise and vow them both, in their names : which, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform." Thus also it was in the English Liturgy : but af- ter the Restoration, they altered it, and dashed out the word perform in the beginning of the answer to the last question. And they had good reason to do • Omne ncfas, omnemque mali purgamine caumm Credebant nostri tollere posse Series. Grcccia principiutn maris Jidt : ilia nucentes Impia lustratos ponerejacla pittat. Ah nirniumjacdcs, qui tristia criminn ccedis Flumiiiea toUi posse pufniis aqua. — Ovid, Fast. Lib. II. f Instruct. Hist. Thcol. Lib. x. Cap. vi. — xi. i Can. vi. Dc Sacramentis in Gcncre. S12 DEFENCE OF THE SO : For a vicarious performance of faith and re* pentance is a pretty dark mysteiy. I am sure it would be nonsense in a Presbyterian ; and yet the alteration they have made, mends not the matter a whit. But that is not it we are at present concern- ed about : It is plain that the doctrine of non-reni- tency is a stranger to the Scriptures. But Mr Rliind was for brushing forward in his chat ; displease whom he will, he has the Church of Rome on his side. So much for his assertions. Next to his ob- jections. Firsts He objects, That the Presbyterians teach that baptism is of no efficacy, p. 178. What an- swer is to be given to this ? None so proper as that of the Psalmist ; * What shall be given unto thee ? * Or what shall be done unto thee, thou false * tongue ? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals * of juniper,* Psalm cxx. 3, 4. Hear the Presbyte- rians declare themselves in their Confession of Faith. * * The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that * moment of time wherein it is administered: yet, * notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, * the grace promised is not offi^red, but really exhi- ' bited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such * (whether of age, or infants) as that grace belongeth * unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, * in his appointed time.' The Presbyterians have no where declared that any baptised infants are damned : but to assert, as the English liturgy does,t * That children which are baptised, dying before they ^ commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved, is so far * from being certain by God's Word,* that I affirm there is not one tittle from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation to support it. God has his own way of dealing with infants, which we are sure is most just and holy. But it is secret to us. And therefore to determine, that all that die in that state unbaptized are damned, and that all that are * Chap, xxvlli. sect. 6. + Penult Uuhrick in the office for public baptism of infant*. P/IESBYTERIAX WORSHIP. 3\3 baptized are undoubtedly saved, is very iiigli pie- sumption. It is a very usual thing among the Po- pish missionaries to baptize the infants of the native Indians clancularly, without the knowledge or con- sent of their parents, when they can find any secret occasion. Will any Protestant determine, that such of them thus baptized as die in their infant state, are therefore undoubtedly saved ? Must the absurd and unwarrantable action of a vagrant fellow con- clude God as to the disposal of his creatures ? This is such nonsensical doctrine as is fit only for the Church of Rome, which God has given up to delu- sions. Secondly^ He objects, ' That the Presbyterians * cruelly suffer wretched children to die without ' baptism, than which nothing can be more opposite * to the doctrine of Christ, who expressly says, John * iii. 5. That except a man be born of water and of * the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of * God.' Might not one have expected, that he would have adduced so many instances as might have made his charge presumably true, and justiried it so far, as that it might affect the body of the Presby- terians ? Nay, but he has not even offered at so much as one instance. It is very true, Presby<^eriau ministers will not baptize children in a hurry, nor content themselves with pronouncing the solemn words without a previous profession or sponsion. And in this both scripture and reason justify them. They are still ready to baptize children, when it is desired, in a regular and orderly way : but, when it cannot be done but in such a manner as represents baptism as a charm, and exposes the Christian mys- teries to the contempt and reproach of profane per- sons ; they do not think it lawful for them to dis- pense it, and herein they are justified by Bishop Hall, * who expressly says, * that as baptism is not * to be negligently deferred, so it is not to be su- * perstitiously hastened.' But, which is of much • Dcciid> V. Ep. if. 314 DEFENCE OF THE more import, they are very sure tliat, In such a case, the want ot' baptism is not prejudicial to the salva- tion of the child ; for it were most horrid to think, that a merciful God should damn infants for what was not their own fault in any respect. As for that text which Mr Ilhind insists on, ' Ex- ' cept a man be born,' &c. it is most ridiculously applied in this case. For that, as well as all scrip- ture declarations of the like nature, are calculated, not for infants, but for adult persons, and such as are come to the exercise of their reason. To such it is not only necessary (as it, is also to infants), that they be internally sanctified, but also that they make an outward profession of receiving baptism. For Christ will own none for his disciples that are asham- ed of him before men. Plainly, the import of that text may be easily gathered from the occasion of it- Nicodemus was a discreet person, and had a honour- able opinion of our Saviour, that he was a teacher come from God. But then he had come to Jesus by night, Avhich argued that he was timorous, and loath to profess publicly the inward sentiments of his soul. Wheretbre Christ knowing his weak side, and understanding the reason of his night visit, in- stantly, and at first dash, tells him the iiselessness of internal persuasion without an open profession; that it was necessary he should be born again (which is a phrase taken from the Jewish doctrine about proselytism), not only of the spirit by sanctification and the renewing of the inner man, but of water, too, by an open and undaunted profession before the world, of which baptism would be the badge and token, without v/hich latter he could not own him for his disciple, any more than without the for- mer. This is the plain sense of that text ; but what relation has this to infant baptism, which is not tbunded upon the text, nor indeed reasonably can be, but upon other scripture grounds which I need not now mention. And that the said text does not })rove the damnation of infants dying without bap- tisii), I shall pioduee the judgment of two bishops. rUESBYTEllIAN WOllSIllP. 315 Tlie first is of Hopkins, late Bishop of Londonderry, in his sermon upon it. Having narrated that com- ment upon it which Mr Rhind has given us, he adds, * but this opinion is unwarrantable, and contrary to ' tlie received judgment of the church in the pri- * mitive tinges, who, if they had thought the bap- * tismal regeneration was indispensibly necessary to ' salvation, woukl not certainly have stinted and ' confined the administration of it only to two times * of the year, Easter and Pentecost, thereby to bring * upon themselves the blood of their souls that ' should in that interim have died without ba})tism.* Thus he. The other is Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exe- ter, in hisjetter to the Lady Honoria Hay, just before cited on the margin. Throughout all that epistle, which I recommend to the reader's perusal, he dis- putes with the greatest force of reason against that opinion, of the damnation of infants dying without baptism, and in terms called it, * The hard sentence ' of a bloody religion.' All this doctrine of the damnation of infants dy- ing without baptism, is founded upon another false doctrine licked up by Mr Rhind, viz. That the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that the very act of baptism carries alvv^ays with it an inward rege- neration, and that none can have the spirit without or before baptism. This is plainly contrary to the whole tenor of the Scripture, and though it was too early entertained by some of the Fathers, yet it is certain it was not the received doctrine of the pri- mitive church ; as, besides many particular testimo- nies that might be adduced, will appear liom these three general considerations. Isty It was a very prevailing custom among them to delay their baptism till they were in ca'lre- mis. In some indeed this proceeded from a tinc- ture of the Novatian heresy : But others, for in- stance, Constantino the Great, who was no Nova- tian, delayed it upon other considerations. But now, if Christians had believed that they could not: have the spirit, nor be internally regenerated, nor be members of Christ or the children of God, till 516 DEFENCE OF THE tbey were made such in baptism, and that thej should certainly become such in baptism ; would all the world have been able to persuade them to delay it ? It is very hard to think so. 2dli/, The same appears from the history of the Catechumens. During that state they were pr")bntioneis, not only as to their knowledge, but likewise their piety and manners ; and were obliged, betbre they could be admitted to baptism, to givp moral evidence of the grace of God in their hearts ; in a word, to have every thing in Christianity, but the solemn investiture, which both confirmed what they had, and entitled them to further degrees. 