to what we here assert be pleased to take notice that we meet with a Book printed in this very year 1658. Entituled A collection of Acts and Ordinances of general use made in the Parliament begun and held at Westminster the third day of November 1640. and since unto the adjournment of the Parliament begun and holden the 17th of Septem Anno 1656. and formerly published in print which are here printed at large with marginall notes or abreviated being a continuation of that Work from the end of Mr. Poltons Collection by Henry Scobell Esq Clerk of the Parliament examined by the Original Records and now printed by speciall Order of Parliament In this book as we finde the Ordinance for the Directory of Worship recited at large and likewise the Ordinance above mentioned for the abolishing of Archbishops and Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales so likewise we meet with the Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. establishing the form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland after advice had with the Assembly of Divines and this recited at large as will appear to any that will peruse that book And being the design of that book was to make a continuation of a Collection of Acts and Ordinances of generall use from the end of Mr. Poltons Collection as appears by the Title of it the Parliament that appointed this book to be printed by their speciall Order and Mr. Scobell the Clerk of the Parliament who collected these Acts and Ordinances and examined them by the originall Records were much mistaken in the putting forth this book that is also printed in a large black Character after the manner of the Statutes if no Ordinances of Parliament have in them any force to oblige the people of this Nation 3. We have onely one thing more to add sc that in the 16th Section of the Humble Advice and whereof we minded you in our Answer it is expresly provided that the Acts and Ordinances not contrary thereunto shall continue and remain in force Now that there is nothing in the form of Church Government contrary to any thing contained in the humble Advice we shall make out anon But thus we hope we have said that which may be sufficient for answer to your first exception against the Ordinances of Parliament for Church Government as not having the concurrent consent of the three Estates and to what you alledge out of the Lord Cooke As touching what you urge out of Judg Jenkins saying an Ordinance of both Houses is no Law of the Land by their own confession meaning the Parliament 1. part Coll. of Ordinances fol. 728 we cannot give that credit to his representation of the Parliament he having been an opposer of it as to conclude thence there is no force in any Ordinance of Parliament to oblige the people of this Nation considering that in some of their Ordinances they do as we have said expresly repeal former Acts of Parliament made by the concurrent consent of the three Estates and considering that if they have any where any expressions to that purpose they may be understood either of Ordinances of Parliament made in cases ordinary when the King had not withdrawn himfelf from it or concerning such as were of no long continuance but for the present emergency or of such as were but temporary and long since expired and which sort of Ordinances Mr. Scobell in his Preface to the Book above mentioned saith he collected not but onely such whereof there is or may be daily use as he there speaks We have now donewith your first exception against the Ordinances by us recited for the establishing Church Government and come to your second for admitting Ordinances of Parliament to have an obligatory force in them yet those that concern the establishment of the Presbyterian Government you would have to be repealed Indeed here you said something if you could bring forth any of those subsequent Acts that you speak of granting liberty to pious people in the Land that did repeal the Ordinances for Church Government either implicitly or expresly For we shall not deny that Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant but in this you fall short as in the former There is not any subsequent Act or Ordinance that we have seen or that you mention that grants any liberty to any which is denied in the form of Church Government The Act made 1650 for relief of Religious and peaceable people from the rigour of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion and which you will have to be an express repeal doth not make void the Ordinance which we actâ—on It onely repeals the poenall Statutes that imposed mulcts and punishments on the offenders against those Laws in their bodies or estates It doth not at all refer to the Ecclesiasticall censures nor so much as mention them as will be clear to him that will peruse it And so the Ordinance establishing the form of Church Government stands whole and entire and untoucht at all by this Act. But here we desire two things might be observed 1. That if this Act stood good against our proceedings repealing the Ordinances establishing the Presbyterian Government so as that the persons mentioned in it were thereby exempt from all Ecclesiasticall censure then it must needs much more stand good against all other sorts of persons that have no such Ordinance awarranting their proceedings and would be a barr in their way that they could not censure with Church censures any of their members 2. That being you in your Papers do fully declare your selves for Episcopacy and that the Acts granting some indulgence to some persons yet do still provide that the liberty granted by them should not be extended to Popery and Prelacy neither this nor any other Act for the relief of any pious or concientious Christians can with any colour be alledged by you to the purpose for which you urge them As touching the eleventh Section of the humble Advice to which you referre us we had throughly perused it and seriously weighed it before you minded us of it but we never did neither do we as yet see any contrariety betwixt it and the forme of Church Government established by Ordinance of Parliament We finde still as we told you in our answer though you here neither take notice thereof nor make any reply thereto that it seems clearly to own the Directory for worship and the forme of Church Government as the publique profession of the Nation for worship and Government as we also said in our answer there were the like expressions in the Government of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland as it was publikely declared at Westminster Decemb. 16. 1653. pag. 43. Sect. 37. And if you had pleased you might have found that whatever indulgence is granted to any in this Sect it is there expresly provided that that liberty be not extended to Popery and Prelacy And
the work and it is only in one way which is briefly this sc what exposition the Fathers unanimously give of any Text of Scripture that must be received and what exposiition cannot be backed with their concurrent testimony that is to be rejected and this ought to satisfie But unto this one answer doth serve the turn sc that your principle is unsound and very corrupt and which hath been already in our answer to this Section so fully evidenced that it is needless here to add any more And this for answer to what you present in this Section may be sufficient The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VII But now as to you and what followes say you and so go on mintaining your power of excommunication and the extent of it being as you pretend backt by the Authoritie of the civil Magistrate which Authoritie is taken off by severall subsequent Acts of Parliament and so your Church-Government and Church-censures are of no force upon any but such as are willingly and no longer then they are willingly subject thereto as we have shewed before The Civil Sword doth and can reach others your Ecclesiastical cannot The Act inflicts a civill punishment whether corporall or pecuniarie upon all lawless persons whether such as contemn Gods Laws or Mans and not a spirituall and therefore not censurable by you And this is a mistake of yours to think that notwithstanding the punishment inflicted upon the offender by the civill Magistrate you may for the same offence proceed to execute Church-censures also so a man may come to be punished twice for one offence which is against the Law and therefore in such Statutes as in 1 Mar. cap. 3. and 1 Eliz. cap. 12. where there is a punishment prescribed to be inflicted by the Civill Magistrate upon the transgressors of that Act and also another to be inflicted by the Church yet there is a speciall Proviso immediately follows That whatsoever person offending the premises shall for any the offences afore-recited receive punishment of the Ordinarie having testimoniall thereof under the said Ordinaries Seal shall not for the same offence eftsoon be convicted before the Justice nor in likewise receiving for the said offence punishment by the Justice he shall not receive for the said offence punishment of the Ordinary Now these latter Acts and Ordinances against drunkennesse swearing prophanation of the Sabbath c. enjoyning punishment by the Civill Magistrate only hath utterly taken off all power of