and the best rule too and by which you are bound up which what is it else then to build your faith in such cases upon their judgement and so to submit to them as we said too much And seeing there is almost no point of faith but it is controverted if all such points must be judged such matters as about which there is doubt and difficulty and not plainly set forth in Gods word then in all such cases it must be the Churches exposition of the Scriptures and practice as you do insisinuate that must be the rule by which you must be guided and that on which in such cases your faith must be built and which when we come to the sixth Section we shall shâ—w to be very unsound and with the Papists in whole or in part to resolve your faith into the determinations of men the exposition of the Church or of Synods and Councils that are the Church representative The Reader by this account may perceive that in this respect you submitted too much to Synods and Councils and a great deal further then ever we submitted as is manifest from what we have shewed was in this our declared judgement in our answer to your first Paper But we shall now further proceed to give the Reader our Reason why if Synods and Councils and you say of these you shall submit to any that shall come hereafter should determine against you we feared in regard of their juridical authority you would submit too little There is betwixt you and us a controversie touching the superiority of Bishop above Presbyters we deny it you herein are for the affirmative You assert in the very next Section that Ae rius was condemned for heresie for asserting this parity of Church-Officers and it is Bishops and Presbyters only that are there spoken of There is also another controversie betwixt you and us touching ruling Elders whether they be by divine right or no you herein deny and we affirme In these matters then we shall take it for granted till you deny it that you yeild there is a doubt and difficulty and touching which you will not have the Scripture to be so plain but that Fathers and Councils must be consulted in these cases and which was the reason why in the case of the ruling Elder you sent us to them for to consult what exposition they gave of the Texts that we alleadged for the divine right of those Officers Now the Question is whether you will submit to the determination of Synods and Councils in regard of their juridical authority As touching the first of these matters in difference we shall in our Animadversions on your next Section shew that there are Fathers that determine against you As touching the other concerning ruling Elders we have in our Answer to your second Paper shewed there are several Fathers that do give in clear evidence touching the being of this Officer in their times But as touching this Officer vvhether he be an Officer of the Church by divine right vve have not read of any general Council before vvhom this case in controversie vvas brought much less that they determined against vvhat in this point vve hold but vve suppose that from vvhat you or vve may alledge out of Fathers or Councils of ancienter times these points vvill not be found to be determined but there vvill be a difference betvvixt us still What then is it that you vvill submit to To a general Council that shall come hereafter If so and that you vvill give that due respect to Synods and Councils that may be hereafter in regard of their juridical Authority Then untill a general Council may be had that may be regularly and duely called and rightly constituted seeing the matters in difference betvvixt you and us have been tryed and examined judged and determined against you and for us by a reverend and learned Synod and Assembly of Divines against vvhomâ— your exception against our Provincial Assembly in regard of the Elders being admitted there as members lyes not that was called by the Authority of the Civil power of this Nation under which we live you ought to testifie your submission to that Synod and not contrary to their resolution of the cases in difference and the Ordinances of Parliament for the Presbyterian-Government and against Episcopacy disturb the peace of the Church by publishing your own private judgments if their determinations had been against us and we had published ours in the cases in difference you would have called them our fancies and thereby testifie what little respect you have to their resolutions Upon this consideration we cannot but think that if a general Council should hereafter come and determine these cases against you you that now submit not would not submit then And so the upshot of the matter would be this that if in these or such like cases in controversie you were otherwise resolved in your judgements you would not submit to the determination of a general Council in regard of their juridical authority only if they determined according to your resolutions then you would submit wherein notwithstanding your great professions of submission you do not submit much Fourthly But now you find your selves agrieved because when you said you did publish this your sense and apprehension of our Paper as far as it was plain to you we leaving out the words as far as it was plain to you dealt not fairly with you for you say those words carry another sense with them then indeed we did understand them in that is as here you explain your selves so far as the matter contained in our Paper was plain to you you closed and joyned with us being as you say you explain your selves afterward so fully warranted thereunto by the word of God and constant practice of the Catholick Church that therein so far as it is thus made plain to you you shall not submit your apprehensions to the judgement of a general Council but now your complaint of us is that by leaving those words out which you thus explain we represent you as if where matters were not so plain but doubtfull you refused to submit The truth is we took these words referring to our Paper so far as it is plain to us in opposition to obscurity and darkness you after complaining that other parts of our Paper were full of darkness and then though we left those words out yet we could not conceive we wronged you therein being you could not profess your closure and joyning with us in any thing in our Paper any further then you understood our plain meaning But seeing you here otherwise explain your selves and say you did it before we will be more liberal to you then you are to us afterwards and shall allow you the liberty to explain your selves though we do not think that the sound and orthodox Reader will judge that your opinion thus explained and which you have here declared touching your
new tearmed Assembly not for the words sake Assembly but first in regard of the word Provincial although that in the judgement of Dr. Usher who in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the forme of Synodical Government received in the ancient Church doth expresly mention among his proposals as we said also in our answer the Provincial Synod would not have been accused of novelty but that which you are here offended at is that this County of Lancaster should be tearmed the Province of Lancaster and the Synods and Assemblies therein convened should be tearmed Provincial for which yet you have little reason if you had considered all this was done by the authority of Parliament who had power to bound the Province and the Synod or Assembly to be held thereih for the ordering and regulating the affairs of the Church within the bounds set as they judged to be most convenient And seeing that a Synod within the bounds of a County may meet more frequently with conveniency for the regulating the affairs of the several Classical Presbyteries within those bounds then if the bounds had been larger especially if so large as to have comprehended within them several Counties as formerly the two Provinces of York and Canâ—erbury comprehended all the Counties within the Land and which doubtless the Parliament considered when they ordered Decemb. 21. 1646. That the several Classes in Luncashire should be one Province and of which we had before given you an account in our answer to your first Paper if you had acquiesced in the authority of Parliament as sufficient for the ordering of such a matter you would not have found fault with this for its novelty all Laws that are newly made though for the ease of the suâ—jâ—cts being as liable to exception in that respect as this Your next reason why you charge our Provincial Assembly with novelty is in regard of the place at Preston but this exception was prevented in our answer unto which here you make no reply when we said if Provincial Assemblies be warrantable and have been of ancient use in the Church that having been long in disuse they of late began to be held at Preston that could not justly incurre your censure and certainly the most famous Synods and Councils that have been or that may be hereafter must be all accused in regard of novelty if this be a sufficient ground of accusation even the first four general Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon those being all as new in regard of their places where they were assembled at the time of their first meeting there having been never such Assemblies convened in those places before as our Provincial Assembly was or is that met and still ordinarily doth at Preston But perhaps there is more strength in the last reason why you charge it to be a new termed Provincial Assembly when you say it is new in respect of the persons constituting this Assembly lay-men presiding and ruleing and having decisive voyces in as ample a manner as the highest and chiefest in holy Orders nor doth Bishop Usher as you say or what we alleadge out of him make for such an Assembly But here 1. We must minde you that we did not cite Dr. Usher for to prove the antiquity of Provincial Assemblies in regard of these members constituting them Let our answer be perused it will be found to alleadge him for to prove the antiquity of the Assemblies of the Pastors of the Churches for the ordering Church affairs and having the power of ruleing them and because we did not know whether you were not so fond on Prelacy as not to allow of these Assemblies we quoted Dr. Usher for to prove their antiquity neither did we conceive that Dr. Usher would have judged these Assemblies where the Pastors