3dh/f Thougii infant baptism was still allowed as lawful in the Catholic church, yet it did not uni^ versally obtain for several centuries ; so that, (if I am not much mistaken,) the necessity thereof was not asserted before the council of Carthage, in the year 418. Certainly, had Christians believed, that the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that we cannot be spirituallyregenerated without it, or before it, and that, in the very act of it, w^e are spiritually regenerated, they would never have omitted it- I do not adduce this to justify them in that omis- sion, but only thereby to shew that Mr Rhind*s doctrine was not the belief of the primitive church, as he without proof alleges. In a word, faith and repentance are pre-required to baptism in adult persons at least. If they can have faith and repentance, without the spirit and spiritual regeneration, which is not obtained (as they say) but in and by baptism, 1 do not see why they may not go to heaven, without the spirit or spiritual regeneration. For, 1 am sure, repentance towards God, and fiiith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is the sum of the gospel. But enough of this for this time. Thirdly, Mr Rhind objects, * That the Confession * of Faith, whereof some doctrines are dubious, * some impious and false, is the creed into which * the PreLshyterians baptize.' 1 answer, \st^ That however dubious, false and impious these doctrines PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. S17 are, yet I have already proved them to be the doc- trines of the Catholic Church of Christ. 2dli/^ It is false that the Confession of Faith is the creed in- to which they baptize. They baptize into the belief of the Scriptures of the Old and NewTestament, and on- ly declaratively assert their Confession of Faith to be agreeable thereto. Sdlij, Suppose they did baptize into their Confession of Faith ; why is that not as lawful as baptizing into the Apostle's creed ? Are they not both human composures ? Or does he dream that the Apostles themselves were the au- thors of it? But this only ad hominem. For my own part I assert, that it is unlawful to baptize into the belief of any human composure otherwise than as I have explained above. Lastlij, He objects, * That the genuine Presby- ' terians press the obligation of the solemn league * and covenant as a necessary condition of the * child's admission to baptism.' It is denied, and Mr Rhind is challenged to prove it. I affirm, far- ther, that there is no Presbyterian Minister in the nation who will refuse to baptize in the terms of the Directory, among which terms, there is not so much as mention of the solemn league and covenant. Mr llhind is challenged to disprove this if he can. So much for baptism. I proceed next to consider his objections, relat- iw^ to the other sacrament, viz. THE lord's SUrPER. As to this he objects upon, I. The infrequency of it among the Presbyterians. II. The indecency wherewith they celebrate it. III. The hard terms upon which they admit to it. IV. That it is in- deed no sacrament at all as dispensed by them. Of these in order. I. He objects upon the infrequency of the Lord's supper among the Presbyterians. In the Presbyte- rian communion, saitli he, p. 1»2, ' my lot might fall * in a place where the Holy Eucharist would not be * administered once in a dozen of years.' For an- 318 DEFENCE OF THE swer, Isf, Has lie given Instance of any siicli place ? No, not so much as one. 2dlj/, Su})pose he had gi- ven one, two, tliree, iKiy even a score of instances, were the constitution to be charged with that? Tliere are, no doubt, careless ministers among the Presbyterians, as well as in other communions, but none but a mean malieious soul will load the wliole body with the defects of a few. 3dlj/, Was the Episco- ]>al Clerg)', during their reign before the Revolution, Jess guilty than the Presbyterians are ? I am content it be put to a trial'through the nation. And, to be- gin the work ; within the Presbytery of Dumbarton, where I serve, there are seventeen parishes. I af- firm, that in these seventeen parishes taken com- plexly, the better to mend the worse, the commu- nion has been celebrated three times oftener within these dozen years last bypast, than it was during the whole twenty-eight years under the Episcopal reign before the Revolution, ^thh/. Is the Church of England, to which Mr Rhind is gone over, inno- cent in this particular ? Hear Dr Wetenhall, late Bishop of Kilmore, in his book, entitled, * Due fre- ' quency of the Lord's Supper,' dedicated to her Majesty, and printed at Edinburgh, 170G. ' Amongst ' the laws of our church (saith he in his Dedica- ' tion), as there is none perhaps more excellent and ' truly Christian, than those touching the Lord's * Supper ; so it is hard to assign a7ii/ more neglected ' than the rubricks whicli enjoin due frequency of * it ; and the neglect is not only in country 'parhhes, * but even in some greater chircltes.' Thus the Bishop. Why then would Mr Rhind leap out of the frying-pan into the lire ? Why would he charge the Presbyterians with that whereof his brethren, both in Scotland and England, have been so notori- ously gnilty ? But an impudent way of writing is become the characteristic of the modern Episcopal authors. IL He objects upon the indecency v/herewith the Lord's Supper is celebrated among tlie Presbyte- rians. Wherein lies this indecencv ? ' Whv,' saith IKESBYTERIAN WORSIIIF. 319 he, p. 182, * the convocation has more of tlie con- * fusion of a fair, than of the order and decency of * a rehgious assembly. And how can it otherwise * be, when they not only allow, but encourage, on * these occasions, such rendezvouses of the promis- * cuous rabble, who desert their own churches, to ' the great hindrance of their devotion, who com- * municate, and scandal too, when they see so many ' professed Christians neglect their Lord's express * command of keeping up the memorial of his death * and passion for them.* For answer, 15/, It is true, communicants have been very numerous among the Presbyterians ever since the revolution. Not only the inhabitants of the parish in which the communion is celebrated, but many from the neighbouring parish- es, attested by their respective ministers, have usual- ly joined in it; but is the numerousness of communi- cants either a fault or an indecency ? So far from it, that could the whole Christian church communicate at once, it would be so much the more of the nature of a communion, and tend so much the more to the lionour of our blessed Saviour. But this objection of Mr llhind's proceeds from silliness, or, which is the same thing, from ens^y; because, during the Episco- pal CJovernment, in many places, the minister and his family, with the sexton and his, and perhaps two or three more, made up the whole communicants. 2f////, It is true, likewise, that there are many others prescntoft-times besides those thatcommunicate. But where is the harm of this ? Does it hinder the devo- tion of the communicants, that others are looking on them ? Is it not ratlier an encouragement upon tliem to carry themselves with the more solemn gravity ? Or how can the presence of such as do not commimicate be a scandal to those that do? For thougli they do not communicate at that time, it cannot infer a neo-lect of our Lord's command, see- ing people are not at all times in a frame for com- municating. And when a minister comes to assist his neighbour minister in dispensing the commimion, is it either fault or scandal tor his people to follow 'LO BEPE'SCE OF THE him where they are furnished with sermon ? Is not this better than that they should loiter idly at homa all the Lord's day, which would be both a sin in them, and give scandal to others ? But this objec- tion of his was indeed too mean to have been noticed. I would only ask Mr Rhind, if there are not in- comparably greater indecencies in the way of the Cliurch or jLiigland, to which he has separated ? Is it possible there can be a greater scandal, than to see a known rake, notour for all manner of vice and lewdness, partaking of those holy mysteries, before he has given the least proof or evidence of his re- formation ? Yet this is every day seen in the church of England, and the priests cannot, dare not help it. 1 am not to allege this without proof : that were the Episcopal way of writing, which I do not envy. I shall give good and sufficient documents of it. Mr Bisset, a presbyter of the Church of England, has lately told us * * of a minister who was worried out * of his living, and life too, for denying the commu- * nion to a rake, before the chancellor had excom- * municated him.' Again, ' though the rubric re- * quire, that so many as intend to be partakers of * the holy communion shall signify their names unto * the curate, at least sometime the day before ;* yet (says the same author, p. 51.) * this is more than I * ever knew done. I am sure it is omitted in all or * most of the London churches.' Yet further he tells us, p. 54. ' that Dr F r was suspended for * denying the sacrament to such as only came to it * as a qualification to sell ale and brandy.' Lastly, He tells us, (ibid.) of a solution that was given to one (who doubted of coming to the communion), in these w ords, ' what damage is it to pledge the parson in a * cup of wine, supposing only the wine be good.* To ivlr Bisset, let us add the author of the Case of the iiegaie and Pontificate, who is known to be most vioiemly iiigh church. He roundly asserts, p. 17y, * Modem Fanatic, p. 4-S. PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 321 ' tliat an action lies against the minister who shall * refuse the sacrament, to them who, he knows, sees * and hears, in their conversation and principles, to ' be never so much unquahfied.' These are not Presbyterian allegeances, but true Episcopal history. III. He objects, p. 183, upon the hard terms on which the Presbyterians admit to the communion ill two particulars. The first, relating to the persons, the second to the posture. First, As to the persons. He alleges, * they will admit none who in the least ' favour tlie hierarchy and liturgy of the Church of * England, but excommunicate them with the vilest ' blasphemers and adulterers.