excommunication And therefore our advice to you to complain to the Civill Magistrate of such lawlesse persons was not amiss because that Sword is sharper and longer then any you have or can pretend to The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. IF we went on to maintain our power of censuring the scandalous according to what as we told you both God and the civil Authority had entrusted us with it concerned you the more to have made good what you undertook But herein you have fallen short as we have sufficiently proved by what we have said in answer to the fourth Section of this Paper whereby also we doubt not but it will appear that we are backt by the Authority of the civil Magistrate and that this Authority is not taken off by any subsequent Acts of Parliament that you have instanced in and that therefore our Church Government and censures are still of force and that it doth not depend on the voluntariness of the members of our severall Congregations being subject thereunto but upon the Parliaments appointing them to this subjection that any persons within the bounds of this Association are subject to this Government 2. We do readily grant the Civil Sword doth and can reach as those offendors against the Laws of the Lands that submit to the Churches censures so also those that are unwilling to be subject thereunto But your Argument is very inconsequent when you would inferre that the Act or Acts of Parliament inflict a civil punishment whether corporall or pecuniary upon all lawless persons whether such as contemn Gods Laws or mans and not a spirituall therefore such offenders are not censurable by us For except there had been some late Act that had repealed the Ordinance of 1648 for Church Government that appoints the inflicting of spirituall censures such offendors as are justly censurable by that Ordinance are still censurable by us Neither do we yet see how it is our mistake to think that notwithstanding the punishment inflicted upon the offendor by the Civil Magistrate we may for the same offence proceed to execute Church censures also or that it is either sound Divinity or good Law that a man may not be punished twice for one offence which yet is the argument whereby you would prove us therein for to mistake Indeed we hold it not just that one and the same person should be punished twice for one and the same offence with one and the same kinde of punishment but that such offendors as are punishable by the civil Magistrate with civil punishments may be proceeded against by the Church with Church censures is manifest 1. From your own concessions You had granted in your first Paper that such as are scandalous and wicked in their lives were to be admonished both publikely and privately and that if notwithstanding they continue still in their scandalous courses and would not reform the Churches lawfull Pastors had power to excommunicate such And in your second Paper it was one of the Arguments you urged to bring us to a compliance with your Proposals there that by that means the lives and manners of dissolute persons might with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed or by due censures be corrected and amended But now you eat your own words and flatly contradict what there you had granted for now you say such offendors as are punishable by the civil Magisttate according to the Acts that inflict civil punishment are not censurable at all by the Churches lawfull Pastors nor by us since we have refused to comply with your Proposals for then a man may come to be punished twice for one offence 2. From the justice and equity that is in so doing considering the different nature of Civil punishments and Ecclesiasticall censures the one being only corporall or respecting the outward man the other being spirituall and respecting the soul And therefore seeing men consist not only of bodies but have souls also such as are offenders against the Laws both of God and men may and ought to be punished as with civil punishment appointed by the civl Magistrate to be inflicted on the outward man so also with Ecclesiasticall censures appointed by Jesus Christ to be inflicted on the soul in case of impenitency 3. This also further appears by the necessity and usefullness that there may be of this double punishment The Magistrate may have punished the offendor in his purse or body and yet he continue in an insensible and impenitent state in which respect
cause the Name and Truth of God to be blasphemed cannot stand with the power of godlinesse and such practises as in their own nature manifestly subvert that order unity and Peace which Christ hath established in his Church and particularly all those scandalous sins for which any Person is to be suspended from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper obstinately persisted in these being publiquely known to the just scandal of the Church The sentence of Excommunication may and ought to proceed according to the directions after following But the Persons that hold other Errours in Judgement about which learned and Godly men possibly may and do differ and which subvert not the faith nor are destructive to godliness or that be guilty of such sins of infirmity as are commonly found in the Children of God or being otherwise sound in the faith and holy in life and so not falling under censure by the former rules endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace and do yet out of conscience not come up to the observation of all those rules which are or shall be established by Authority for regulating the outward worship of God and Government of his Church The sentence of excommunication for these causes shall not be denounced against them These things this Classis taking into consideration together with the power they were betrusted with by God and Man for the dispensing the censures of the Church in the cases censurable by the rules here laid down and elsewhere in the form of Church Government And there having been in the Provinciall Assembly several debates touching such Persons as in the several Congregations were ignorant and scandalous who offered not themselves to the Sacrament nor to the Eldership in order to their admission to it and they commending it to the several Classical Presbyteries to be considered of whether some further course was not to be held for the information of the one and the reformation of the other then yet had been taken notwithstanding their neglect and what they judged fittest to be done for the attaining those ends and to represent their thoughts therein to the next Assembly This Classis upon the whole concluded to represent their apprehensions in the Case as is expressed in the Paper that was published which was approved of before by the Provincial Assembly and which they judge is sufficiently awarranted in regard of any thing therein contained by the rules expressed in the above-mentioned form of Church Government We having thus far shewed what we have been and are awarranted to practice by the several Ordinances above mentioned shall now proceed further to declare That however we are no Lawyers and therefore leave the determination of the Case to the learned in the Law to judge of to whom it belongs yet if it may be lawful for us to judge of a matter of this nature from the principles of reason It seems to us that the above mentioned Ordinances about Church Government as well as other Ordinances of Parliament are confirmed in the humble Advice assented unto by his Highnesse in the 16. section thereof where we finde these Words And that nothing contained in this Petition and Advice nor your Highnesse consent rhereunto shall be construed to extend to the repealing or making void of any Act or Ordinance which is not contrary hereunto or to the matters herein contained But that the said Acts and Ordinances not contrary hereunto shall continue and remain in force in such manner as if this present Petition and Advice had not at all been had or made or your Highnesse consent thereunto given Whence we gather that if in the several Ordinances for Church Government there be nothing contrary to the humble Advice or to the matters therein contained they are not thereby any more then any other Acts or Ordinances of Parliament repealed but left to remain in force At least there seems to us to be a plain intimation that they have a force in them which is not by this humble Advice repealed and made void For it doth not appear to us That there is any thing in the form of Church Government or any other Ordinances of Parliament about that matter that is contrary to the humble Advice or matters therein contained And whereas in the eleventh section there is mention made of some that differ in worship and discipline from the publique profession of these Nations held forth to whom some indulgence is granted It seems to us there is an acknowledgement and owning of what the late Parliament held forth in regard of these by the Directory for worship and form of Church Government which they passed as the publique profession of these Nations in regard of worship and discipline And in these apprehensions we are the more confirmed because here in this section mention is made of a confession of faith to be agreed on by his Highnesse and the Parliament there having nothing in that kind passed the late Parliament that established the Directory for worship and form of Church Government However there had been a Confession of faith drawn up by the late Assembly of Divines Whence it seemes to us clear that they own the Directory for worship and the form of Church Government to be that which they hold forth as the publique profession of the Nation for worship and Government To the same purpose we finde in the Government of the Common-wealth of England Scotland and Ireland c. As it was publiquely declared at Westminster Decemb. 