of the Churches are members to have been wholly new or the Pastors to have lost their authority in them because the ruling Elders are admitted into them as members whatever his own thoughts might be concerning them 2. But as touching them we must further minde you of what we have said before that they are not meer lay-men but duely and orderly called to an Ecclesiastical Office although they never praeside in these Assemblies as moderatours And further that we have proved from antiquity in our answer to your second Paper the being of such an Officer in the Church in the time of Origen Ambrose Augustine Optatus and which is so clear that the adversaries of this Officer cannot deny it only they would have him to have been as an extraordinary Church-guardian or admitted on prudential grounds which yet is but gratis dictum as we have said 3. We shall now only further add what is well observed by the Provincial Assembly of London that Sutlivius a Prelatical Divine and otherwise an opposer of the Office of ruling Elders de concil lib. 1. cap. 8. saith that among the Jews Seniores Tribuum the Elders of the Tribes did sit with the Priests in judging controversies of the Law of God hence he argues against Bellarmine that so it ought to be in the Christian Church also because the priveledge of Christians is no less then the priveledge of the Jewes And it is not denyed by other Prelatica Divines but by them held and proved that men of abilities which are not Ministers are to be admitted into general Councils as they have been also anciently and which is too manifest to be denyed it appearing to have been so from the ancientest historians and subscriptions of Councils and to vote in them as members of these Assemblies And therefore however the ruling Elders be be admitted into our Provincial Assemblies as members whom you account to be but lay-men and have decisive votes there the Assembly should not by you have been accused of novelty in this respect for you see such as were no Ministers have been anciently admitted into Synods and Councils to vote there as members according to the old rule Quod tangit omnes debet tractari ab omnibus The Gentlemens Paper Sect. IV. Well! bâ—t you say we go on and tell you c. But had your professions and expressions for Peace and Unity been as reall and as cordiall as ours we had proceeded no further in this way of Rejoynder but closed hands and hearts together as in our last humble address appeareth Which certainly might have found a more ready compliance and merited a far more civil and satisfactory Answer from such cordiall wishers of Peace and Unity such godly and sober such moderate spirited men as you pretend to be But you have required we should go on and accordingly we go on to tell you that other parts of your Paper are full of darkness To which you thus Answer We cannot apprehend any such darkness in our Paper as you speak of but because you question what Authority we have from the civil Magistrate and the extent of it and your mistakes of our meaning may perhaps some
know of And if you had gathered thus much from our Paper as your mistake had been far the lesse so your Charity had been the more then to have reckoned us in the number of such Person as the Donatists were And yet we did not mean That we intended to take notice in order unto censure of such who being sound in the faith and godly in life though differing from us in point of Discipline and Government had their distinct Assemblies from ours they indeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace They not being censurable by the rules of our Government as is manifest by what we have declared before Although we remember how all that submitted not to the former Government were counted schismatical Neither did we reckon these in the number of the lawless Persons we speak of who subjected not themselves to our Government and whom we account to be parts of the universal visible Church militant here on earth however they have also their publique Assemblies distinct from ours though sundry of them as there is occasion resort to ours also But how we should hereupon make either these or the lawless Persons that we speak of members of the invisible Triumphant Church all which we have reckoned to belong to the visible they must have eyes quicker then Eagles that can discern how this follows and therefore there is no fear our Charity should so far over-reach as you supposed it might But still you are unsatisfied For you know not it seems what we mean by the word Publique the publique Assemblies of the Saints By our professions and practises in our owning the Publique Assemblies where the publique Ordinances of the word Sacraments and Prayer are dispensed which we our selves do constantly frequent and stir up others to frequent also it was plain enough what we meant by publique Assemblies And we are heartily sorry that you understanding our meaning as is clear by what you say anon should by this but make your way to give a lash at our private meetings which are none of them such as we need to be ashamed of And which when we meet either for conference about matters of Religion or to pray together and humble our selves for our own sins and the sins of these times when there is not the opportunity of a publique Assemby or when personal or Family occasions call for a private is surely as commendable at the least as a private meeting upon domestical civil or political occasions and therefore not to be secretly girded at As on the other hand we do not meddle with the censuring of those who being godly and sound in the faith in the main points of Relegion do yet differ from us in iudgement in matters of Discipline and Government and have their Assemblies for Gods publique worship distinct from ours as we are barred from it by the rules of our Government as we have often said before And therefore we leave room enough for Consciences that are truely tender Though we cannot say so much for the Prelatical Government Neither do we transgress any Laws of the Land which have made no provision to except any persons that we meddle with and are made censurable by the rules laid down in the from of Church Government nor have we under Colour of Authority made any Laws and Edicts but according to that power that the civil Authority hath committed to us have only openly given notice in our several Congregations of what offences are censurable by the rules of our Government that the offenders might take heed they incurre not that censure of Excommunication which Authority hath awarranted us to inflict upon the obstinate and otherwise incorrigible And therefore except to execute what we are appointed to do by the civil power be to contemn it we cannot be thought to have done any thing in contempt of the civil power as it is not our ignorance of the Laws in force that we are confident being grounded in reason fight not one aganst another and which is your more charitable and favorable construction that hath led us into any practises that are transgressions of them And therfore though you much question upon what account soever it be that we have been led into what we have acted and think it concernes us to look to it whether we have not run our selves into a premunire Yet we are assured we are as sufficiently secured against that danger as all the Iustices in the Land are that have acted upon other Ordinances of Parliament which they have judged to be in force as we do also those to be that have been the ground of our proceedings SECT X. BUt you have yet further to except for whereas we said That like notice should be taken of all scandalous Persons Your next Quaere is Whether those that forsake the publique Assemblies of the Saints in the second order may not be taken for scandalous Persons cemprehended in the third order Here we perceive you understood who were ment by those that did forsake the publique Assemblies of the Saints viz. Those who forsaking the Assemblies where the publique Ordinances were dispensed were upon that account really and indeed scandalous and so being comprehended under the latitude of that expression might justly merit to be censured as scandalous Persons And thus conceiving you were not mistaken but yet we who were to express our selves popularly and so as we might be understood considering some of that stamp though they forsook the publique Assemblies of the Saints and coustantly turned their backs as on the Lords Supper so on all other Ordinances yet if not drunkards and swearers whoremasters c. did not take themselves to be scandalous Persons Do not think that in this we are any more to be blamed by you we using variety of expressions onely for this end that we might be better understood then we blame Lawyers and Attorneys and wherein we judge them not tolbe blame worthy for using variety of expressions and Multiplicity of Synonymous Words to make the matter more clear and out of doubt where yet one and the same thing is understood by all But now hereupon your complaint is That we burden you with Traditions in multiplying of orders fine necessitate ad Arthritim usque and you cry out Quare oneramini ritibus And tell us of lengthning out our Paper which yet is not by these few words here used made very much longer But if you had remembred the multitude of Canons and burdensom Ceremonies that were rigorously pressed even to the highest censure in Case of refusall and under the burthen whereof sundry truly conscientious Persons under the late Prelacy did sigh and groan When those that were scandalous enough in their lives escaped censure and which some have cause not so soon to forget we think you would have seen little reason to have complained of our burthening you with traditions in multiplying orders unnecessarily SECT XI ANd now we come
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