* I ask him, does he know any of the favourers of the hierarchy and li- turgy who were ever denied the sacrament on that account ? Has he given any instance of this ? Not one. The Presbyterians debar none from commu- nion with them in the sacrament, whose principles and life do not debar them from the Christian com- munion. They do not look upon that holy ordi- nance as the distinguishing badge of a party or of any particular communion of Christians ; but as the common privilege of all the faithful. And therefore tliey usually fence the Lord's table in the words of the Scripture, 1 Cor. vi. 9, ' Know ye not that the * unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? ' Be not deceived : Neither fornicators, nor idola- * tors,' or some such like Scripture ; or by going through the ten commandments. If Mr llhind can name any Presbyterian ministers who do otherwise, I suppose the church will not think herself obliged to defend them. But, to exclude the impenitent breakers of any of the ten commandments from the privilege of gospel mysteries; to debar those from tile Lord's table, whom the Lord has, by the ex- press sentence of his word, debarred out of the king- dom of Heaven ; is, what every one, who is not quite lost in impiety, must own to be not only law- ful but a duty. This is sutticient to vindicate the Presbyterians : But who shall vindicate the Church of England con- 322 DEFEXC2 OF THE stitution ? Mr Rhind is the most unlucky man in the world. He has separated from the Presbyterians/ upon a chimerical imagination of the narrowness of their charity, that they admit none to the commu- nion, who in the least favour the hierarchy and li- turgy ; though, I suppose, there is no one living can bring an instance where ever they refused it, on that score, to any who desired it : And yet he has gone over to the Church of England, whose divines, I mean the high church party of them, have declared in the strongest terms, that they will not admit to it dissenters or Presbyterians, whom they, in their equally wise and charitable style, call notorious scliis- maticSi at the same time that they declare them to be without the church. This is plain from the repre- sentation made by the lower house of convocation to the archbishops and bishops in the month of De- cember 1704, which the reader may consult. And Mr Barclay, a teacher of the party, just come from London, has told his mind very honestly in this case. * 1 shall not,' says he, * * stick to say that I would * not admit a notorious schismatic to Catholic com- * munion, till he recanted his error, upon any con- * sideration of laws or statutes.' I do not think but Mr Barclay may be easy on that head : For, I sup- pose, these 7iotorious schismatics he speaks of will not give him much trouble that way. However, it is plain that high church has made the communion a badge of a party. Was not Mr Rhind, then, very well advised in ffoins; over to her ? Secondlij, As to the posture. Mr Rhind objects, * that the Presbyterians discharge that as idola- ' trous, which others think most expressive of their * inward devotion, and debar such from the com- * munion who would use it.' There is no doubt he means the posture of kneeling, which is enjoined both by the Scotch Episcopal and the English Litur- gies. And as to that, I here engage, that no one Presbyterian minister in the nation shall, on that account, refuse the communion to any person who * Persuasive to the Peoole of SrA^-^on^. p. ig-^. tUESBYTERIAN VVOKSHII\ 323 tan prove, or find any other to prove for him, either, 1st, That that posture was commanded by Christ. Or, 2nd/jj, That it was used by the Apostles when they cominunicated in Christ's presence. Or, 3^/y, That there is any hint of its usage in the New Testament. Or, 4////<7, That it was practised in the primitive church for the first five centuries at least after Christ. If none of these things can be prov- ed, as" 1 am sure none of them can, and which ievery writer on the Episcopal side, of any charac- ter, owns ; why should a church break her order to gratify people in their fancies, when it is con- fessed on all hands, that that posture of kneeling in the sacrament has been used to the most idolatrous purposes. But Mr Rhind alleges, * that such as ' are for that posture are ready to attest the ' Searcher of hearts, that their adoration is only * directed to one true and living God, and his Son • Jesus Christ, who is exalted at his Father's right • hand.' I answer : So is the Church of Rome ready to attest with the same solemnity, that when she worships before the picture of an old man, she does not worship the image, but God the Father by it. Yet who will excuse her from idolatry on that account ? And, which renders this business of kneeling still so much the more suspicious, the late vindicator of the fundamental charter of Presbytery is angry at the rubric o[ the liturgy, which explains the reason of kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and expressly says, p* 79, ' That neither hath the Church ' gained, nor can the liturgy be said to have been * made better by it.' But of this, and the dread- ful blunder in history he has committed to support this his opinion, the reader may perhaps hear more elsewhere. Yet farther, why may not Presbyte- rians confine ))eople to the table posture in the Sa- crament, wiiich the Episcopal divines themselves own was the posture used by the Disci})le3 in Christ's presence ; when the Church of England coniincs people to the posture of kneeling, loi which X 2 324 DEFENCE OF THE there is no warrant, and appoints * every minister to be suspended who wittingly gives the commu- nion to any that do not kneel. Some may perhaps think, that our Scotch Episcopalians are milder in that matter, and indeed the above mentioned Vin- dicator of the Fundam.ental Charter would have us 'beheve so. ' It is true,' saith he, p. 34, ' all com- ' municate in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, kneel- ^ ing ; but I know none, that would deny the Sa- ' crament to one, who could not without scruple ' take it in that posture.' This is spoken with a- bundance of gravity, but Vv'ith what integrity let the reader judge, when he considers, 1^4 That the rubric in the Scotch Episcopal liturgy is as strict for kneeling as the English liturgy. And, 2f//?/, the Scotch Episcopal canon, with respect to that pos- ture, is equally strict with the English, as may be seen, both in the canon itself, and in Clarendon's history. Does not this shew their spirit and prin- ciples, though they yield at present to gull unwary people ? Before I proceed to Mr Rhind's next objectiony there is one thing I cannot but take notice of. The Episcopal people have lately caused re-print the liturgy which was sent down for Scotland by King Charles I. and which began the troubles, anno 1637, and lam informed, that it is begun to be practised in some of their meeting-houses instead of the English liturgy. I think myself obliged in chari- ty to advertise people, t that that liturgy, in the office for the communion, is a great deal v/orse than the English, and is plainly calculated for beget- ting in people the belief of the corporeal presence. 1 shall at this time give three evidences of this. 1st, The English liturgy has a long rubric, declar- ing, that by the posture of kneeling no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received,: or unto any corporeal presence of Christ's natural » Canon XXVII. l603,- f N. B.. PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 3^ flesh and blood. The Scotch liturgy neither hath this declaration, nor any thing equivalent to it. 2dlij<, The English liturgy has a rubric, enjoining the minister at the saying these words in the consecration, ■* when he had given thanks he brake it,' to break the bread. The Scotch liturgy has no such rubric, nor any appointment for breaking the bread, any more than tiic Roman ritual has. Sdli/, The Eng- lish liturgy enjoins the minister to deliver the bread to the people in order, into their hands, all meekly kneeling; but the Scotch liturgy words it, all humbly kneeling, tliat we might know they intend adora- tion by that posture, though they have not told to what. I may possibly have occasion, sometime after this, to show, particularl}^, how much worse the Scotch liturgy is than the English. But I thought it needful to give these hints now, because the Episcopal clergy bear their people in hand, that it is upon the matter one and the same with the English. Particularly Mr Smart, one of their teachers at Edinburgh, in his short discouz'se after sermon, commending the service, told them, p. 8, * that there is no material difference between the ' Scotch and English books of common-prayer ; * and that they differ as little as the Scotch and *- English tongues.' The first of which assertions is false, as I have just now made out ; and the latter nonsense. For, so far as it follows the English in matter, it is the very same in words and phrase ; and no wonder, for every body knows it was of English birth, which perhaps made it take so ill with the Scotch air. But enough for Mr Smart, whose name and pamphlet are so very ill-suited, and whose character seems to be the very reverse of the Apostle's precept, • being in understanding a child, * hovvbeit in malice he is a man.' IV. Mr