16 1653. pag. 43. Sect. 37. Where also they expresse a worship and Discipline publiquely held forth which must needs referre to the Directory and form of Church Government by us recited There being no other worship or discipline that then had or now hath the civil Sanction in this Nation We have been large in what we have here represented in the general before we come to speak more particularly to the rest that now follows in your paper But our pains being the greater to make this full representation unto you then it will be for you to read it we must intreat you to excuse us considering it tends as well to rectifie your mistakes as to vindicate our selves being also desirous not to be mistaken any more as also because it layes a foundation for our briefer and more particular Answer unto what follows and to which these â—hings being thus premised we now come SECT V. IN the things wherein you professe your selves to dissent till further explicated and unfolded by us 1 The first thing we meet with here is That by the many Persons of all sorts that are members of Congregations and mentioned in our Paper in your sense thereof we seem to hint that thereby we mean onely such who have admitted themselves members of some Congregation within your association and yet live inordinately c. And that therefore you who never were any members or associates of ours are not within the verge and compasse
Brethren of one and the same Church and Fellowship And we know not what other Church you mean but the Church of England some of you that are the Subscribers of this Paper not being Members of the particular Church at Manchester nor any of you acknowledging or owning our Presbyterian Classicall Church or Association And therefore you here take us to be of the same Church of England with your selves and confess that we are in fellowship with it notwithstanding Episcopacy be taken away and which is that which we our selves do constantly profess 2. That that Episcopacy that was submitted to by the Ministers of this Land of later times was burthensome and grievous It spoyled the Pastors of that power which of right did belong unto them and which they did not onely anciently exercise as Doctor Vsher shews in his Reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church Pag. 3 4 5. but which also by the order of the Church of England as the same Author out of the Book of Ordination shews did belong unto them For he there saith By the Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received and that they might better understand what the Lord hath commanded them the Exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy-ghost hath made you Overseers to rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood All which power the Pastors were deprived of during the prevalency of Episcopacy the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven being taken out of their hands they having neither power to cast out of the Church the vilest of Offenders that were often kept in against their minds nor any power to restore into the Churches Communion such as had been never so unjustly excommunicated though of the best of their Flock And so that Episcopacy that formerly was submitted unto was a plain and manifest usurpation upon the Pastors Office and Authority was very oppressive and grievous unto the Church and injurious to her Communion and whereupon it will follow that there is no breach of that Union which ought to be maintained in the Church by not admitting of it again but rather the Churches peace the power that of right belongs unto the Pastors and the Priviledges of the Members are all better secured in the absence then in the presence of it 3. That however both godly Conformists as well as Nonconformists did groan under the burthensomness of it yet in licitis honest is they submitted and yielded Obedience to it whilst it continued established by the Laws of the Land And that out of respect to the peace of the Church although they did not thereby take themselves obliged to forbeare the use of any lawfull means for their deliverance from that bondage as opportunity was offered And hereupon they petitioned the Parliament of late for an abolition of it as had been formerly desired in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James as when other Laws have been found to be inconvenient and mischievous it was never accounted any disturbance of the civil peace to remonstrate the grievousness of such Laws to the Parliament that they might be abolished 4. Let it also be further weighed that that Episcopacy to which you would perswade us by this Argument to return is now abolished and taken away by the Authority of Parliament as appears by the Acts and Ordinances for that purpose See them cited in our Animadversions on your next Paper Sect. 4. And therefore both the Bishops as such and that Superiority which they challenged and exercised over the Ministers in this Land are dead in Law and so there can be no guilt of Schisme lying on the Ministers in this Land for not returning to that Canonicall Obedience that is not hereupon any longer due or for not submitting themselves to that power and jurisdiction that is extinct There is the greater strength in this consideration if it be observed 1. That whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops did exercise over Presbyters they did obtain onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church 2. That the Parliament did lawfully take away that Jurisdiction from them and had therein the concurrence of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines The first of these Propositions is clear upon this consideration that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter all one This is clear from Titus 1. Ver. 5. compared with the seventh whence it appears that those whom the Apostle had called Elders or Presbyters Ver. 5. he calls Bishops Ver. 7. And indeed otherwise he had reasoned very inconsequently when laying down the qualifications of Elders Ver. 6. he saith Ver. 7. For a Bishop c. For a Bishop must be blameless Whereunto may be added that other known place Act. 20. 17. compared with Ver. 28. For the Apostle saith to those Elders that the Holy-ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers of the Church Besides what Office the Bishops had that the Elders had Both are charged to feed the Flock of Christ Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 12. and which is both by Doctrine and Government The Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven were committed to them Mat. 16. 19. both the Key of Doctrine and the Key of Discipline The former is not denyed and for the other it is proved from 1 Thes 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 7 17 24. where we see they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are over them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule And for power to Ordain we may see its plain from 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is charged not to neglect the Gift that was in him which was given him by Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This Text you your selves tell us in your next Paper Sect. 5. is understood by the Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also Of the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests But from these several Texts thus urged it is very manifest that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter both one or one and the same order of Ministry And hereupon it follows that whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops exercised over Presbyters they had it not by Divine Right but obtained it onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church And thus the first Proposition is clear We now come to make good the second And that the Parliament did lawfully take away the Jurisdiction and whole Office of Diocesan Bishops