Scriptures and that the Word of God alone should determine this controversie c. Who can forbear laughter to see Scripturists under the Gospel as these under the Law Templum Domini Templum Domini crie Verbum Domini Verbum Domiui nothing but Scripture the Word of God being there the onely rule of faith and manners Take to your Bibles then and burn all other Books as the Anabaptists of old did who when they and their Bibles were left together what strange and Phantastical opinion soever came into their brain Their usual manner was to say The spirit taught it them as Mr Hooker in his preface to his Eccles Pol. The determination of Councils and Fathers and the Churches Universal practise for matters of Church Government must all be abandoned and then to that old Question of the Papists Where was your Church before Lutber or that of ours to you Where was your Church before Calvin Just like the Arguing of the Samaritanes with the Jeâ—â—s about the Antiquity of their Church on Mount Gerizim recorded by Joseplus per Saltum by a high Jump over all the Universal practise and successions of the Church you can make your Church and Church Government as ancient as you list by saying it is to be found in the Scriptures referring it to Christ and the Apostles nay higher yet if you please to the Jewish Sanhedrim 1500. years at least before Christ Mr Henderson will assist you much in thâ—s who in his dispute with his Majesty averring that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvins time replyeth Your Majesty knows the Cammon Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches Where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luthers time One part of the Common Answer is it is to be sound in the Scriptures the same I affirm of Presbyterian Government Thus he Make you such defence in behalf of your Church but thanks be to God the Protestant cause hath not doth not nor we hope will ever want far abler Disputants and Champions in her defence against her adversaries then he or you be For though we grant and shall ever pay that reverence to the sacred Scriptures that it is an unsallible unerring rule yet may we not crie up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men both to honour and obey We will indeavour therefore to give either their due according to Christs institution that the Scripture where it is plain should guide the Church and the Church where there 's doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop And you your selves may remember what you affirm of General Councils the Churches Representative nay more of your Provincial Assemblies even in your Answer to that you call the preface to our Paper That there is in them invested an Authoritative juridicall power to whose Authority you profess your selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit alledging 1 Cor. 14. 32. Matth. 18. and Acts 15. for proof hereof to Inquire into Trie Examine Censure and judge of Matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline And tax us as if we refused to submit in such matters to the Judgement of a General Council Though here you retract and eat your own words casting it out as unsound and Hetrodox what was before a Christians duty to practise You still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and discipline to the Judgement and determination of your Provincial Assemblies though you deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church That those should be our guide and rule and comment upon the Word of God to tell us what is his will revealed there touching Church Government and discipline Said we not truely that you seem to submit to your Provincial what you will hardly grant to a General Council But the Church as we have said where there 's doubt or difficulty may expound the Scripture though it be tied as you have said to the rule of Gods Words in such proceedings as Judges to the Law and we are concluded and bound up by that as we are to those cases in the Law which are the Judgement and Exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same The Churches exposition and practise is our rule in such cases and the best rule too As our late King affirmeth viz. Where the Scripture is not so clear and punctuall in precepts there the constant and Vniversal practise of the Church in things not contrary to reason faith good manners or any positive command is the best rule that Christians can follow So when there is a difference about â—nterpretation of Scripture that we may not seem to abound in our own sense or give way to private interpretation Dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others we are not to utter our own phansies or desires to be believed upon our bare word but to deliver that sense which hath been a foretime given by our fore-Fathers and fore-runners in the Christian saith and so we necessarily make another Judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture or else we prove nothing Thus have the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists out of the Word of God too but not according to their own but the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the primitive Church and Councils gave See Mr Philpot that glorious Martyr in Queen Maries dayes to the like Question propounded viz. How long hath your Church stood Answereth from the beginning from Christ from the Apostles and their Immediate Successors And for proof thereof desires no better rule then what the Papists many times bring in on their side to wit Antiquity Universality and Unity And Calvin acknowledgeth as in our last Paper we shewed you there can be no better nor surer remedy for Interpretation of Scripture then what the Fathers in the primitive Churches gave especially in the first four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon which contain nothing saith he but the pure and genuine Interpretation of Scripture and which he professeth to embrace and reverence as hallowed and inviolable So they rest not in private interpretation but willingly submit to a judg and rule besides the Scriptures even such as the Papists themselves cannot except against viz. the primitive Churches practise and Universal and unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils By these our Church is content to be tryed and to this rule we bring the Church Government to be tried thereby And on this score your Presbytery is quite our of doors being of examples and practise of the Church and Testimonies of the Fathers wholly destitute wherein as the King hath it the whole stream runs so for Episcopacy that that there 's not the least rivulet for any others Which you being sensible of have no way to evade this rule but una liturâ to blot out all records and monuments
THE CENSURES of the CHURCH REVIVED In the defence of a short Paper published by the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster in the severall Congregations belonging to their own Association but since Printed without their privity or consent after it had been assaulted by some Gentlemen and others within their bounds in certain Papers presented by them unto the said Classis and since also Printed together with an Answer of that Classis unto the first of their Papers without their knowledg also and consent under the Title of Excommunicatio excommunicata or a Censure of the Presbyterian censures and proceedings in the Classis at Manchester WHEREIN 1. The dangerousness of admitting moderate Episcopacy is shewed 2. The Jus divinum of the Ruling Elders Office is asserted and cleared 3. The aspersions of Schisme and Perjury are wiped off from those that disown Episcopacy 4. The being of a Church and lawfully Ordained Ministry are evidenced and secured sufficiently in the want of Episcopacy 5. The Scriptures asserted and proved to be the sole supreame Judge of all controversies in matters of Religion and the only sure interpreter of themselves not Councils or Fathers or the universall practice of the Primitive Churches 6. The Presbyterian Government vindicated from severall aspersions cast upon it and also the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster and their actings justified in their making out their claime to the civill sanction for the establishment of that Church Government and power which they exercise and likewise a cleare manifestation that their proceedings have been regular and orderly according to the forme of Church Government established by Ordinance of Parliament In three full Answers given to any thing objected against their proceedings by the aforesaid Gentlemen and others in any of their Papers Together with a full Narrative of the occasion and grounds of publishing in the Congregations the above mentioned short Paper and of the whole proceedings since from first to last LONDON Printed for George Eversden at the Signe of the Maiden-head in Pauls Church-yard 1659. TO THE Reverend and Beloved the Ministers and Elders meeting in the Provinciall Assembly of the Province of London the Ministers and Elders of the first Classis of the Province of Lancaster meeting at Manchester do heartily wish the Crown of perseverance in a judicious and zealous defence of the Doctrine Government and Discipline of the Lord Jesus both theirs and ours Reverend and beloved Brethren WHen the Sun of Righteousnes had first favourably risen to them that fear the Name of God in this Land after a dark and stormy night of corruption and persecution then even then were the quickning beams of the sun of civil Authority in this inferionr world caused first to light upon you to form your renowned City into severall Classes and afterwards into a Provinciall Assembly not onely that you might have the birth-right of Honour which we cheerfully remember but also that being invested with Authority from Jesus Christ and the civill Magistrate you might be prepared to stand in the front of opposition the powers of Hell being startled and enraged at the unexpected reviving of Gospel Government and Discipline which seemed so long to lye for dead and that having your strength united you might be enabled and encouraged to plead the cause of God against the Divine right of Episcopacy and for the Divine right of the Ruling-Elder that the one might not be shut out of the Church and the other might not recover in the Church both which have been and still are under design VVhat you have already done this way as a thankfull improvement of Divine favour and with speciall reference to the respective Classes and Congregations within your Province doth evidently appear in your Vindication of Presbyterian Government and your Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici which choice fruits of your Provinciall Assembly are not onely refreshing and satisfying for the present but do promise fair for time to come such clusters do shew there is a blessing in the Vine which the Lord of the Vineyard continue and increase When you our Reverend Brethren had