Rhind objects, p. 184, That it is no Sa- crament at all, as dispensed by the Presbyterians. Pray why ? * There is,* saith he * no due appli- ' cation of the form to the matter.' Very strange ! They always read the words of institution, either 326 DEFENCE OF THE out of the Gospels or out of ]. Cor. xl. They bave still, after our Lord's example, a prayer, thanksgiv- ing or blessing of the bread and wine. Is not this a due application of the form to the matter? * No,' savs Mr Rhind ; * the form in the Sacrament of the * Lord's Supper, are the same words by which our ' Lord did at iirst constitute the Sacrament, viz. ' Take, eat, this is my body, do this in remem- * brance of me, and drink ye of this cup, for this is * my blood : Do this — as oft as ye drink it in re- * membrance of me,' Very weU. Do not the Pres- byterians use these words ? Are they not in the institution ? : ' Nay, but,' saith he, * if they be ' at all, they ought to be used in that prayer, by * which they intend to consecrate the elements ?' Is there any precept for this in the Scripture ? No. Any example there ? None. Any evidence for the practice, for at least four or five centuries after Christ, in the writings of the Fathers ? Not any. The first account we have of it, is in the books of the Sacraments,* which pass under the name of Ambrose, and are inserted among his works. But 1 hope Mr Rhind knows, that these books were not wrote till som6 ages after Ambrose's death. And if Mr Rhind's doctrine be true, the Church of England herself, for a long time after abolishing the Mass, had not the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For, that which is called the Prayer of Consecration, and in which the words, * take, eat, this is my body,' &c. are, was not in King Edward's first Liturgy ; but instantly after the prayer, * We do not presume,' &c. they pro- ceeded to the distribution. Nay, which is worst of all, we are assured, from the infallible chair, that the Apostles used no other prayer of consecration but the Lord's Prayer.f And, 1 suppose every body knows that these words, * take, eat, this is my body,* are not in that prayer j and I think it is plain they * Lil). iv. Cap. V. f Gregor. Lib. 7- Ep. 63. Oratlonem autem Domlnicam id- circo mox post precera dicimus, quia mos Apostolorum fuit, u% ad ipsam solunamodo orationem oblationis hostiarn consccracent. PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 527 were never intended to stand, in that form, in any prayer. But now, to gratify Mr Rhind, let us suppose that these words should be in the prayer of con- secration, what follows ? * Why, there,* saith he, ' they are never once mentioned by the Presby- * terians, and too often ther« is nothing equivalent ' to supply the defect.' Did he ever consider what he said ? Did he ever regard whether it was true or filse ? Is not every minister directed,* upon that occasion, to pray, ' That God may sanctify the * elements, both of bread and wine, and so bless his ' own ordinance, that we may receive, by faith, the * body and blood of Jesus Christ cruciHed for us, .* and so to feed upon Him, that He may be one * with us, and we with him ; that He may live in us * and we in Him and to Him, who hath loved us * and given himself for us.* Is not here something equivalent to these words ? And can Mr Rhind name that minister who does not pray either thus or to the same purpose ? But proving was none of his business, all he had to do was to assert. I doubt not but, after all this, the reader will think it strange that Mr Rhind should have men- tioned such an objection. But the case is plain, as he was avowedly popish on the other sacrament, so is he upon this ; and would insinuate upon people the very rational doctrine of transubstantiation, to be effected by the pronouncing of these particular xvords. And Bellarmine led the way to him,t so that lie has, indeed, a man of a very considerable name for his master. Thus, now, I have gone through the Episcopal objections against th6 Presbyterian worship, both as to prayers and sacraments. And I hope I have made it plain that there is not any one of the things objected against but what (so far as the objection is true) is so far from being a ground of separation, * Sec the Directory, f De Sacram. Eucharist, Cap, xii. xiii. S28 DKFENCi: 01' THE that it IS highly justifiable. But, then, I must ask Mr Rhind, why, as he has given us the grounds of his separating from the Presbyterian worship, he has not also answered the other halt' of the title of his book, and justified the known objections against the worship of that church whose communion he pre- tends to have embraced. I have hinted at several of them as I came along; and they may be found more at length in some small tracts lately published.* Was there nothing in the Liturgy that he startled at ? I observe the above-cited Mr Smart, p. 9, with much assurance, bids his audience ' read it all over, * and among all the prayers that are in it, see if there * be any prayer for the dead^any worshipping of ima- * ges — any praying to saints and angels.' I do not say that there are any prayers for the dead in it, but the famous author of * The Case Stated,' express- ly says, p. 1 89, there are, and proves it from the order * for the burial of the dead,' and from the prayer for the church militant in the communion office. I do not say that there is any worshipping of images in it. But I say, that many of the Common Prayer-Books are filled with such pictures as are conc^emned by the Homilies of the Church of England, yea, and by the High Church divines themselves j witness the last cited author, (supposed to be Dr Lesley), who, in his conversation with the Roman Catholic nobleman, tells him, p. 1 35, * We abstain from the pictures or * images of the saints in our churches, because they * have been abused to superstition, and to avoid * ofience.' Now, if they are unlawful in churches, liow is it possible they can be lawful in books ap- pointed for the church service ? That same author, likewise, in the same place, approves of the zeal of Epiphanius, who finding a linen cloth hung up in a church door, (it is likely to keep out the wind), whereon was a picture of Christ or of some saint, tore it and ordered a dead corpse to be buried in it, * JSee the Dialogues between the Curate and the Country- mnu, &c. PilESUYTEUlAX WORSHIP. 329 aiul lamented tlie superstition he saw coming by these pictures and images, then beginning to creep into the church. Yet in England, not only the Common-Prayer books, but even the Bible itself, is filled with pictures of Christ and the saints; witness the Bible, printed in London by Charles Bill, and the executrix of Thomas Newcomb, deceased, print- ers to the Queen's most excellent Majesty, 1708, many copies of which impression are stufi'ed with such pictures. Arc they more innocent in the Bible than upon a linen ciotii hanging in the church door ? Yea, which is most abominable, there are several obscene pictures among them, particularly that of Noah uncovered, Gen. ix; Lot and his two daughters. Gen. xix. ; David and Bathsheba, 2 Sain. xi. Finally, I do not say there is any praying to saints and an- gels in the Common-Prayer Book. But I do say, that the consecrating churches and days to them, and the appointing particular offices upon these days to their honour, is the likeliest thing to worshipping them that I can conceive. Besides, did Mr Rhind's nice and scrupulous conscience never bogle at the cere- monies of human invention ? If the church have power to institute such, she has certainly power to make a new Bible j for there is no such power given her in the old one ; or if tliere is, certainly Protes- tants have been much in the wrong to the Church of Rome. But I am not now to insist on these things. CHAP. V. WHEIIEIN MR RI1IND*S FOmiTII REASON FOR IIIS SEPA- RATINC: FROM THE PRESBY TERfANS, VIZ. THAT THEIR SPIRIT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE TO THAT OF THE GOSPEL, IS EXAMIHED. FROM P. 185 TO THE END. The meaning of this reason is, that Presbyterians ure incarnate devils : And the intendment of it is, 330 DEFENCE OF THE That all persons who re 1666. ' I pray that the Lord for Christ's sake z 354 DEFENCE OF THE *' may freely forgive me, as I have forgiven them'that ' have wronged me.