of them arise from your unacquaintedness with the rule we walk by Although we were not to be blamed for any mistakes that might arise ab ignorantia juris whether simple or affected that we determine not but leave yâ—u to judge Before we come to make answer more particularly to what follons we are willing to be at some pains to give you some farther account of the power we are awarranted by the civill Authority for to exercise To what Persons within our bounds it extends it self c. Much pains you have taken and that willingly and spent much time and Paper too which hath swelled your Answer to so great a bulk to prove that which was not oppugned nor so much as quest oned by us so Impertinent to the business of our Paper Though you have said you are not willing to spend time about Impertinencies By which however we go on yet you wheel about and are come to the Pole you first started at like a Horse in a mill that travels all day and is no further at night then he was in the morning You went about to prove your Government established by civil Authority the first work you took in hand you are no further yet but going about to prove out of your way quite But since you compell us to follow you a mile we will walk with you twain till we have conducted you if possible into the good old Way again by taking of your Government from that establishment of Authority upon the proof whereof the most considerable part as to the bulk of your Answer doth insist To prove your Presbyterian Government to be established by Law and to be warranted by the civil Authority you produce severall Orders and Ordinances but one more especially you instance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament bearing date the 10th August 1648. Which you say is without any limitation of time and remains unrepealed to this day nay more by the humble Advice assented unto by his Highness it receives strength To which we answer when you speak of a Government establisht by Law we hope you mean such as hath the force and strength of a Law to binde the free born People of this Nation otherwayes you say nothing If such a Law you mean then we much question whether your Ordinance of Lords and Commons though unrepealed to this day be of that force and seeing we be no Lawyers we shall not take upon us the determination of that point but refer you in that particular to the Judgement and resolution of the Sages of the Law who affirm that nothing can have the force of a Law to binde the people without the concurrent consent of the three Estates in Parliament My Lord Cooke is most full throughout his works published by the speciall appointment of that long Parliament Hear you him For the Parliament concerning making and enacting of Laws consists of the King the Lords spiritual and temporall and the Câ—mmons and it is no Act unless it be made by the King the Lords and Commons Again If an Act be made by the King and Commons this binds not for it is no Act of Parliament Ibid. Again It is no Act of Parliament but an Ordinance and therefore binds not 4th part Instit fol 23. Again Nothing can pass as a Law without the Kings râ—yal assent and authority to binde the people 3d part Instâ—â— fol. 9. See him also again in his Instit 4th part fol 232. where he cites severall Charters and Ordinances made in the behalf of the Court of Stannâ—ries and in the end saith These things were done de facto bâ—t let us â—â—rn our selves to that which hath the force of a Law And in the same 4th part cap. 73. of the Courts of forrests fol. 293. see there a prescription good against a Statute of Ed. 3. cap. 2. because it was made but in affirmance of the common Law of the Forrest and against such a Statute a man may prescribe And good also against the Ordinance of 34. E. 1. and the onely reason given is because it was but an Ordinance and no Statute An Ordinance of both Houses is no Law of the Land by their own confession meaning the Parliament saith Judge Jenkins 1 part Coll. Ordinances fol. 728. This was the onely Law stood in force and binding which was made by the concurrent consent of alâ— in the judgement of these Sages and was called the Law of the Land None else in old time was judged valid or to have the force and strength of a Law Nor at this day will any Ordinance of one or both Houses be judged valid without his Highness assent thereunto as we humbly conceive But admitting Ordinances of one or both Houses of Parliament without the Kings of old or his Highness assent of late to have aâ— great a force and strength in them and to be as valid to all intents and purposes as if their assents were given thereto Yet this we affirm of your Ordinance setling Presbyterian Government throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales That it is made of little or no force at this day in respect of those severall subsequent Acts granting liberty to all pious and conscientious Christians throughout this Land to serve God in their own way of worship and disclpline notwithstanding any Law or Ordinance to the contrary which though they amount not to an express yet at least to an implicite Repeal of your Ordinance so far as it is contrary to this Liberty for Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant But stand you upon an express Repeal Then be pleased to peruse an Act made Anno 1650. for Relief of Religious and peaceable people from the rigour of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion And to peruse a little better the humble Advice by you in your Answer alledged and you will finde it far otherwise than you say In the eleventh Section All Ministers throughout the Land and their Assemblies professing the true Protestant Christian Religion though of different judgement in Worship or Discipline are all of them equally protected in the liberty of their profession Have you liberty to exercise your Church Government amongst your selves They as much Have you protection Others as much What power have you that others have not Are these within the bounds of your Association and subject to your Government unless they will renounce their Baptism and Christianity Nay they have their way of Worship and Protection in that way granted them as well as you And as they may not revile or reproach nor disturb you in your Assemblies no more may you them in their Assemblies nor compell any by censures or penalties to submit to your Government Is there a Presbyterian Government so setled by Ordinance as to compell any contrary to this Liberty Reade the Act of 1650. abovesaid and you shall finde an express Repeal Reade also the close of this Section and you shall finde
such lawless persons whether drunkards swearers c. as will not subject themselves to the present Government of the Church they are onely punishable by the civil Magistrate and that we cannot exclude them the Church by any of our censures this is as easily by us denied as it is by you asserted and we leave it to be judged of by the Reader upon his perusall of what hath been said by both whether you or we have the better reason for what is herein maintained by us But we must again mind you that notwithstanding in our answer we had here told you that however we did not judg all those to be lawless persons that do out of conscience not come up to the observation of all those rules which are or shall be established by Authority for regulating the outward worship of God and Government of his Church yet both you and we might well remember that such as should have refused to have subjected themselves to the late Prelaticall Government would have been accounted in those times lawless persons yet to this also you do here say nothing although it was one of your queries in your first Paper whether all that subjected not themselves to our present Government must be taken for lawless persons and which was a matter more considerable to have replied to then to have put us off as you do with that which is not at all here to the purpose your querie to which we answered not being about our power to censure the persons that we counted lawless but who those lawless persons were The Gentlemens Paper Sect. IX To our next Quaere viz. How farre you extend this Saintship this Church and Assembly of Saints You answer As farre as the Apostle did when writing to the Church of Corinth and Galatia he calls them Saints and Churches notwithstanding the gross errours of many members in them and therefore though there may be sundry of the like stamp in your Assemblies you do not un-church them or make your Assemblies not Assemblies of Saints because of the corruption of such Members c. But by your leave you answer not our question which was not Whether all your Assemblies were called assemblies of Saints for no question you will not un-church your selves or un-saint your Assemblies notwithstanding the corruptions in them But whether none else but you were accounted Saints none Bretheren and Sisters in Christ but such as stand for your pretended discipline If so then the Donatists crime may be imputed to you and we say with St. Augustin O Impudentem Vocem Nay but this cannot be laid in your dish whose principles and practises are so manifestly against the practises and opinions of the Donatists of old it may more fitly be charged upon such as have rent themselves from your Churches But who are they that have rent from your Church we hear but of few that ever admitted themselves members or prosessed themselves of your association that ever rent from it Those that are out say they were never of you never had sworn obedience to or subscribed any Articles of yours as you or many of you had sworn Canonicall obedience to the Government by Bishops and subscribed the 39 Articles of the Church of England Here is a rent indeed a Schism in the highest which is not satisfied but with the utter overthrow of that Church from whom they rent and rasing out those Articles of Religion they had formerly confirmed by their own subscription saying Illa non est c. O Impudentem Vocem this saying