first been shined upon and made so fruitfull the Divine grace caused a second enlivening beam of civill Authority to fall upon this remote and despised County to constitute in it also severall Classes and afterwards a Provinciall Assembly since which time such heavenly influence hath been stayed As our Lot hath happily fallen to follow you in the favour of God and civill Authority so we have unhappily fallen into your Lot especially this Classis to be followed with the anger opposition reproaches and contradiction of men of contrary mindes which though hid in the ashes in great measure formerly and but sparkling now and then here and there in a private house or Congregation yet when we would conscientiously and tenderly have improved the Government for the instruction of the ignorant and reformation of the prophane it brake out into a flame and no way but that flame must be hasted to such a Beacon that it might not be quenched till the Nation had seen and taken notice especially the whole opposite party awakened a very design You have pleaded the civil Authority for your acting in the Government but have setled the Government it self for the satisfaction of your own consciences and the consciences of the people of God upon the firm basis of divine Scripture authority and so have we thence you have been authorized to bring into the Church and keep in it by the mercifull intervention of civill Authority the despised governing Elders and so shut out of the Church and keep out of it that Lordly and self-murthering Episcopacy and so have we You have been forced to flie to the testimony of your consciences concerning your aims and ends in your publick undertakings in the cause of God and so have we It was scarce possible for you to wipe off the dirt cast upon you but some of it would unavoidably fall upon them that cast it nor can we Vpon these and other considerations we knew not in what Name of right to publish our enforced Vindication in the same common cause but in your Name who have gone before us in the work and have afforded us light and encouragement whose seasonable and solid Labours have already found acceptance in the Church and blessing from God And we pray that your Bow may abide in strength and the armes of your hands may be made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob that though the Archers have sorely grieved you and shot at you and hated you yet you may still possess the rich blessing of truth in Doctrine Government and Discipline and may foyl the adversaries thereof till the renewed and enlarged favour of God hath overspread this Nation with the Reformation so happily begun and till that so much desired prayed for and endeavoured accommodation of dissenting Brethren alas alas too hardly attained may sincerely
Officers depending on that Hierarchy was extirpated according to that Covenant as appears by the Ordinance they passed October the 9. 1646. for the abolishing Archbishops and Bishops within the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales By them also after the passing of severall Ordinances for the setling of the Presbyterian Governments by parts before at length that progress was by them made in that work that they passed the Ordinance of 1648. establishing the forme of Church Government to be used in the Church of England after advice had with the Assembly of Divines By their authority and according to the rules and directions by them given for that purpose they setled the Presbyterian Government in the Province of London and in this Province of Lancaster and in some other parts of the Land whereby they sufficiently awarranted those that should act therein according to their Ordinances that they are secured against that danger of a Premunire with which some as will appear from the following Papers hath been threatned What obstructions this work of reformation so happily begun did after meet with from severall Parties or how it came to passe that this Government was setled throughout the Land we are not willing here so much as to mention desiring rather in silence to acknowledge the righteous Hand of God in bringing us back again into the wildernesse of confusion to wander there for severall years together when we had been upon the borders of a just settlement and thereby correcting an unthankfull people and unwilling to be reformed according to their Covenant then by making complaints against any to seem to murmur at his just dispensation especially considering that we are not without hope but that the wise and mercifull God may have reserved the honour of finishing this work and building upon that foundation which was by them laid in troublous times for a fitter season when the people of this Nation having been convinced of the mischiefs and miseries of an ungoverned Church by the long want of Church Government in it may be the more ready to give the more chearfull entertainmant to what may be established by some after Parliament And who can tell but the hands of sundry of the same Zerubbabels that laid the foundation of this work their hands may also finish it But however thus we see that the worke of reformation and particularly of Churches and Nations is not a work that goes on easily it meeteth with opposition not only often from enemies but sometimes even from professed friends And if that Parliament that cast out Episcopacy and established the Presbyterian Government in the room thereof did not carry on that worke so far but through much difficulty it is not to be thought strange if the same spirit of opposition that they wrestled with should after they were risen discover it selfe to the interrupting and hindering of those that acted upon their Ordinances in the exercise of that Government and Discipline which they so established We cannot but imagine that sundry throughout the Land have reason to complaine of the like if not far worse then we have met with But as touching our selves it was our publishing a short Paper in our severall Congregations and herewith Printed that was the occasion of those contests betwixt us and the Gentlemen we have to deale with that are now made publick to the world What the designe of that Paper was we leave it to all indifferent persons to consider nothing doubting but that all equall judges will conclude it was very honest and did not merit such unhandsome handling as it after met with But how matters after proceeded betwixt us and the Gentlemen that assaulted it untill without our privity and consent both that and other Papers that after passed on both sides were by them Printed our Narrative following will give a full account whereby also it will be evident that we are forced into the field for our own defence as it will be further manifest to every Reader from the Papers themselves which we here publish we are meerly on the defensive part And if the Reader be pleased to take notice from our Narrative that it was in July last that we first met with all the Papers in Print and further observe thence that we had been before that time in a treaty with them touching a meeting in order to an accommodation during which time we had not any thoughts of returning any Answer in writing to their last Papers and that notwithstanding our severall other employments in the meane season our Answer to those Papers had fully passed the Class November the 23. of this same Year as appears by the date they beare according to the subscription of them by the Moderator we cannot conceive that he will judge we have neglected any time that could with conveniency have been redeemed for the hastening our Answer abroad in the world And now untill they see the light the transcribing them faire for the Press and the Printing of them drinkes up the remainder of the time All that we have now further to acquaint the Reader with is to give him an account of some things in reference to what we here publish We have Printed over again all the Papers that formerly passed betwixt them and us because we could not answer severall things in theirs without some speciall reference to both their Papers and ours and we judged it to be the fairest way to present all entirely to the Readers view that thereby he might be able the better to judg concerning the whole especially considering what we now publish might perhaps come into the hands of sundry that had never seen what had been before by them Printed We have not omitted to Print the Title given by them to the Papers as they were by them published that by comparing their Papers with their Title and our examination of them together with that tast we give in the close of that spirit they discover in them the Reader may the better judge how their discourse doth suit with the Title given to it We have also therewith again Printed their Preface that they might not have any occasion to say of us that we had a mind to suppress any thing of theirs which they perhaps might judg materiall though from our Narrative and Animadversions on this their Preface in the close of that our Narrative the weight that is in it will be tried The Paper which we published in our Congregations and that followes our Narrative though approved by the Provinciall yet being directed only to the Congregations of our own Association was drawn up short being for the use of those that were not altogether strangers to the Discipline it having been practised amongst them for severall yeares before and the rules whereof as they are more fully and particularly held forth in the forme of Church Government established by the Parliament so had been more fully expounded to them in our publick Ministry as
