Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

'Difference in Church Government. Now, Sir, what if the Epifcopal Minifters (as juftly they may) fhall fay, that, they condemn'd the Prefbyterians for Separating from a Conftitution which was not Indifferent, but of Divine Right, and therefore, Neceffary? What is become of your Conclufion?

100. So fairly, Sir, and fo frequently have you difcovered that this is your Principle! But I am to learn, to what Purpofe. What thanks you may get for it from thofe of your own Party, I know not. I am apt to think you fhall have none from Us. This is certain, your caufe is by much the worfe for it. For, if no particular Form of Church Government is of Divine Right; If 'tis indifferent whether the Form be This, or That, or T'other, e. g. Epifcopal, Prefbyterian, or Independent. Then, How is it poffible to Juftify your Separation, Anno 1687? On fuch an Hypothefis, if ever there was a Sinful Separation, yours was one: For you feparated from a Church Epifcopally Conftituted; and your main pretext for feparating was that the Church was fo confttuted And yet according to the Hypothefis, Epifcopacy was moft Lawful; For, as I have prov'd, 'twas chofen and confented to by this National Church, and it had the Civil Lav on its fide; and it had been, for many years, the Government in poffeffion.

101. II. Your other Argument for fixing The Schifin on us, you have, p. 14. l. 20, . Tis, that Prefbyterian Government was

the

the Primitive Eftablishment, and Government of this Church, This the Epifcopal Party did firft leave, Therefore they are the Schifmaticks. Briefly, if you mean, that it was the Firft Eftablishment, at our Reformation, all the Records of thofe Times, as I have already fhewn, are againft you; If you mean that 'twas the Eftablishment when Chriftianity was firft Received in this Nation, I tell you plainly, yoti shall never be able to prove it. No man can tell when we were Converted, nor how our Church was at firft Conftituted. No competent Records, to prove either by, are Extant. Our own Hiftorians are all, by far, too late to be admitted for probative Witneffes of fuch an Antient Matter of Fact. Fordon, the Eldeft of them, Flourish'd not before the middle of the 14th Century, that is, more than a Thousand Years, after, Anno 203, to which Our Converfion is commonly Affign'd by our Writers. But not a Syllable about our being Chriftians, then, in any Author who wrote within 250 years after that time. St: Ferom in his Second Book against Fovinian written Anno 392, has a paffage which threwd ly imports that we were very great Strangers to Chriftianity for more than 150 years after the year 203. I have fubjoin'd it, but I will not Translate it. (1) Profper, who did not write before the year 455, is the earlieft Author that makes mention of Chriftian Scots. But then 'tis a Question

(1) Quid lequar de cæteris

Narionibus, cum ipfe adolefcentu lus in Gallia viderim Scotos, gentem Britannicam, humanis vesci whether

Carnibus & cum per
Sylvas procorum gre

ges & armentorum
pecudumq; reperiant,
Paftorum Nates &
Foeminarum papillas
folere abfcindere, &
has folas Ciborum de-
licias arbitrari. Sco-
torum Natio Uxores
proprias non habet;

whether thofe Chriftian Scots he mentions, and to whom, he fays, Pope Ce leftine fent Palladius to be their Bifhop An. 429, were British or Irish. This is certain and acknowledg'd by all Learned Men, that in that, and some follow

& quafi Platonis poli-ing Centuries, the Inhabi

tiam legerit, & Cato nis fectetur exemplum, nulla apud eos conjux propria eft. Hieronym. Adverf Fo vinian, Lib. 2. Cap. 6.

tants of Ireland were called Scoti, Scots. Bede, then who finifhed his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory no fooner than An. 731, is the firft I know of, who undoubtedly gives an account of our Chriftianity: But then he has not the leaft Infinuation of any Period of time wherein our Church was Govern'd without Bifhops. From him 'tis rather plain that we had Bifhops as early as we had a Formed Church. Befides, Sir,

.

[ocr errors]

102. Granting that you could prove that we had a Church without Bifhops, from the year 203 to the year 429 to which Profper, or till the year 444 to which Bede (and after him others) refers the coming of Palladius What the better is your Caufe for it? How will it follow that by receiving Bishops, we turn'd Schifmaticks? How can you prove that we were Oblig'd to adhere precifely to that firft Conftitution of our Church? What if during all the while the wanted Bifhops, her Conftitution was imperfect? And, if the

was

was fo conftituted, what better Argument can you demand for the Imperfection of her Conftitution, than that, all that time, and always fince the Apoftolick Times, the Government of all Churches whofe Conftitutions were own'd to be Perfect was undoubtedly Epifcopal.

103. Sir, let me afk you only one Question more, and I have done with thisArgument. How comes it to pafs,that thofe of your Party do always fo keenly contend,that this Church was, for more than two full Centuries, Govern'd without Bishops, for which they are not able to bring any tolerable Hiftorical Evidence; while in the mean time, they as keenly Reject the Apoftolical Inftitution, and the conftant Practice of Epifcopal Govern ment ever fince the Days of the Apoftles, for which there is as much and as Unquestionable Hiftorical Evidence as can be with'd, for attefting any Matter of Fact? I have often thought on this, and often admired it, I take it to be a Mystery: Pray Unriddle it to me.

104. Thus, Sir, I have fully fhewn that you have faid juft nothing in Juftification of your Separation from us; and fo, it was a Caufelefs One, that is, a Notorious Schifm. Indeed, 'tis impoffible to Juftify it. For, when you separated from us,

ios. I. We profefs'd the True Chriftian Faith, the fame Faith which the Catholick Church profeffed in the Days of the first four General Councils, we have neither fub

ftracte

ftracted One Article from it, nor added One Article to it. We had the best Rule in the World (and we had it from our Reformers) for finding out the true Faith; which was; Searching the Scriptures, and Understanding them as the Primitive. Church Understood them. To be fure, we had One Visible Ad vantage of you: We adhered to the Confeffion of the Faith of our Reformers, which you have deferted, and instead whereof, you have Efpous'd another, in many things, different from it; in fome, Oppofite to it.

106. I. We own'd but Two Chriftian Sacraments: And thefe two we had Adminiftred in as great Purity, and as exactly according to our Lord's Inftitution as you or any Party on Earth can pretend to.

107. III. We were fecure that we had Goyernours who had our Lord's Commiffion to Rule us, to difpenfe the Word to us, and to admit us to duly Confecrated Sacraments. In a word, we had Bithops, Bifhops Canonically and Validly Ordain'd by those who unqueftionably had Power to Ordain them, and Communicate true Epifcopal Power to them. Such Bifhops, as, in all Ages of the Church (till the two laft, divided Ages) were always judg'd neceffary to the Being of Particular Churches; as being by Divine Inftitution the Chief Governours of the Church of Chrift: Governours who had a full Commiffion from Chrift to perpétutate a Succeffion of Chief Rulers, and Ordain Subordinate Rulers for the regular Government of his

A

Church.

« EdellinenJatka »