doth not concern you But still we are unsatisfied in the word Publique what you mean thereby to which you Answer Such as you by your profession and practise do own for publique such as you do constantly frequent and stir up others to frequent also where are also the publique Ordinances of the word Sacraments and Prayer dispensed But here again you come not home to our Question Whether none are publique Assemblies nay publique Assemblies of Saints but such as you constantly frequent or whose discipline you own however publique yours are And then your Order is Notice shall be taken of all Persons that forsake the publique Assemblies Notice of all Persons in order to censure so is your meaning and purpose as a little before you have said we may gather from your Paper to censure all Persons that maintain private meetings in opposition to publique whether out of conscience or out of a principle of carelesness sloth worldliness c. All Persons that crie down your Churches Ministry c. is your purpose and meaning by that order And you say further Neither do we transgress any Laws of the Land which have made no Proviso to exempt any man that we meddle with c. Here sure you are mistaken for you can no more proceed to censure such as forsake the publique Assemblies by virtue of any Ordinance of Parliament or rule laid down in your form of Church Government then you or any other Minister or Magistrate civill or Ecclesiastical can punish them by an Act of 1. Eliza. intituled An Act for Vniformity of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments or by an Act of 35. Eliza. Intituled An Act for punishing of Persons obstinately refusing to come to Church c. Or an Act of 23. Eliza. against such as refuse to come to Church All which with your Ordinance are repealed by an Act made Septemb. 27. 1650. Intituled An Act for relief of Religious and peaceable pcople from the rigor of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion By which these are not only repealed but it is enacted further That all and every the branches clauses Articles and Proviso's Expressed and contained in any other Act or Ordinance of Parliament whereby or wherein any penalty or punishment is imposed or mentioned to be imposed on any Person for not repayring to their respective Parish Churches c. shall be and are by the Authority aforesaid wholly repealed and made void None by this Act shall be censured or punished by virtue of any former Act or Ordinance for refusing to come to their Parish Church c. though they obstinately refuse And if by no former then not by that you pretend to Now to the end no prophane and licentious Person may take occasion by the repealing of the said Laws intended onely for relief of pious and peaceable minded people from the rigor of them o neglect the performance of Religious duties It is further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and every Person and Persons within this Commonwealth and the territories thereof shall having no reasonable excuse for their absence upon every Lords day dayes of publique thanksgiving and humiliation diligently resort to some publique place where the service and worship of God is Exercised or shall be present at some other place in the practise of some Religious duty either of Prayer Preaching reading or Expounding the Scriptures or conferring upon the same And
is proved from the grounds already layd For this Jurisdiction of theirs above Presbyters did not belong unto them by Divine Right we having proved that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter to be both one And therefore the Parliament that by Law gave them their power might seeing just cause for it by Law take it away They had also just reason for to take it away in regard of the oppressiveness and burthensomness of it both to Ministers and People to this whole Church and Nation as hath been proved before And therefore what they herein did was justly yea piously and prudently done and for which the Church of God in this Land both Ministers and People do for the present and will for the future see great cause to bless God for many Generations And that they had the concurrence herein of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines is clear from their Exhortation annexed to the Ordinance of Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament with Instructions for taking the League and Covenant in the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales In this Exhortation of the Assembly of Divines in answer to some Objections they apprehended might be made against the taking of the Covenant they thus express themselves If it be sayd for the extirpation of Prelacy to wit the whole Hierarchiall Government standing as yet by the known Laws of the Kingdome is new and unwarrantable This will appear to all impartiall understandings though new to be not onely warrantable but necessary if they consider to omit what some say that this Government was never formally established by any Laws of this Kingdome at all that the very life and soul thereof is already taken from it by an Act passed this present Parliament so as like Jezabels Carkass of which no more was left but the Skull the Feet and the Palmes of her hands nothing of Jurisdiction remains but what is precarious in them and voluntary in those who submit unto them That their whole Government is at best but a humane Constitution and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament in which the Judgment of the whole Kingdome is involved and declared not onely very perjudicial to the civil State but a great hinderance also to the perfect reformation of Religion Yea who knoweth it not to be too much an Enemy thereunto and destructive to the power of Godliness and pure administration of the Ordinances of Christ which moved the well-affected almost throughout this Kingdome long since to petition this Parliament as hath been desired before in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James for a total abolition of the same And then a little after And as for these Clergy-men who pretend that they above all other cannot covenant to extirpate that Government because they have as they say taken a solemn Oath to obey the Bishops in licitis honestis they can tell if they please that they that have sworne Obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all lawfull means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous And yet if there should any Oath be found into which any Ministers or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land in this case they must teach themselves and others that such Oathes call for repentance not pertinacy in them Thus far the Assembly of Divines in their Exhortation for the taking the solemne League and Covenant and which we have thought requisite to transcribe that so it may appear how fully they concurred with the Parliament in what they did touching the abolition of Episcopacy as it doth also confirme by their Testimony severall things that have been mentioned by us wherein the Reader may perceive their concurrence in Judgment with us From all which it is clear that seeing Diocesan Bishops did but obtaine that Jurisdiction they exercised over Presbyters by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church The Parliament finding this Government of Episcopacy to be very oppressive to this Church A great hinderance to the perfect Reformation of Religion and prejudiciall to the civill State they might both lawsully and laudably being therein also backed with the advice of a reverend and learned Synod take it away And hence it will follow that if the Ministers of this Land for severing themselves from the Bishops and with-drawing their Canonicall Obedience from them as some speake the Parliament according to the reverend Synod having before taken away from them all that Jurisdiction over Presbyters that did belong unto them must needs be accused of Schisme It is a good Schisme yea a blessed Schisme to use the words that Gerhard did defending the Protestants with-drawing from the Pope and the Church of Rome that they will be found to be guilty of The blot whereof as it is not to be much regarded so it is easily wiped off and as we think it is already done in the Eyes of all impartiall and unbyassed Readers by these Considerations which we have layd down We have onely one thing more to add which is the third generall Head we offer to the Reader here before we leave this first Argument with which you would perswade us to returne againe to our former Yoke of Bondag 3. For we offer it to the consideration of all impartiall men whether considering what hath been spoken touching the nature of Schisme in the generall and how lawfully and laudably the Parliament did abolish Episcopacy and how they passed by Ordinance the forme of Church-Government Anno 1648. establishing the Presbyterian in roome of the Episcopall and that how it was set up in this County by their Authority If they but observe what your actings have been and what your expressions are in your Papers they will not thereupon see just cause to impute Schisme taken in the worst part and as it is taken most usually unto you who have been so forward though without reason to fasten this blot upon us But we are sure during the prevalency of Episcopacy those that were not guilty of any such disturbance of the peace of the Church by any such boisterous Ventings of the Distempers of their Spirits as you are were counted and called by the Prelates Schismaticks And from which Aspersion though sundry of those being peaceable and godly however Non-conformists were free yet you being very unlike them are not thereby quit But we have now done with the first of those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly whereby you would perswade us to admit againe of Episcopacy and hope we have sayd to it that which is sufficient 2. We therefore now come to the second wherein you still rise higher for therein you insinuate a thing of a farre greater and more dangerous consequence if Episcopacy be not restored For you intimate that it is necessary That the Church of God may be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the