God in his Word for the information of the ignorant but in what way of Catechizing as is expressed in our Paper the ignorant in our Congregations who never offered themselves unto the Sacrament were most like to be brought to some measure of knowledge and which is not a matter of Doctrine but of Order onely Neither was it by us submitted to that Assembly whether the censures of the Church were the meanes appointed by Christ for the reforming of the scandalous But whether it might not be meet pro hic nunc and as the present case stood to apply the censures and so put in practice at this time that which in the General we were sufficiently assured from the word of Truth was the way for their reformation and with which we were both by God and Man intrusted to dispense unto those that were openly scandalous in our Congregations However they contented themselves to live in the want of the Lords Supper nor ever presented themselves to the Eldership to be admitted to it And this because meerly circumstantial as to the dispensing of the Censures at this time and to such Persons we think herein we owed the Provincial Assembly unto whose Authority we professe our selves to be subject so much respect and duty as to submit our apprehensions in a case of this nature which they had propounded unto us to be seriously weighed as they had done to the rest of the Classes within this Province unto their Judgement and to take their concurrent approval along with us before we proceeded to practise in a matter of this weight And yet we have declared before That however we are not so wavering and unsettled in matters of faith as to resolve our belief into the determination of Synods or Councils believing no more nor no otherwise then as they determine Yet that it is not out of the compasse of the authority of a Synod to examine try and authoritatively to censure Doctrines as well as matters of Discipline And we think how confident soever you may be of the soundnesse and orthodoxnesse of what in your Paper you propound in way of exception against any thing in ours you have not such clear and unquestionable grounds from Scripture for the same that you were to be accused of wavering or unsettledness if you had submitted the same to have been examined and tried by a Provincial Assembly and much lesse if you could have had the opportunity of submitting it to the Censure of a General Council But whereas mentioning our Provincial Assembly at Preston you call it a new termed Provincial Assembly If your meaning be that the terming it a Provincial Assembly instead of a Provincial Synod is a new term then this is but onely a Logomachia and not much to be insisted on Although we frequently call it a Provincial Synod as well as a Provincial Assembly But if your meaning be That it is a new termed Provincial Assembly at Preston Because Provinciall Synods or Assemblies have been held but lately at Preston we see not if Provincial Assemblies be warrantable and have been of ancient use in the Church that having been long in dis-use they began of late to be held at Preston that can justly incurre your censure But if the Antiquity of such Assemblies be that you question Then we referre you to what Doctor Bernard in the Book of his above quoted shews was the Judgement of Doctor Vsher who is acknowledged by all that knew him or are acquainted with his works to have been a great Antiquary however we alleadge him not that you should build your faith upon his Testimony and which we think may be sufficient to vindicate Provincial Assemblies in your thoughts from all suspition of novelty In that Book you have in the close of it proposals touching the Reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government received in the ancient Church And it thus begins 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 the better understand what the Lord hath commanded herein The exhortation of Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination A little after it is aknowledged That Ignatius by Presbytery mentioned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. 14. did understand the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders who then had a hand not onely in the delivery of the Doctrine and Sacraments but also in the administration of the Discipline of Christ And for further proof Tertullian is alleadged in his Generall Apologie for Christians Where he saith that in the Church are used exhortations chastisements and divine censure For Judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God And it is the chiefest foreshewing of the Judgement to come if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer and of the Assembly and of all holy Fellowship The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders who have obtained this honour not by reward but by good report There also is further shewed That in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the received form of gathering together the Presbytery And that Cyprian sufficiently declares of what Persons that consisted When he wisheth him to read his Letter to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him And further That in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded That the Bishop might hear no mans cause without the presence of the Clergy And that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void unlesse it were confirmed by the Clergy And yet further That this is found inserted into the Canons of Egbert who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times and afterwards into the body of the Canon law it self It is here also acknowledged That in our Church this kind of Presbyterian Government hath been much disused Yet that it did professe that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence also the name of Rector was at first given to him and administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments c. By all which it is acknowledged and also proved That the form of Government by the united suffrages of the Clergy is ancient and which is there in express termes asseâ—ted as it might be demonstrated by many more Testimonies but that we conceive these already mentioned are sufficient and being alleadged by the aforementioned Author As also evidencing what his own Judgement was in this point may be more likely to sway with you if in that there should be a dissent betwixt you and us then any thing that we could our selves produce But in this reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodical Government
for which we shall heartily pray we cannot but judge that such as are within our bounds and live as lawlesse persons contemning the commands of God and so out of their rank and order and of which sort you deny not but that there may be some among us however they be subject to Law and the punishment of the Civil Sword as needs they must be yet being such as are justly censurable according to the rules of our Government we do not think they are thereby exempted from being reached by that Ecclesiastical Sword as you phrase it which both God and the Civil Authority hath intrusted us with And as we are farre from contemning the Authority of the Civil Magistrate and shall therefore out of due respect unto it and that the lawlesse might be curbed be ready not onely our selves as we have a call but also warn others as there may be occasion to make complaint to the Civil Power that so such offenders may be punished by corporal and pecuniary mulcts to the suppression of wickednesse and licentiousnesse and the Reformation of mens lives and manners Yet we do not apprehend why this should hinder us from warning the Members of our several Congregations to make complaint to the Eldership of those that walk disorderly and will not be reclaimed to the end they may be further dealt with as the nature of their offence may deserve We being fully assured from the word of truth That Excommunication is Gods ordinance appointed for the reformation of the scandalous and as you your selves acknowledged in the beginning of your Paper and being a spiritual punishment for the nature and kind of it through the blessing of God may be more available for the destruction of the flesh and the thorough humiliation of the offender then any corporal or pecuniary mulct that reaches but the outward man can be And as it was blessed with great successe for this end for many years together whilest the Church was destitute of Christian Magistrates Although in a Christian State we see not why we should divide what God hath joyned together We having not yet learned either from the Scriptures or sound reason that the conjunction of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Sword is not more likely through the same blessing of God to work a greater reformation in mens lives then either of them alone remembring that old Maxime Vis unita fortior And as touching our selves and the power we are intrusted to exercise we shall commit our endeavours unto his blessing in the use of his own appointed means who is able and we doubt not but he will make the same effectual for the ends for which he hath appointed them SECT VIII BUt you say There are other parts of our Paper that do likewise remain dark which you desire to be made plain Although we conceive not so of them yet we shall as willingly go along with you to give you further answer as you to desire the same of us And therefore whereas we having said in our Paper That there are many persons of all sorts that will not submit themselves to the present Government of the Church Your first Quaere thereupon is Why Government in singulari We answer because it is the onely Government that at present is established in this Church by Civil Authority The Prelatical being put down and cautioned against in the humble Advice in regard of any liberty to be extended to it for the exercise thereof And there being no other Government but the Presbyterian which is our Government that is owned as the Church-Government for the whole Nation by the Civil Authority And as it is that which we judge to be most agreeable to the will of God so also we conceive that whatever is of Christs prescribing in any other different Government whether Episcopal or Congregational is to be found here As we do apprehend the redundancies of them both to be taken away in this and the defects of them both to be here supplyed And however there may be differences amongst godly men concerning Church-Government which it is that Christ in particulari hath prescribed in his Word yet we judge that the Government which Christ hath prescribed in his Word is but one As all those must say so too that not being Erastians do hold That one Church-Government or other is of divine Right But whereas you bring in Calvin saying Seimus enim unicuique Ecclesiae c. To this we say The circumstantials of Government that are but matters of order onely and which must be suited to the time or place or persons for whom they are made and concerning which if you had quoted the place where Calvin useth these words we believe it would appear he speaks these being variable and so but the accidentals of Government may not be one and the same in all Churches