* Ibid. p. 327. Thes3 are the rebellious martyrs recorded in Naphtali, who never expressed the forgiveness of the injuries they thought were done them. Re- bellious martyrs they were ; for, when stepping into eternity, they not only denied and disowned any act of rebellion, but spent their last breath in praying for the King, and in recommending loyalty to their survivors. These last words of theirs, which I have cited, are no doubt as good evidence of the Presby- terian malice, as their sufferings are of the Episco- pal mercy. I cannot but wish that the Episcopal au- thors would retain, at least, some relic of modesty, and not advance things, not only without all ground, but contrary also to the clearest and amplest testimo- ny. I am sure they cannot but be sensible how odious such a way of writing must needs make any party, that uses it, to God and all good men. They very frequently insist on this topic of for- giving enemies against the Presbyterians ; but it is in such a way as sufficiently discovers their meaning. I remember betwixt the year 1680 and 1688, there was no doctrine more frequently insisted on from the pulpits of Edinburgh, than that of forgivin gene- mies. In the mean time, the gibbet, to save ex- pences, was left standing in the open street, from one market day to another, for hanging the Whigs. People were mightily puzzled for a while to recon- cile the Episcopal preaching and practice together. At last the secret was found out, that the meaning was, that their enemies should forgive them : but then, that they should forgive their enemies was a different case. They must then take the sponge to their late books, in which they have so often libel- led the Presbyterians on this head, and wait till the memory of the late times is worn out, ere they can })ersuade people that their insisting on the for- giveness of enemies, is any other than most odi- ous affectation J just as when the inquisition turns niBSBYTElJIAN SPIRIT. S55 over a poor wretch to the secular arm, entreating, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to be tender to him j the meaning of which is, tliat Secular Arm must burn the poor creature quick, on pain of excommu- nication, and a worse turn besides. And is there any other proof needful to shew what a jest the Episcopal insisting on forgiveness of enemies is, than to read over Mr lihind's book, especially the latter part of it, which breathes pure unmixed malice for thirty pages together, and that too which makes it so much the more ridiculous, without the least sha- dow of truth or proof. If a man treat me harshly, however bitter the things may be he says against me, yet, if they are true, and he convinces me that they are so, I ought to bear with him, and it is my own fault if I do not profit by the reproof. But if he charges me with the worst things, without so much as offering to convince me, I contemn the ma- lice of the poor impudent thing, and cannot re- venge myself better than by suffering him to fry in his own grease, and to prey upon his own spleen. KOT AN UNCONVERSIBLE SPIRIT. VI. He charges the Presbyterians, p. 209, with an unconversible spirit, in that they value themselves upon the suUenness of their tempers. A very great fault truly. For certainly Ciuistianity is super- structed upon humanity, and the grace of God was intended not to destroy, but to improve and refine it. And the Apostle has expressly commanded us, 1 Peter iii. 8. ' Love as brethren ; be pitiful, be * courteous.' Nor does piety ever appear more charming anil engaging than when adorned with a good behaviour. But hov/ does Mr Ilhind prove liis charge ? Why, good reader, he does not so much as attempt this, nor has offered so much as one syllable for that purpose. Is it not, then, as easily denied as affirmed. And is not the defender, in all such odious cases, presumed to be innocent till the contrary is proved. It is true, our Saviour's ilesire (as Mr ilhind suggests) of doing good, car- z2 S56 DEFENCE OF THE ried him into the company of the men of loose, as well as regular lives^ and 1 believe all Presbyterians,, whether ministers or others, who are piously inclin- ed, are carried, by the same desire of doing good, into the company of men of loose lives, when there is the least hope that their doing so will not rather harden them in, than reclaim them from their loose- ness. But then, that they keep at a distance from them in their revels, study a preciseness of con- versation, and will not run with them to the same excess of riot, however strangely they may be thought of on that account : This they are so far from reckon- ing a fault, that they avow it, and are sorry there is not more ground for charging them with it. Mr Rhind may call them puritans on that score, or give them what other ill names he pleases : But then what comforts them is, that the Apostle Paul was just such another puritan ; and not only warrants them in, but obhges them to such preciseness and ab- straction, commanding them, 1 Cor. v. 11. 'With ' such persons not so much as to eat.' And, 2 Thessalonians iii. 14. ' To note such persons, and • have no company with them.' Our blessed Saviour was such a physician as was not in danger of catch- ing the disease from the patient. But when virtu- ous persons allow themselves to haunt bad company in their bottle conversation, I am afraid it too oftei> falls out, that they themselves are infected, and the vicious not reformed. However, whatever unconversibleness the Presby- terians may be guilty of, I suppose Mr Rhind might have kept at home, and reserved his lecture foe High-Church i Not that they are very nice in their practice ; for, I believe, the best that can be said of them, as to that, is, that they are (if I may use our country phrase) hut like ii^eighbour and other. But,, if the Church of England divines themselves may bs believed — MrBisset,for instance — the height of their principle makes them so much enemies to the rest of mankind, that neither Presbyterians nor evens Low-Church can walk the streets in safety, but are^ PUESBYTERIAM SPIRIT. 357 every moment in danger of being jostled into the kennel by High-Church. Tanlum religio pqtuit suadere Malorum 1 But it is not this or that man's particular testi- mony we need depend on. It is plain their prin- ciples obHge them to such hostility against the rest of" mankind ; for, were I of Mr Rhind's faith, and believed all the same ill things of the Presbyterians that he does, I would not only reckon it unlawful to converse with them, but I should think myself obliged in conscience to destroy them. If they are schismatics, heretics, and their spirit diametrically opposite to that of the gospel, he. what should men do, but treat them as mad dogs, knock them on the head, and rid the world of such nuisances ? NOT A DISLOYAL OR REBELLIOUS SPIRIT. VII. He charges them with a disloyal, rebellious .spirit, p. 210. I hope, every man ought not to be believed a rebel who has been at any time called one. I have observed before, p. 29, that Mr Dod- .well was proclaimed a rebel by King James, yet who, for all that, believes he was such ? Perhaps the Presbyterians will be found as innocent. Mr Ilhind founds his charge both upon their principles and practices. First, Upon their principles. But, had he thought that any part of his business, I suppose he would have found the proof of this a very hard task. The principles of a church are to be gathered from her TpuhVic formulas. And I appeal to every body who has read the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, if the first is not as loyal as the latter. But they are private authors, not public confessions that Mr Ilhind was to build on. And, for his purpose, he names, (for he cites nothing) Buchanan's Treatise de jure Regnif Rutherford's Le.v Rei\ Naphtali, and the Hind let Loose. * Which books,' saith he, p. 211, ' the Presbyterians have not to this day brand- S5S DEFENCE OF THE * ed with any public censure, though they haVe ' been often upbraided, and solemnly challenged to * condemn, otherwise to be counted abettors of * them.* The answer, I hope, will be pretty easy* The Presbyterians love to walk by example, and to give place to their betters. Mr Rhind certainly knows, that the Bishops and other clergy of the Church of England, have published at least a hun- dred books and pamphlets with the same principles and schemes of government as are in Buchanan, Kutherford, &c. Let the convocation once con- demn these, and begin with the Bishop of Sarum, Dr Higden, and MrHoadley; and then possibly the General x'^ssembly may write after their copy. It is certain the Presbyterians maintain no other principles of government, than what the Church of England has practised — no other principles than these upon which she, with the assistance of her good neighbours, preserved the Protestant religion in 1688. I am not ibr prying into the power of princes, remembering to have read somewhere, Pe- riculi plenum est de Us disputore qui possunt ampu- tare, de iis scrihere qui 2^ossunt proscribere ; but I think the principles of our Scots Episcopalians are beyond the power of all natural understanding to ac- count for. Claudius and Nero, who reigned succes- sively in the time of writing the New Testament, "Were both usurpers and tyrants, had neither heredi- tary nor parliamentary right ; yet both the apostles Peter and Paul enjoined subjection to them, and commanded prayers for them. Pier present Ma- jesty has both the fullest and clearest right any prince possibly can have. She has exercised it in the most obliging manner, particularly with respect to them. Now ihat, notwitli standing all this, they should have so long refused to pray for her, and that most of them should do so still ; this I affirm is unaccountable in point both of duty and gratitude. Nor have the actings of High Church of England been more accountable, as 1 hope we shall hear af- terwards. PRESBYTEIUJk.N SPIRIT. 359 * 'Secondly, He ciiarges us with disloyal practices. ' They were no sooner hatched,' saith he, p. 212, * than they rebelled.' Sweet Popery ! What a charming thing art thou ; wlicn even Protestants, nay, those that will needs be the only Christians among them, affirm that a reformation from thee was rebellion ? But let us hear his instances of their rebellion ? 7 5/, PI» begins where the reformation began, viz. at Queen Mary's reign, ' whose reputation,' saith h=e, * they blackened, whose authority and govern- * ment they resisted and reviled, whose person they ' imprisoned, and whom they obliged to fiy, in * hopes.t^o save that liie which she cruelly lost.' Thus he. Every body must needs own, that of all others, the Episcopal writers are the nimblest dis- putants. When we dispute with them about the government of the Church in Queen Mary's days, by no means will they allow that it was Presbyte- rian. No. Superintendents were the same thing with bishops.* Well, be it so. And let us dis- pute a little about loyalty in the government of the state. How came it, that under an Episcopacy, Queen Mary was so ill treated ? Oh, now the case al- ters, the whole government was then in the hands of the Presbyterians. Rebellion was the verj egg out of which they were hatched i Q,tio teneam vultus muiantem protea nodo ? But let us suppose the Presbyterians had then the government, — what did they ? * Why, first,' saith he, * they blackened her reputation.