there may be a necessity why he should be noted with the censure of Excommunication that he might be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 5. The Magistrate also may have punished him to the satisfaction of the Law and yet the Church remain unsatisfied and there be danger also of leavening others by his unreformedness except this old leaven be purged out 1 Cor. 5. 6. Civil punishments are necessary to be inflicted for the restraining from publike disorders not fit to be tolerated in a Christian state But if there be not repentance for such offences the souls of such offenders notwithstanding the Law be satisfied may be damned for their impeniteney for the preventing whereof Church censures are necessary and usefull Both Magistracy and Ministry are Ordinances of God the power of both are necessary and usefull a blessing from God may be expected on the due punishment and censures that are inflicted by both And therefore the asserting of the one doth not take away or destroy the other But if your doctrine be good if there be an appointment of civil punishments to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate and the civil Magistrate proceed to do his duty all the power of the Church is vacated neither must she inflict any censures or spirituall punishments that she is intrusted with the dispensing of though she see her members to be incorrigible impenitent and in danger to perish if her physick that is for the soul be not applied after the civil Magistrate hath gone as farre as he can because then one and the same person should be punished twice for one offence which you say is against Law but we are sure is against the rules of sound and good Divinity 3. But seeing you say that for a man to be punished twice for one offence is against Law and to make this out do urge two Statutes 1. Mar. chap. 3. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. unto this we say that however it doth not properly belong to us to expound the Laws of the Land we hope we may have leave to say what upon the perusall of those Statutes common reason doth dictate to us And therefore we answer 1. Your assertion is too generall to be made out by these Statutes That of the first of Mary speaking only of the penalties to be infficted on those that should disturb by word or deed Preachers in their Sermons or should molest a Priest preparing or celebrating Masse or other Service or abuse the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ or should break any Altar or Crucifix and providing in the close of it that the persons offending in the premises should be but once punished for one offence as there had been reason for some of those things that are there mentioned as offences why the transgressors of that Act should not have been so much as once punished The other Statute of the first of Elizabeth cap. 2. for so your quotation is in the Copy you presented unto us and which we judg to be the Statute you here mean there being nothing to this purpose to be found cap. 12. is likewise as expresly limited as the former For it entreats only of the penalties to be inflicted on those that should use any other Service then the Book of Common Prayer or should deprave the same Book or should do any thing or speak in the derogation of it or cause other Prayer to be said or sung or should not resort to the Church on the Sundays or other Holy days and then after the appointment of the punishment to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate in such cases and the other punishment to be inflicted by the Ordinary doth provide that whatsoever persons shall offend in the premises shall be but once punished for one offence providing particularly as you mention But you might have taken notice that the book of Common Prayer is taken away and so are Holy dayes by the Ordinance appointing the Directory and we could never see there was reason for that severity either of Ecclesiasticall censures or civil punishments to be inflicted upon all those that might be found punishable at any time by this Act. However the provisions mentioned in these Acts refering only to the particular cases mentioned in them your proof from them falls short to make out your assertion that is generall that it is against Law for a man to be punished twice for one offence 2. But yet we further answer that when the Parliament passed the Ordinance of 1648 whereby the offendors there mentioned are made censurable by us with the Church censures as there may be occasion according to the rules layd down in the form of Church Government there were sundry penall Statutes in force inflicting civil punishments on severall of the offendors mentioned in that Ordinance and yet there is no proviso in this Ordinance that was passed after those Statutes to the purpose you speak of and restraining the Church from inflicting Church censures in case the civil Magistrate had punished them by civil punishments but it gives the Church full liberty to proceed without the least hint of any such a limitation 3. You also who pretend to be so expert in the Laws might have taken notice that in the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. cap. 23. there is an appointment of the order of awarding and returning the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and also what was to be done upon the appearance of the offeudor and what if he could not be found and by which Statute it is most clear that the civil Magistrate was to inflict a civil punishment upon the same offendor that had been excommunicated by the Ordinary as it is there provided that upon the Bishops receiving the submission and satisfaction of the person excommunicated and certifying the same the party was to be released from the Sheriffs custody or prison By which we think it is manifest that you who would appear to be men so well skilled in all Laws both of God and men have laid down such a generall assertion as can be made out by neither it being cleer by that Act that a civil punishment was to be inflicted on the person that by his offence had incurred the censure of Excommunication Further you might have observed that by the Statute 10 Caroli cap. 1. there is a forfeiture appointed to be levyed on every person using any unlawfull pastimes on the Lords day and yet in the close thereof there is a proviso in these words that the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within this Realm or any the dominions thereof by vertue of this Act or any thing therein contained shall not be abridged but that the Ecclesiasticall Court may punish the said offences as if this Act had not been made The like proviso we also find in the Statute 30 Caroli cap. 1. which yet
appoints fofeitures in case of prophanation of the Lords day by Carriers c. that travel on the Lords day or by Butchers that sell or kill victuass on that day By all which you may plainly see if you will not shut your eyes that it is not against Law that a man may come to be punished twice for one offence Nay what hath been heretofore more ordinary then the High-Commissioners imprisoning fining and excommunicating for one and the same offence But yet you will have the latter Acts and Ordinances against drunkenness swearing prophanation of the Sabbath c. enjoyning punishment by the Civil Magistrate onely though they do not speak one word that tends to the repealing of the Ordinance for Church Government to have utterly taken off all power of Excommunication But this we must not so easily grant and yet we shall not be unready as there may be occasion to complain to the civil Magistrate of any lawless persons that are justly censurable with the censure of Excommunication the conjunction of the Civil and Ecclesiasticall Sword being sharper and longer then either of them alone The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VIII And you further proceed to make answer to our severall ensuing Quaeries but how fully and satisfactorily all may judge that have perused what hath formerly been said touching the civil sanction of your Government Our first Quaerie is Why Government in singulari Your answer is Because it is the onely Government that is established in this Church by Civill Authority This Answer hath been confuted before we shall say no more here to that But we are unsatisfied what you mean by this Church