But if Christ have prescribed a Government in his word for the substantials of it it must needs be de jure one and the same in every Church And that the Presbyterian Government is that in particular which is there prescribed in Calvins Judgement is so manifest by his works to the whole Christian world that it needs no proof But if the Government which Christ hath prescribed for the substantials of it be onely one then that alone is good and all other Governments differing substantially from it must needs be bad and this onely jure divino and Christs own Government and the rest not And therefore whereas in the next place you suppose We may assert that our Government is the Government by way of Eminency as Christs own Government more immediately and jure divino To this and to what you further hereupon do inquire we say we have declared already That we call'd it the present Government because it is the onely Government settled in the Church by the Civil Power But whether it be the Government by way of Eminency and jure divino that was not the thing referred unto in the phrase we used And as to the resolving of your doubts and scruples we conceive it is not here material for us to go about the proving of the Jus divinum of it we having proved That it is the Government that is established by the Civil Magisttate and which doth lay as good a foundation to evidence the lawfulnesse of your submission to it as for the lawfulnesse of your submission to the former Government and touching which we suppose you were satisfied your exceptions lying as much against the High-Commissioners Chancellors and Commissaries then as they can do now against the office of Ruling Elders and which is the chief thing we apprehend is stumbled at in our Government But yet if you desire to have satisfaction given you touching that which we are not ashamed to professe viz. the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government we referee you to what is so fully spoken touching this point by sundry learned Divines both of our own Church
may by this loving accord with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed or by due censures corrected and amended Amongst your selves also many who returned to their Canonical obedience which they have sworn to may blot out that charge of Schism that lies upon them The Church of God continued amongst us from age to age to the end of the world in a Succession of a lawfully ordained Ministry The word of God that Candlestick fix'd firmly amongst us which otherwise is on tiptoes ready to remove west-ward as our reverend Pastor in this Church very lately did seem to presage And we shall happily be freed from the trouble of any further Rejoinder unto your answer which otherwise we must do amongst other considerable reasons to take off your Government from that establishment of authority upon the proof whereof the most considerable part as to the bulk of your answer doth insist Subscribed by us whose names are underwritten by the consent and on the behalf of many others Isaac Allen. Ferdinando Stanely Nicholas Moseley Francis Moseley Tho. Symond John Ogden Manchester 9. March 1657. The Animadvertisement to the Reader annexed by the Gentlemen unto their Second Paper and prefixed to their Third in their printed Copy THe Reader must take notice that upon the Ministers Answer to our first Paper we replyed only in a second single sheet conceiving some hopes of an amicable and friendly agreement of these differences by submitting our selves to the Judgment of that Learned Bishop Dr. Usher whom they seem'd to quote for a Patron and President of their Government if not in all circumstantials yet in the substance and foundation of it but upon our overtures for a friendly treaty in order to such a Composure they give us some verbal exceptions against the last passage of our Reply and put us upon that work to invalid their civil Sanction this is the occasion of a Reply and a Rejoynder also on our parts without any further return from them but only in words THE ANSWER OF The First Classis Within the Province of Lancaster UNTO THE GENTLEMENS Second Paper WE do not question but it is sufficiently manifest from our Narrative unto the impartial Reader that you dealt not fairly with us either in Printing our Papers or your own For to say nothing touching this that what passed betwixt you and us was private and should not have been made publique to the world but by mutual agreement on both sides you might have remembred that in the close of that answer we gave unto your first Paper we told you If notwithstanding thaâ— answer given you should yet rest unsatisfied we desired you to let us know what it was you stumbled at and that though in regard of sundry other imployments that did lie upon us it could not be expected that we who met but once a moneth in ordinary and about other matters should hold on a course of answering you still by writing yet we said We should be ready to appoint some other way that might be far more spâ—edy and as we trusted as effectual to give you that further satisfaction that might be meet and just and you know our proceedings afterward were accordingly as the Reader will fully understand from our Narrative But it seems either the confidence you had touching the unanswerablenesse of what you had presented unto us or the diffidence you apprehended in us to make out publiquely what we had so far appeared in or some itching desire you had to be in Print or some other motive that you your selves are best acquainted with hath induced you to print both your papers and ours And seeing you have chosen to run that course we must now follow you in your own way For however we do not question but the intelligent and judicious Reader by comparing only what is said on both sides will of himself easily perceive that neither in this nor your third Paper you do tender any thing that can have any shew of satisfactoriness unto the answer we gave you yet least the weak should be imposed on by your bold and confident assertions your scoffes and taunts at our answer as generally weak and in some places absurd and thereby to the prejudice of the truth and cause we stand for be induced to conceive if we should not return some further answer you had put us to silence and we had nothing father to say in the midst of sundry other of our ministeriall occasions we are willing to be at some further pains for the satisfaction of such as also for the vindication of the truth the Presbyterian Government and our selves and actings from the many unjust aspersions that are cast upon us in your papers hoping also that the Reader will consider that if our answer to these your two other papers be satisfactory it comes out soon enough from us who are a society and many and must therefore on that account move the more slowly though we hope not the less surely and who besides the inspection over our families and congregations and our constant and dayly pains amongst them have other matters also of publique and common concernment to the whole Association to attend on at our Classical meetings and which we could not think were fit to be wholly laid aside or interrupted that so our answer might be hastened to what you have printed we having just cause to fear least when we have said that which will be sufficient to satisfie the unprejudiced Reader you will not therein acquiesce But we now come to your Papers and shall first answer to your Second and then Animadvert on your last In the beginning of your second paper to which we now answer though you here causelesly complain of our prolixity yet you court us with the sweetest compellations calling us Your dear Friends nay more Brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord and further you return us hearty thanks for our answer which you acknowledge is full of civility toward you but in your third and last paper you fall on us with scoffs and jeires uncharitable censures foul aspersions pouring out that too much venom and distemper of spirit which the godly and wise Readers will soon be aware of and which whether they be agreeable to those sugared words you here give us we leave it to your selves in the searching of your consciences to judge of as we doubt not but when the impartial Reader shall compare the civility of our answer with what he may finde in your first paper he will readily conclude we merited no such things from you as we meet with in your last But we do here observe that you do not deny but that there might be some errors and mistakes and some sharpe reflections upon us and our government in that first paper and with which we had charged you And hereupon we have reason to tell you that you had evidenced more sincerity in this confession if the sence of your former failings had
sonable and fit in respect of their people to desire the Assistance of some godly and discreet Persons of their respective Congregations c. And therefore as touching ruling Elders as there was a submission in the dayes of Episcopacy to Chancellours and Commissaries we conceive that moderate Episcopall men might admit these upon prudentiall grounds though they did not acknowledge the Jus divinum of their Office and which opinion of them notwithstanding our own perswasion we are far from imposing upon others and we do also hope that such as would make tryall of them would have occasion to bless God for those great helps that might be offered unto them by them both for the better acquainting them with the Conversations of their people as also for the guiding and governing of them As we do also further humbly conceive there might be such a proportioning of them for the number of them in the higher Assemblies that neither it might be burthensome to the Elders that might be delegated to such Assemblies when they are over many nor the Assemblies be disappointed for want of a Quorum of ruling Elders as sometimes they have been nor any occasion of fear given unto any that the Ministers might be over-voted by the Elders in matters of greatest weight and concernment which yet supposes a division betwixt the Ministers and Elders which in our own experience we have never met with And as touching a standing Moderator that some moderate Episcopall men are for we think their Consciences might he satisfied in the way of Moderators as they are in use with us we not discerning what can be urged by them as necessary