* For ansv/er, I ask, ha^ Archbishop Spottiswood whitened it? Does not he tell the story of Signior Davie much after the same way with Buchanan ? Does he not tell of the horrid abuse the King met with at Stir- ling — how he was neither admitted to be present at the baptism of his son, nor suffered to come to the feast ? How the foreign ambassadors were dis- charged to see or salute him, and such of the no- * See the Fundamental Charier of Presbytery, ^vith many o. ther authors, 360 DEFENCE OF THE bility as vouchsafed him a visit were frowned upon by the Court, and he at last dismissed with a dose of poi- son in his guts. Does he not expressly tell that the King was murdered by Bothwell and the Queen's domestics ? Does not all the world know, that her Majesty afterwards married the murderer, and that too, upon a divorce from the Lady Jean Gordon, his wife, obtained in the most scandalous manner ? Does not Spottiswood, I say, -relate all these things ? Was Spottiswood Presbyterian ? Nor is Spottiswood alone in the relation of them. For, not to mention other Scotch or English histo- rians, Ruggerius Tritonius, Abbot of Pignerol, who was a zealous papist, a hearty friend, t» Queen Mary, lived in the time, was secretary to Vincentius Laureus, Cardinal de Monte Regali, who was sent nuncio from the Pope to the Queen, for assisting her with his counsel in the extirpation of heresy, and was lying in Paris waiting for orders from the Queen to come over to Scotland, at the time when the King was murdered, and kept an exact correspondence with the Roman Catholics there : This author, I say, thus every way qualified for bearing witness in this case, expressly relates,* and that with the permission of his superiors, that when the nobility told her Majesty that they had taken up arms for bringing Bothwell to punishment for murdering the King, &c. her Majesty justified Bothwell, and told them he had done nothing without her consent. Did then the Presbyterians forge any of these things r But, 2dlj/, saith Mr Rhind, < they resisted and * reviled her authority and government,' that is to * Interrogati quanam de causa armati illiic accessissent, non alia, respondisse feruntur, nisi, ut atrocem injuriam a Bodueliio factum, ac crudelem et indij|nam regis necem, vimqueipsiniet, re- ginas illatam vindicarent. At regina noxam Boduelli purgare : Ni- hil non ipsa assentiente commissum. See Vila Vinceiiti Laurei S. R. E. Cardinalis Montis Eegaiis. Ruggerio Tritonio Pinaro- Ji Abbate Auctore. Impress Canonize, 4to, apud Heeredes Jolian- nis Kossji, Clj Jj IC fcjuperiorum Permissu, p. 19. 31. PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. SGI say, they would not allow her to restore popery, nor would they commit the young Prince to the custody of Bothwell, who had murdered his father. Were not these very unpardonable faults ? Yet farther, Sdly^ Queen Elizabeth took off* her head ; and no doubt she, and her council that ad- vised her to it, were staunch Presbyterians. So much for Queen Mary's reign. Secondly, In King James Vl.*s reign. Mr Rhind owns (which is very much from him) that in his days they did not break out into open rebellion. Why, then, they cannot havebeen so rebelliously disposed as he would represent them : For if they had, it is not quite improbable but they might have made their own terms of peace : ' But,' says Mr Rhind, ' they * occasioned vexations and disturbances to him j' that is to say, they protected him in his cradle, set the crown on his head, fought for him, and kept the country in greater peace, when he went to fetch home his queen, than it had been known to be in for many years before ; which he himself acknow- ledged, and gave public thanks to God for. It is true, they grudged the receiving bishops and the five articles of Perth ; which he would need press upon us, in order to a conformity with England. But I cannot think either England, or we, or the royal family, could have been much losers, though he had never fallen into that politic. Before I proceed to the next reign, I must beg leave for a short digression, which, 1 hope, the reader will the more easily excuse, that it is not so much from the subject as from the author ; and is intended to do justice to the memory of the dead, who are not in capacity to redress themselves. The matter is this : — The Right Honourable the Earl of Cromarty, very lately, viz. in May last, 1713, published a book bearing this title, — An Historical Account of the Conspiracies hy the Earls of Gonry, and Robert Lo- gan of Restalrig, against King James J I. Therein (preface, p. 8.) his Lordship writes thus : — 362 DEFENCE OF THE * As to the truth of my present subject, tlie * malicious designers against the Royal Family in * Scotland, did at first invent, and then foment, a ' most improbable falsehood, making it their busi- ' riess to suggest, that Gowry and his brother did * never conspire against the King ; but that the ' King did murder them botii. This was invented * and clandestinely propagated by Bruce, I-loUock, * Dury, Melville, and other Presbyterian ministers.' Thus his Lordship. It is hugely afflicting to the Presbyterians to find their forefathers represented, by a person of his Lordship's figure, under the odious character of * Malicious designers against the Royal Family.* What is usually advanced against them by the common herd of Episcopal writers they can securely contemn: For, why should that give them any concern, which their enemies blurt out without any care ? But such a charge from his Lordship cuts them to the heart, and would leave them inconsolable, were it not that (as kind Providence wx)uld have it), they find his Lordship's much weightier affairs have hurried him into some mistakes, which, they make no doubt, he will rectify upon advertisement j which I now humbly crave leave to give. In the^r.s^ place, as for Mr Rollock ; that he did neither invent nor clandestinely propagate such a story as his Lordship alleges, it is certain, by this token, that Mr Rollock was dead, and rotten too, before the conspiracy. Every one knows that Gowry's conspiracy fell out August 5th, 1600. But Mr Rollock died in the month of February 1598. Thus Clerk relates in his life: Thus Melchior Adams relates in his lives of foreisrn divines : Thus the manuscript Caldervvood, in the University library in Glasgow, relates. — Nay, thus Spottiswood relates in his history, p. 454. And thus, I presume, every body else relates that writes of Mr Rollock. For preventing mistakes, I must advertise the reader, that, as Spottiswood informs us, p. 456, the year among us used to begin at 25th March, till a PRESBYTEllIAN SPIRIT. 563 public ordinance was made, appointing that the be- ginning of the year 1600, and so on thenceforward, should be reckoned from the first of January as now. It is then no objection against what I have advanc- ed, though one find Mr Rollock writing books, or spoken of in history as living, in January or Febru- ary 1599. The different ways of computation quite remove that difficulty. And though historians differ about the day of the month on which he died, Spottis- Wood making it the last day of February, whereas all the rest whom I have seen, make it the 8th day of that month : yet, that is not of any import in this case : for, even by the lowest account, he was dead at least seventeen months before the conspiracy, and therefore could not, without a miracle, invent or propagate false stories concerning it. ^dly. His Lordship is in like mistake concerning Mr Dury. For he died, as Spottiswood also relates, p. 457, upon the last day of February 1600, that is to say, five months and five days before the conspi- racy, and so could not be guilty. These observes, concerning Rollock and Dury, the public owes not to me, but to that worthy per- son, and my very good friend Mr Matthew Crawford, minister at Inchinan, in the shire of Renfrew ; who, in an accidental conversation, first gave me notice of his Lordship's book, and that he had observed the said mistakes in it. Which observes, upon exa- mination, 1 found to be just- His Lordship is not only out as to his reckoning, but is mistaken also in the characters of the men : for, they were so far from being designers against the royal family ; that as Spottiswood relates in the places above cited, they spent their last breath, Rollock, in exhorting his brethren in the ministry, to carry dutifully towards the king ; and Dury, in advising them to comply with his majesty's designs for restoring prelacy. I do not in the least incline to aggravate these his Lordship's mistakes. So much the less, ,that I find it is usual with great men, when writing against the 364 DEFENCE OP THE Presbyterians, to fall into the like. The famous Mo.isieur Varillas very gravely tells it as a singulari- ty * concerning jBuchanan, that, * After having de- ' clared himself against his sovereign lady, so far as * to go into England to depose against her in the * criminal process then depending, he continued to * persecute her after she was beheaded. This,' saith he, * is a crime which they, who are most partial in * favour of Buchanan, must own he was guilty of.' And yet after all this, it is certain, that Buchanan "was not guilty of that crime, for this good reason, that he died some three or four years before the queen was beheaded. But there is a short and ob- vious apology to be made for such mistakes in Va- rillas or his Lordship, — aquila non capiat Muscas. To go on. 3dlij, As to Mr Melville. It is true he was in life at that time, yet I cannot find in any history that he was guilty of inventing, fomenting, or propagating such a story, or that he made any the least noise about that matter. His lordship therefore would oblige his country, if he would vouchsafe to give his authors. 