whether you mean this Church at Manehester where your Classis is or you mean the Church of England If you mean this Church of Manchester of your association it is establisht not so much by Ordinance of Lords and Commons in Parliament as by later Acts grauting the free exercise of Religion in Doctrine and Worship to all Churches and Congregations in their own way to all and all alike but such as are particularly cautioned against And so you in your Presbytery in your Church at Manchester are protected because you have possessed your selves of that Church But then others in other Churches and Congregations to wit Prestwich Burie Middleton and the like may say of their way of worship it is the onely Government which is establisht in this Church But if your meaning be of the Church of England and so we conceive by the subsequent words viz. That there is no other Government but yours owned as the Church Government throughout the whole Nation You are certainly mistaken and dare not maintain it that his Highness or his Council owns Presbytery and none but that Government But leaving the Civill Sanction you come to the divine right of Presbytery and prove it to be the onely Government in singulari because it is that onely Government which Christ hath prescribed in his word and what Christ hath thus prescribed must needs be de jure one and the same in every Church And Calvins judgement you say in this particular is so manifest by his works to the whole world that it needs no proof We have told you before of the form and order of Church Government appointed by the Council of Nice by Patriarch Arch-Bishop Bishop c. How this Government which we suppose you will not say is Presbyterian is in Calvins judgement not differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his word And in his first Section of this Chapter he tells us of Bishops not one word of Elders chosen out of the people who should rule in the Church but Bishops that did all viz. make and publish Canons a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church in which saith he they so ordered all things after the rule of Gods word that a man may see they had in a manner nothing differing from the word of God And this form of Government did represent a certain Image of divine Institution Can Calvin say more for your Presbytery nay can he say so much then how manifest is his judgement for the jus divinum of your Presbytery that it is that Government in particular which Christ hath prescribed in his word Thus have we taken off your Calvin and Beza as above your modern Doctors for Fathers you have none and now you descend to the Assembly of Divines The jus divinum by London Ministers the provincial Synod at London Rutherford Gyllaspie to prove your divine right of Presbytery modern Authors of yesterday with whom you paint your Margent in abundance and may serve your turn amongst the ignorant and vulgar sort who measure all by tale and not by weight when others that know what and who many of them are will conclude you draw very near the dregs As for such as are lawless persons and who those be whether drunkards swearers unclean persons prophaners of the Sabbath such as will not subject themselves to the present Government c. all together or a part conjunctim seu divisim whether you will they are onely punishable by the Civil Magistrate you cannot exclude them the Church by any of your censures as we have said before The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. WE did indeed proceed to make answer to your several Queries and desire the Reader to peruse the Queries you propounded to us in your first Paper and the answer we gave unto them and then to judge how satisfactorily we did it after he had fully weighed our answer and what you have said to take off the establishing of our Government by the civil Sanction But whereas your first Query was why Government in singulari and our answer given thereunto was because it is the only Government that is established in this Church by civil Authority you say this answer hath been confuted before but how strongly we shall leave it to the Reader for to judge But it seems this answer hath raised another scruple in your mindes for you are unsatisfied what we mean by this Church although in our answer we had sufficiently explained it it being that Church wherein the Prelatical Government formerly had been set up and wherein that being put down the Presbyterian was set up in its stead as the only Government that was owned as the Church Government for the whole Nation as we had told you and which words did sufficiently declare that by this Church we meant the Church of England This you confess is that which you conceive to be our meaning yet you quarrell at the word that so upon supposal that the Church of Manchester of our Association and where our Classis meets might thereby be understood you might take the liberty to tell us that our Church Government is not so much established by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament as by later Acts granting as you say the free exercise of Religion in doctrine and worship to
be it further declared by the Authority aforesaid That every Person and Persons that shall not diligently perform the duties aforesaid according to the true meaning thereof not having reasonable excuse to the cootrary shall be deemed and taken to be offenders against this Law and shall be proceeded against accordingly Can you say now that you have power to censure such as forsake the publique Assemblies by any Ordinance of Parliament or rules as you call them of your Church Government when not only the pious and peaceable minded people but the obstinate also are exempted from the rigor of former Laws and onely taken to be offenders against this Law and no other and shall be proceeded against accordingly Dare you yet proceed to censure notwithstanding this Act If you do you are very bold and may run into a Praemunire Though you say you are not to be blamed for any mistakes that may arise ab ignorantia juris whether simple or effected A strange saying we have heard it said Ignorantia facti excusat but Ignorantia juris non excusat no not a simple ignorance much less an affected one The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. IF you had weighed what we had answered you could not with any colour have said that we answered not your question you might have observed that we spake of our Assemblies as they were parts of the Church of England and of the same constitution with her and whom though those of the separation do un-church in regard of the mixture or the scandalous persons in them denying our Church in that respect to be true or our assemblies to be the assemblies of Saints yet we justified in our Answer from the examples of the Church of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia to whom the Apostle writes as to Saints and calls Churches notwithstanding such corruptions in them though we did not deny but the scandalous in our Church and assemblies were the spots thereof And seeing we acknowledged such assemblies were true Churches notwithstanding those scandalous persons that were found in them you had no reason to imagin that none else besides our selves were by us accounted Saints none brethren and sisters in Christ but such as stand for our discipline which you cannot mention but you must brand in calling it pretended you might from our answer have gathered that all other assemblies in our Land where the word of God and Sacraments are dispensed were taken into the number of those assemblies we spake of they being parts also of the Church of England as well as our own however they may some of them differ from us in point of discipline We told you in our Answer particularly that in the Church of Corinth there were some that denied the resurrection others made rents and schismes and sundry grosly scandalous and yet it was a true Church And therefore how should we be conceived to have denied such assemblies in our Land that are parts of the Church of England and of the same constitution with her for the substance not to be the assemblies of the Saints if they stand not for our Discipline Yet you would make the world to beleeve we meant no further in that Answer we gave you then not to un-Church or un-Saint our selves or assemblies because of the corruptions of them which yet we must tell you might have been the fewer if you and others who are members of these assemblies had shewed your selves more pliable to good order and discipline and to have been furtherers and not hinderers of their reformation 2. We spake in our Answer of some that had of late rent themselves from our Churches because of the scandalousness of the corrupt members and said that seeing our principles and practises are manifestly known to be utterly against them as against the opinions and practises of the Douatists of old you had no reason to apply that of Augustine unto us when he cried out against them ô impudentem vocem But now you will not have any to have rent themselves from our Church excepting such who having admitted themselves members or professed themselves of our Association have rent themselves from us and who you say are but a few so farre as you have heard But here