to be transacted by him from Gods Word but it may be safely transacted by the Moderators of our Assemblies And as touching our Brethren of the Congregationall way we are sure moderate Episcopacy will be no expedient to bring them and us unto neerer Union but conceive that as the Assembly of Divines did long agon enter upon that Work of Accommodation with them so if that Work were reâ— assumed by the appointment and interposition of the Civil Magistrate through the blessing of God we hope it might be brought to such a conclusion not onely with them but also with those that are godly and moderate Spirited that are of the Episcopall way that without admittance of moderate Episcopacy that would not further it there might be an happy closure of breaches in this rent and torne Church all parties that have soundness and savour in them seeming to be weary of their Divisions and to earnestly thirst and pant after Union But we hope by this time the sober and judicious Reader is satisfied that we had some reason to caution against moderate Episcopacy as we did even where we profess our selves earnest for peace and that If you had considered things well you had no reason fully to expect that we should admit of that expedient which you propounded for an Accommodation which we for severall weighty reasons had expresly cautioned against But we have now done with what you propounded as the way wherein you expected fully we should have closed with you and shall now go on with you unto what follows wherein you declare your selves That they who disturb this closure and conjunction are the ruling Elders that yet were not only chosen out of the people but at the first constitution of the Congregational Elderships were examined and approved by this Class as fit to joyn with the Ministers of the Word in the governing of the Church and solemnly set a part with exhortation and Prayer for that Work although not ordained for to preach the Gospel or administer the Sacraments and so not meer Lay-men as you apprehend them to be Now of these you say you wish not with the Apostle that they were cut off but that they were taken away that trouble you for you say speaking of these onely they let that will let untill they be taken out of the away Indeed the Apostle unto whose words you allude speaks of something that letted and would let the revelation of Antichrist untill he were taken away and if after Antichrist hath been cast out of this Land the retaining of the ruling Elders were likely to be a let to his setting foot again in it it would be very ill upon that account to part with them but we do not discern how the retaining of the ruling Elders should have hindred your closure and conjunction with us if you had been cordiall for Peace and Union for though you could not admit them upon the divine right of their Office yet you who excepted not against the lawfulness of retaining of High Commissioners Chancellours and Commissaries and of which we shall speak more fully in our answer to your last Paper under the Prelaticall Government might have admitted of ruling Elders on prudentiall grounds upon the Principles of sundry moderate Episcopall men and as they have done of which before and as you may see one zealous enough against the Jus divinum of ruling Elders Office is not against them as an expedient and behoovefull Order in the Church and where the right Governours of State any where moving upon prudentiall grounds shall find the conveniency of them See Velitationes Polemicae by J. D. quaest 3. Touching Lay-Presbyters Sect. 30. But you now mind us of what we had said in our Answer scil That we could not consent to part with the ruling Elders except we should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. and for further testimony you say we refer you to some modern Authors all of Yesterday Here we shall desire you to take notice of two things 1. That being the Authors we referred you unto were reverend learned and able Divines such as was the Synod or Assembly of Divines that met at Westminster by Authority of Parliament and the Provinciall Synod of London besides the Divines that we did particularly nominate they should not have been slighted by you who profess you reverence Synods and Councels in regard of their testimony because they were but of Yesterday For upon this account all Synods and Councels that shall hereafter be convened must be rejected 2. That it was not their meer testimony or authority that we pressed you with We referred you to them in regard of their Arguments and Reasons they urged for what they assert And we think both you and we may learn much from the learned and elaborate Labours of modern Authors And that we are not to disdain to weigh what they present because they are but of Yesterday Else you must neither consult Doctor Vsher Doctor Andrews nor Doctor Hammond whom you mention nor any other moderate Writers that yet we judge are in some esteem with you but betake your selves to the Fathers onely And because you took not notice of what the Authors we referred you to have touching the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government and which
all Synods promiscuously to be admitted so he would have their decrees that are produced to be examined according to the rule of Scripture notwithstanding that reverence which he from whom therein we differ not doth give them But you may see he further goes on and adds Vtinam eum omnes modum servarent quem praescribâ—t Augustinus libro adversus Maximinum tertio Nam cum hunc haereticum de syncdorum decretis litigantem breviter vult compescere Nec â—go inquit Nicenam Synodum tibi nec tu mihi Aâ—iminensem debes tanquam praejudicaturus objicere Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed quae utrisque sunt communes res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum rotione certet The intelligent Reader will hereby sufficiently perceive that however Calvin gives due respect unto Councils yet both he and Augustine whom he cites would have all Controversies touching matters of Religion to be determined by the Authorities or Testimonies of Scriptures And however he presently after saith That those ancient Synods the Nicene Constantinopolitan the first Ephesine and that at Chalcedon and the like we do willingly receive and reverence as holy Quantum attinet ad fidei dâ—gmata So far as concerns the Doctrines of Faith let that be marked and acknowledgeth that they containe nothing but the pure Native interpretation of the Scriptures Yet what is that to what you would father upon him Viz. That there can be no better sence nor interpretation of the Scriptures then what is given by the Fathers in such Councils All that Calvin saith is That he acknowledgeth these Councils did in Doctrinals rightly interpret the Scriptures but he would not have their interpretation of Scripture for to be the rule of its interpretation as in your next Paper when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture you assert it ought to be and which there you alledging this place of Calvin would represent him to patronize and for which purpose you do also seem to alledge him here Although the Reader by what hath been quoted out of him in this Section will see the contrary Besides that he did not say touching matters of Discipline and Government which are the things onely in Controversie betwixt you and us those Councils he spake of did containe nothing but the pure and native interpretation of the Scriptures but limited the same to Doctrinals as we have shewed And therefore we leave it to the Reader to judge whether you have thus far dealt fairely with Calvin or no. You also quoted the thirteenth Section of this ninth Chapter lib. 4. But there we find onely that he expresseth himselfe thus Nos certe libenter concedimus si quo de dogmate incidat disceptat nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium quam si verorum Episcopoâ—um Synodus conveniat ubi controversum dogma excutiatur He acknowledgeth then that when a Controversie doth arise there is no better nor surer remedy for the determining it then by a Synod of true Bishops which are the Bishops mentioned in Timâ—thy and Titus in Calvins sence but yet he concludes that very Section thus Hoc autem perpetuum esse nego ut vera certa sit scripturae interpretatio quae conâ—ilii suffragiis fuerit recepta i. e. But this I deny to be perpetuall that that is a true and certain interpretation of Scripture which hath been received by the Suffrages of a Council And if we should here press you to that which Calvin saith as touching this point Seeing it hath been determined by the late Synod or Assembly of Divines that As there were in the Jewish Church Elders of the people joyned with the Priests Levites in the Government of the Church as appeareth in the 2 Chron. 19. 8 9 10 so Christ hath instituted a Government and Governors Ecclesiasticall in the Church hath furnished some in his Church besides the Ministers of the Word with Gifts for Goverment and with Commission to execute the same when called thereunto who are to joyn with the Minister in the Government of the Church Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 2. 8. which Officers reformed Churches commonly call Elders You ought nor against their determination touching this matter in Controversie betwixt you and us by your opposition to trouble and disturb the peace of the Church and which is that which seems to be clearly Calvins mind in this Section This for the Vindication of Calvin is we hope sufficient As touching the Fathers you wish us to consult on Rom. 12. intimating out of Doctor Andrews That not one of them applyeth it to the Church Government and as much you say may be sayd for the other Texts not one Father in their Comment giveth such a sense and which you are so confident of that you offer that if we find one exposition for us you will yeild us all Unto this we say 1. That we believe all wise and sober Readers will easily discern that your over-much confidence hath put you on to over-shoot a great deal too far For we can hardly be brought to perswade our selves that you have any of you much less all of you who are the Subscribers of this Paper consulted all the Fathers upon any and much less upon all these Texts And if so it was a great deal too much presumption to make such an offer upon the Testimony of Doctor Andrews that yet is alledged by you to speak but to onely one of the Texts or any other having not consulted all the Fathers your selves and that upon every Text. For what an hazard do you put your Cause upon If but one Father be produced against you in this matter if you should be taken at your word it is quite lost And if it be Gods Cause and Truth you stand for can you be excused that you have offered to quit it upon such easie tearms But we will be more liberall to you then to take you at such a disadvantage though you have been too presumpteously liberall in making such an offer 2. But suppose none of the Fathers could be produced thus to expound any of these Texts If from the Texts themselves and what may be urged from other places of the Scriptures both in the Old and New Testament it may be gathered that that is the meaning of them which we with sundry other moderne Authors give why should this Interpretation be rejected because not backed with the Testimony of some of the Fathers thus expounding them Is not the Scripture sufficient to expound it self This indeed is your opinion as appeareth plainly from your next Paper but the Popish unsoundness of it we question not but to discover when we come to it 3. But if the Fathers do not many of them determine the Controversie touching ruling Elders from these Texts it having been started since their time yet is it not sufficient if they