4thlij, As to Mr Bruce. It is true, he refused to give public thanks for the king's deliverance from that conspiracy, declaring, as Spottiswood, p. 46, relates, ' that he would reverence his Majesty's re- * ports of that accident, but could not say he was * persuaded of the truth of it :* For which he was banished the king's dominions, and went into France. But this is a very different thing from what his Lord- ship charges him with. For, to suggest, 'that Gowry * and his brother did never conspire against the king, * but that the king did murder them both,' had been a crime ; because it was not possible certainly to know that ; and yet much less, to prove such a sug- gestion. But to declare, that he could not say that he was persuaded of the truth of the conspi» racy, which is all that the historians of that time * Preface to the 5th Tom. of the Ilistoire dc L'lleiesie. PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. S65 charge him with, was, at the worst, but a w^eakness ; it not being in a man's power to beUeve a story, but according to the impression which the grounds of it, and credibihty of its circumstances, make upon his mind. And no one knows better than his lordship, that there are several circumstances in tlie story of the conspiracy, which are not so perfectly clear, but that they require time to believe them : Though indeed, 1 think his majesty's testimony, with the presumption that the Earl and his brother were out of their wits, as his majesty, before the at- tempt, suspected the EarPs brother to be, is suffi- cient to determine the matter. For what may not mad men do? However it was, it does not appear that Mr Bruce was guilty of what his Lordship charges him with ; there being a very great odds betwixt contradicting a report, and being reverently silent about it. 5ihlj/i As for other Presbyterian ministers whom bis Lordship indefinitely involves in the same guilt, the accusation can be of no weight till his Lordship is pleased to name them. It is true the ministers of Edinburgh, viz. Mrs Walter Balcanqual, William Watson, James Balfour and John Hall, demurred at first to give thanks for the king's deliverance, upon this excuse, as Spottiswood, p. 461, informs us, that they were not acquainted with the particulars, nor how those things had fallen out. But how soon they were informed of the particulars of the con- spiracy, they complied. Now, implicit faith ha- ving been cried down, ever since the reformation, it seems hard to blame such a conduct : And it is no less hard to blame Presbyterian ministers for a fault which was common to so many others at that time : Spottiswood telling us that many doubted that there had been any such conspiracy. This may be sufficient for vindication of the Presbyterian minis- ters against his lordship's charge. I crave leave only to add two remarks more on his Lordship's book. I. His Lordship, p. 30, 31, has advanced a piece of history in these words :— * Upon the information S66 DEFENCE OP THE ' of Henderson, and other witnesses, Cranston and ' Craigengelt were pannelled before the Justiciary ' at St Johnston ; and upon clear testimonies, and * on their own confession at the bar (which they * also adhered to on the scaffold) they were both * executed : Only alleging that they did not know ' of the design to murder the king ; but that they * intended to force the king to make great repara- ' tions for the late Earl of Gowry's death ; and that * this Earl of Gowry was to be made a great man.' Thus his Lordship. But his Lordship has not thought fit to document this ; and Spottiswood, who lived in the time, has flatly contradicted it, in these words, p. 459 : ' An- * other of Gowry's servants, surnamed Craigengelt, * was some two days after apprehended, and both ' he and Mr Thomas Cranston executed at Perth ; ' though at their dying they declared that they knew * nothing of the Earl's purpose, and had only fol- ' lowed him, as being their master, into that room ; * where, if they had known the king to have been, ' they would have stood for him against their master ' and all others.' Thus Spottiswood. I do not, for all this, say, that the Earl of Cromarty is wrong j but if he is not, certainly the Archbishop is. U. His Lordship has also given us, in his book, a large and particular account of the process and trial of Robert Logan of Restalrig. No one will suspect his Lordship's exactness in the extracts of the docu- ments of that process, which he has produced. But though his Lordship's faithfulness is beyond ques- tion, yet the truth of the story itself is not. I shall give my reason why I say so. Spottiswood was at that time at man's age, — was Archbishop of Glasgow, — was one of his Majesty's privy-council, — was upon the scaffold, when Sprot, the notary, from whom that whole process flowed, was hanged ; and signs the account of Sprot's be- haviour on the scaffold, which we have, p. 115, of his Lordship's book : Spottiswood, I say, who was thus every way quaUfied to give judgment upon, and PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 367 a true narration of this process j yet, in his history, tells the story in such a manner, as would tempt any body shrewdly to suspect that the whole business was a fiction. For thus his words are, p. 509 : ' Whether or not I should mention the arraign- ' ment and execution of George Sprot, notary in Eye- ' mouth, who suffered at Edinburgh in the August ' preceding, I am doubtful : his confession, though * voluntary and constant, c^vrymg small probability. * This man had deponed, that he knew Robert Lo- * gan, of llestalrig, who was dead two years before, to * have been privy to Gowry's conspiracy, and that ' he understood so much by a letter that fell in his * hand, written by Restalrigto Gowry, bearing, that ' he would take part with him in the revenge of his * father's death, and that his best course should be * to bring the King by sea to Fascastle, where he * might be safely kept, till advertisement came from * those Vvith whom the Earl kept intelligence. It * seemed a very fiction^ and to be a mere hweniion ' of the man's own brain j for neither did he shew ' the letter, nor could any wise man think that Gow- * ry, \\\\o went about that treason so secretly, would * have communicated the matter with such a man ' as this Restalrig was known to be.* Thus far his Grace, who, as we are told in his life, had not only the use of all the registers, both of Church and .State, in Scotland, but of all letters of state that could any way concern the work he was about. And yet his account not only differs from his Lordship*s, but plainly contradicts it. It is certain, then, there must be a mistake somewhere, which I must leave to the reader to judge upon as he lists. I do not design by these two remarks to derogate in the least from the truth of the conspiracy. For, in the light wherein it now stands, I cannot conceive why any man should suspect it. The Earl of Gow- ry used the black art, wore magic spells in his gir- dle, which his Lordship himself was once master of, and has very well proved in his letter to his printer, prefixed to his book. What crime was not S68 DEFENCE OF THE such a person capable of? His brother's whole conduct ill the management of the conspiracy speaks him fran- tic. For, lit, That he should have shut up Henderson in the chamber,in order to perpetrate the murder, and yet not have told him before-hand that this was the de- sign. 2dli)y That after having held the whinger to the King's breast, he should have fallen a parleying with him, and gone down stairs to consult with the Earl his brother whether he should murder him or not. Zdly^ That he should have taken the King's promise not to open the window or cry out till he should re- turn. 4//^/?/, That when he had returned and sworn * by Go(i there is no remedy, you must die ;' he should have essayed to tie the king's hands with a garter, when, it is probable, he might have more easily dis- patched him without that ceremony. Could there be greater symptoms of a man distempered in his wits than these and a great many other circumstan- ces that might be added? Why then should we any longer doubt whether a man in compact, and his brotiier nun compoSy would attempt the greatest vil- lany ? But then, both the Earl and his brother had al- ways, till that very day, passed under the character of wise, sober and virtuous gentlemen — two youths of great hope, says Spottiswood, ' at whose hands * no man could have expected such an attempt.' Was it any wonder then, if Mr Bruce, and the other ministers of Edinburgh, who demurred a little, could not at first dash be persuaded, that they had all of a sudden become, the one of them a devil, the other distracted ? It is plain there was a difficulty here : And this is more than enough to vindicate the Pres- byterian ministers. Quod erat Faciendum, I go on with Mr Rhind, and proceed to consider his charge of rebellion. Thirdly, In King Charles I.'s time, I believe there is no wise man will undertake to justify all that was done on either side during those troubles. The only question is, who were the first authors of them, and A\ho gave the greatest cause of them ? PIlESJBYTlilllAN SPIlllT. 