you do not approve your selves good disputants against those of the separation who being by their birth members of the Church of England whereof our assemblies are but parts and of the same constitution with her as we said before and have rent themselves from it or from our Assemblies that are parts of it are justly chargeable with schisme they having hereby rent themselves from a true Church wherof they were members and whose membership is argued from their being born in gremio Ecclesiae not from their admitting themselves members of it afterward or their professing of themselves to be thereof members We had in our Answer to your first Paper hinted to you this ground of their membership when in Answer to what you had to the like purpose there suggested as you do here we told you that the severall Congregations within this Land that make a profession of the true Christian and Apostolike faith are true Churches of Jesus Christ that the severall members of these Congregations are by their birth members as those that were born in the Jewish Church are said to be by the Apostle Jews by nature Gal. 2. that this their membership was sealed to them in their baptisme that did solemnly admit them as into the universall Church so into the particular wherein they were born But as in this Paper where you should have replied to these propositions if you approved not of them you answered nothing to them though in your first Paper you would have exempted your selves from being subject to our Government because you had not admitted your selves members of some one or other of our Congregations or were any associates of ours as you there expressed your selves so here you come over again with the same unsound principle and yet say nothing to make it out intimating that none are to be accounted to have rent themselves from us but such as have admitted themselves members or professed themselves of our association whereas if being members by their birth of the Church of England they after rend themselves from any of our assemblies or others that are parts and members of it and of the same constitution with it they are guilty of schisme and which you must say or whatever you cry out against it you do not upon any sure principle oppose it 3. But this blot of schisme you would fasten upon us however though it be neither upon your own principles here laid down or any other whereby you can prove us guilty And to make this out you say that we or many of us had sworn Canonical obedience to the Government by Bishops and subscribed the 39 Articles of the Church of England and hereupon because we are not now for
of the Land which had made no proviso to exempt any of these from being censured by us we are willing to examine the utmost you have to say for them which is but only this that we can no more proceed tocensure such as forsake the publick Assemblies by vertue of any Ordinance of Parliament or rule laid down in our forme of Church Government then they may be punished by an Act of 1. Elizabeth or an Act of 35. Elizabeth or an Act of 23. of Elizabeth all which with our Ordinance as you say are repealed by an Act made Septemb 37. 1650. The title whereof you give us as you had done before By which you say the former are not only repealed but tell us what is further enacted But the strength of this allegation hath been tried before and found to be as weak as water This Act of 1650. that you insist on repealing only the Statutes or Ordinance that inflict civil punishment upon those that repair not to their respective Parish Churches c. and meddles not at all with repealing of the Ordinance authorizing the censuring of offendors with Church censures and which we have in our answer to the fourth Section of this Paper sufficiently demonstrated And therefore all that you say for those you here undertook to exempt from being censured by us is but what hath been discovered before to have no strength and so therefore is of no force at all except we must believe that by your repeating it and coming over with it again and paraphrasing upon it it had gained some new strength that it never had And so all that follows now to the conclusion of this Section is of no weight For we cannot against manifest reason to the contrary judge it to be any great boldness in us to censure those as forsakers of the publick Assemblies of the Saints who falling under the character that we have given of them are made censurable by the Ordinance establishing the form of Church Government Neither can we hereupon be brought to fear any danger of running thereby into a praemunire which you again mind us of There are only two things more we desire might be taken notice of before we pass from this Section 1. That the Act of 1650. which you quote doth so farre discountenance those who out of a principle of sloth worldliness or prophaneness frequent not the publick Assemblies that it leaves them to be punished with civil punishments as offendors against the Law notwithstanding its taking off the civil penalties from some that are mentioned in it and as is manifest from what you recite out of it and it not speaking one syllable that may carry any shew of a repeal of the Ordinance for Church Government doth both leave these and all other offendors against that Ordinance to be censured by the censures of the Church as there may be cause 2. That you having told us if notwithstanding this Act we should proceed to censure and might run our selves into a praemunire and then imputing to us such a gross assertion as if we should have said we were not to be blamed for any mistakes that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris whether simple or affected do hereby plainly discover you matter not much with what you charge us so you can but render us absurd enough For our sense is clear from the whole tenour of our discourse where we used any such expressions that we said we were not to be blamed for any mistakes in you that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris whether simple or affected we determined not but left you to examine and which is so plain that when you your selves recite our words in the beginning of the fourth Section of this Paper you represent that which doth plainly shew that there you understood us as we have declared and of which we minded the Reader in our second Animadversion on that Section But now we are the persons that affirm a thing so absurd as if we were not to be blamed for our ignorance of the Law whether simple or affected and then you cry out a strange saying and tell us that you have heard it said that ignorantia facti excusat but ignorantia juris non excusat c. But how faithfully and sincerely you have herein dealt with us the Reader may judge and we wish you in the examination of your consciences to consider The Gentlemens Paper Sect. X. To our next Quaere Whether those that forsake the publique Assemblies of the Saints in the 2d Order may not be taken for scandalous Persons and so comprehended in the 3d You Answer We conceiving your meaning to be such are not mistaken For they are really and indeed scandalous and so justly merit to be censured by you And although we be not mistaken in our conceits of you yet we must tell you you are mistaken in your own to think you may bring in any that forsake your publique Assemblies under that notion of a scandalous Person and so proceed to censure accordingly for the reasons we have given before Nay nor yet can you proceed to censure the more known scandalous in life such as you instance of Drunkards swearers and whore-masters they being all punishable by the civill Magistrate as by the several Acts made for that purpose appeareth And not by any Ecclesiastical much less by your Elderships short and blunt sword of Excommunication by any Laws now in force We are not so sensible of the Multiplicity of Canons and burdensomness of Ceremonies under which in the time of Episcopacy any truely conscientious did sigh or groan but if we may judg ex pede Herculem by the number of Canons already made in your Provincial Assemblies and elsewhere in this short usurpation of Presbytery many urged necessary de fide what they would amount to had you lived the Age of Episcopacy 1600. years and upwards we might well crie out Quare oneramini ritibus and censure you as Dr Andrews doth Bellarmine in behalf of our English Church Nobis non tam Articulosa fides quà m vestris hominibus qui ad singulas Theses crepant est de fide Vobis quibus datum est vestra omnia in eodem lumine videre quibus vestra omnia ab eodem proponente infallibili habere abundare licet Articulis ad Arthritim usque c. The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. HEre you having nothing to object against the reason we had given you in our answer why though such as forsake the publick Assemblies of the Saints being indeed scandalous and so such as might be comprehended under the latitude of that expression we did notwithstanding mention them distinctly in a distinct order from that wherein the scandalous were mentioned have no further thing to tell us but what you had said before that we were mistaken to think we might proceed to censure under the notion of scandalous persons such as forsake the Assemblies of the Saints for the