569 Was it the Scots Presbyterians ? My Lord Holies has assoilzied them. * It was proposed/ saith he,* * that our brethren of Scotland might be called in, * who were known to be a wise people, lovers of ' order, firm to the monarchy : Who had twice * before gone through the misfortune of taking up ' arms, and wisely had laid them down again j still * contenting themselves with that which was neces- * sary for their security, avoiding extremities. Their * wisdom and moderation, as was presumed, might * then have deUvered us from that| precipice of mi- * sery and confusion, into which our charioteers ' were hurrying us amain. But these men would * none of it at that time.' Thus his Lordship. Were not the Scots Prelates the first authors of those troubles ? Did they not raise the fire ? Yes. Gilbert Burnet has expressly loaded them with it. t It is true, that person has made a vigorous appear- ance these twenty or thirty years bygone against Po- pery,, and in behalf of the Protestant interest, which is a fault never to be forgiven, in this world, or in the next, if some mens doom hold. And, on that score, any testimony he could give now, since he was Bishop of Sarum, could be of no weight. But this testimony he gave, when he was plain Gilbert Burnet, and was as thorough-paced in the principles of passive obedience and non-resistance as ever Mr Dodwell was, or Mr Lesley is. Plainly he tells, * That the Scots Bishops, by reflecting on the Re- * formers ; commending the persons, and mollify- ' ing the opinions of Papists ; defending the Arnii- * nian tenets, advancing a liturgy without law j pro- * voking the nobility, by engrossing the King's fa- ' vour ; crying down the morahty of the Sabbath, * and profaning it by their practices ; making * themselves insupportable to the ministry by Simo- * naical })actions, and encroacliing upon their juris- * dictions, by relinquishing their dioceses, and med-. * IMemoirs, p. 1 1. f Mcr.'.oirs of the Home of Hamilton, p 2f>, .W, d-c. A a 310 DEFENCE OF THE * dling in all secular affairs, and by advising the * King to introduce innovations into the Church, * without consent of the Clergy. By these, and ' such like things/ saith he, ' the Scots Prelates ' raised that fire in the nation, which was not so ea- * sily extinguished.' Is there any other account to be brought from England ? No. Those of the greatest character, and most unshaken loyalty, have told the story as to that kingdom the very same way. I shall produce two of them for the pur})ose. The first is the Lord Falkland, in his speech before cited before the House of Commons, than which a more exact piece of eloquence, with such rigid truth, even ancient Kome herself cannot boast of. ' Mr Speaker/ saith he, ' He is a great stranger in Israel, who knows not ' that this kingdom hath long laboured under many ' and great oppressions, both in religion and liber- * ty. And his acquaintance here is not great, or * his ingenuity less, who doth not both know and ' acknowledge, that a great, if not a principal cause^ * of both these have been some Bishops, and their * adherents.' — The reader may peruse the rest at his leisure. To him, let us add my Lord Claren- don, an avowed enemy to the Presbyterians ; an author, who hardly ever allows himself to speak one good word of any Scotsman ; and who, even when he has the brightest charactersof our nation a-draw- ing, yet lays on the shadowing so thick, that the piece appears but a very indifferent one. Even this noble historian, I say, has expressly charged the troubles of those times upon the unaccountable and fiery measures of the 'Court and High Church party. * No less unjust projects of all kinds,' saith he,* * many ridiculous, many scandalous— all very grie- ' vous, were set on foot. The Council Chamber, * and Star Chamber, held for honourable that whicb * pleased, and for just that which profited; and be- ' ing the same persons, in several rooms, grew both * Hist. Rebell. B. i. p. 5't, 55. rRESBYTEIlIAN SPIRIT. 211 ' courts of law to determine right, and courts of re- ' venue, to bring in money to the Treasury. The * Council Table, by proclamation, enjoining to the * people what was not enjoined by the law, and pro- * hibiting wliat was not prohibited ; and the Star * Chamber, censuring the breach of those procla- * mations, by very large fines and imprisonment.' And, p. '223, That ' there were very few persons of ' quahty, who had not suffered, or been perplexed, * by the weight and fear of these judgments and * censures ; and that no man could hope to be longer ' free from the inquisition of that Court, than he * resolved to submit to extraordinary courses.' So much for the Court. Was High Church more innocent ? No ; on the contrary, she was the great spring of all. The same Lord Clarendon owns, * That * when Laud was made Archbishop, (which was in J 633,) it was a timeof great ease and tranquillity. The King had made liimself superior to all those difficulties he had to contend with, and was now reverenced by all his neighbours; the general temper and hu- mour of the kingdom little inclined to the Papist, and less to the Puritan. The Church was not re- pined at, nor the least inclination shewn to alter the government or discipline thereof, or to change the doctrine ; nor was there at that time any con- siderable number of persons, of any valuable con- dition throughout the kingdom, who did wish ei- ther. And the cause of so prodigious a change, in so few years after, was too visible from the ef- fects. The Archbishop's heart was set upon the advancement of the Church, &c. He never abat- ed any thing of his severity and rigour towards men of all conditions, or in the sharpness of his language and expressions ; and that he entertain- ed too much prejudice to some persons, as if they were enemies to the discipline of the Church, be- cause they concurred with Calvin in some doctri- A a 2 * Ubi supra, p. 61, 71. 372 DEFENCE OF TUK * nal points, when they ahhorred his discipline, and * reverenced the government of the Church, and * prayed for its peace with as much zeal and ferven- * cy as any in the kingdom, as they made manifest ' in their lives, and in their sufferings, with it, and * for it.' Thus he, and a great deal more to the same purpose, for which any body may consult the history itself. Say now, good reader, who were the first and greatest causes of the troubles in King Charles I.'s time ? But, says Mr Ilhind, ' They betrayed him into- * the hands of his enemies, when he had entrusted ' them with his sacred person.' Let us hear my Lord Holies upon this, p. 68. ' The wisdom of the * Scotish nation foresaw the inconveniences which * must have necessarily followed, had they been * positive at that time, how they had played their ' enemies game to their own ruin, and even ruin * to his majesty. Therefore they made for him the * best conditions they could, that is, for the safety * and honour of his person, and, to avoid great mis- * chief, were necessitated to leave him in England, * and so march away. Here then the very mouth * of iniquity was stopped ; malice itself had nothing * to say to give the least blemish to the faithfulness ' and reality of the kingdom of Scotland.' Thus he. Mr Ehind urges, that * they entered into the So^ ' lemn League and Covenant, and in pursuance of *■ the design thereof, brought matters to that pass, ' that the'king's death was unavoidable.' That the English sectarians intended the Solemn League lor nothing else but a decoy, I firmly believe. It is plain that they, with Cromwell their ring-leader, were as very villains as ever trode God's earth, since the days of Judas. But that the Scots entered into it upon the most sincere and laudable designs, the said Lord Holies has amply testified. And that it was not the Scots entering into, but the English breaking of that league, that was the cause of the king's death, is manifest as light. And therefore the PRESCTTUrilAN SPIRIT. S73 Scots justly reproached them with breach of cove- nant in all that they intended or acted against the king's person. Thus, in the paper of the 5th of July 1648, which was given in to the Speaker of the House of Com- mons, the Commissioners for the Kingdom of Scot- land declared, * that they would endeavour, that the rights and privileges of Parliament may be pre- served, that there be no change in the fundamen- tal government, and that there be no harm, inju- ry, or violence offered to his majesty's person, the very thought whereof the kingdom of Scotland hath always abhorred, as may appear by ail their proceedings and declarations. And the Houses of Parliament have often, upon several occasions, ex- pressed a detestation thereof in their declarations. Wherefore we do expect that there shall be no pro- ceeding against his person, which cannot but con- tinue and increase the great distractions of these kingdoms, and involve us in many difficulties, mi- series, and confusions.' Thus they. And accord- ing to this declaration they made their protest. Again, The Commissioners of the General Assembly, Ja- nuary 16, 1649, emitted their necessary and solemn testimony against the proceedings of the sectaries, wherein they have these words : ' If, after so many * public professions and solemn attestations to the * contrary, the foundation shall be razed, monarchy * be destroyed, and parliaments subverted by an * imaginary and pretended agreement of the people : * as it w'ould destroy the League and Covenant, and * cause the adversary to blaspheme and insult, so it * cannot but be the cause of many miseries and ca- * lamities unto these kingdoms.' Thus they. Once more. Upon the 18th of January, 1649, the estates of Parliament gave a return upon the said testimony, wherein we have these words : * Therefore the estates * of Parliament, after diligent enquiry at all the * members of this court, upon their public and so- * lemn oath, both concerning themselves and others, 374 DEFENCE OF THE * do declare, and can assure their brethren of Eng- ' land, that they cannot find tliat either this l