shall be severall of them found to allow of the thing it self and give testimony to the being of these Officers in the Church in their time We shall here mention onely some of those that may be alledged touching this particular And first Ambrose his words on 1 Tim. 5. 1. are full and plain to our purpose Vnde synagoga postea Ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum sibi volunt aliquid videri i. e. Whence both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Elders without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church Which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not unless perhaps through the Teachers sloathfulness or rather haughtiness while they alone would be thought somewhat In the next place observe what Optatus saith lib. 1. Adversus Parmen Eram Ecclesie ex auro argento quam plurima â—rnamenta quae nec defodere terra nec secum poâ—tare poterat quare fidelbus Ecclesiae senioribus commendavit i. i. e. The Church had many Ornaments of Gold and Silver which she could neither hide in the Earth nor carry away with her which she committed to the Elders The Provinciall Assembly of London do observe that Albaspinaeus that learned Antiquary upon the place acknowledgeth that besides the Clergy there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the Affaires of the Church of whom this place is to be understood To these we may add That Austine gives frequent intimations of the ruling Elder in his time We shall here onely mention some places In his 137. Epistle to those of his owne Church he thus directs it Dilectissimis fratribus Clero Senioribus universae plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis i. e. To the most beloved Brethren the Clergy Elders and all the people of the Church at Hippo. Where we see Elders are mentioned distinctly and are interposed between the Clergy and the people as distinct from both Again De verb. Dom. Serm. 19. Cum ob errorem aliquem asâ—nioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui de illis cur ebrius fuerit c. When they are reprehended for any errour by the Elders and its imputed to any of them why was he drunk c. So againe Lib. 3. contra Cresconium cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Musticanae regionis Peregrine the Presbyter and the Elders of the Mustican Region And long before him Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. hath this passage Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi caelu interdicant c i. e. There are some Rulers appointed who may enquire concerning the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted that they may debar from the common Assembly such as commit filthiness This place of Origen is clear for ruling Elders whose work it is to enquire into the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted to communicate with the Congregation at the Lords Table and is so understood by others as well as our selves We might alledge more Testimonies of the Fathers for the proof of what we are in hand with but that we judge these sufficient Even those that do oppose the ruling Elders Office with too much vehemency are forced to confess that besides Pastors and Doctors and besides Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to be found in Antiquity Seniores ecclesiastici Ecclesiasticall Elders also But they will have them to be onely as our Church-wardens or rather as our Vestry-men as one of them speaks See the Author of Episcopacy by divine right pag. 146. whereas the Testimonies alledged shew they were Rulers and Judges in Causes Ecclesiasticall and did assist the Ministers of the Word in the ruling and governing of the Church which being very clear from the above mentioned Testimonies and others of the like kind another zealous enough against them would have them to be some or other in chief Rank amongst the rest of the people taken in occasionally for advice and present assistance and so an extraordinary kind of Church-Guardians without any peculiar and setled Jurisdiction Which is but gratis dictum sayd without all proof See Velitatienes polemicae by I. D. pag. 96 But at last this Author as not satisfied with former Answers given and granting that the Fathers in truth do make for them as indeed they do yet he would not have their Testimonies amount to so much as to the clearing up of Divine Right so strongly stood upon by divers as he speaks But the matter of Fact then is granted that there were such Ecclesiastical Officers which the Fathers owned and allowed of And being the Divine Right of their Office was not then questioned it is as easie for us to affirm that as those Fathers did not deny it so they owned it as it is for that Author to say That they were but admitted as an expedient and behoovefull Order in the Church or on prudentiall grounds To use his own expressions quoted before Vide Pag. 96. Sect. 30. Although this being granted will be sufficient to vindicate this Office of the ruling Elder from all suspition of novelty and to shew That it was no new fangled device of Calvin at Gevena as some tauntingly have sayd And for your admittance of the ruling Elder this might be sufficient for your satisfaction as we think according to your Principles But now to return to the Texts alledged by us to prove the Divine Right of the ruling Elders Office After you had sent us to the Fathers to consult them you tell us Many there are that apply them to the Bishops and amongst these you instance Doctor Fulk applying these Texts to the Bishops onely whom you say you quote in regard of the moderate Judgment he was supposed to be of in point of Church-government c. But you having not dealt so fairely with Calvin as had been meet you must pardon us if we cannot take the matter you quote him for upon trust and from your representation of him You do not here cite the place but for what reason your selves best know as we leave it to the Reader for to judge But the words that you alledge out of him though mangled by you we find in him in his Answer to the Rhemists on Titus 1. 5. And we shall give them the Reader intirely and at full length and they are these Amongst whom speaking of the Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was alwaies one Principall to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applyed Which Room Titus exercised at Crete Timothy in Ephesus and others in other places Therefore although in Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in preaching the Word and administration of
the censures of the Church Government Offices and Ordinances are first given to the universal visible Church before they be given to this or that particular Church although it be true also that he who is a member of the Catholick Church must also be a member of some particular Church under the Discipline and Government thereof But we did not argue from what made you members of the Catholick Church to prove you to be members of some one or other of our particular Churches and so to be under the Government of this Class this we prove from individuating circumstances because within the bounds of our Association appointed by authority of Parliament and other circumstances And so we do not say that except men renounce Christianity and their Baptisme they are subject to our Government but we say we look upon all those within the bounds of our Association who have not renounced Christianity and their Baptisme of which sort we know not any amongst us as persons we have an inspection over and appointed by Ordinance of Parliament to be subject to our Government which yet we exercise towards all according to those rules and that moderation that is prescribed in the forme of Church Government And thus we have answered all that you have here presented to take off our Government from its establishment by the civil Sanction for it is not your coming over again with the Act of 1650. already answered and bidding us to read it nor your bidding us to read the close of the Eleventh Section of the humble Advice and not proving any thing in the form of Church Government to be contrary to it that will prove either an expresse or implicit repeal though pressed with never so much vehemency of expressions that onely proclaim your heat and earnest desire to have it so and how gladly you would be believed upon your word and confidence in this matter when you want further arguments to make out what you say The Gentlemens Paper Sect. V. And thus having proved your Presbyterian Government to have the civil Sanction just thus and no otherwise you come now to answer more particularly to that which follows And first you explicate what was before dark unto us who are meant by the many persons of all sorts that are Members of Congregations c. And you tell us all persons are within your verge none without except they will renounce Christianity and their Baptisme but are within the verge of your Presbyterian Government their not associating with you in regard of Government doth not exempt them from censure by it c. Independents Anabaptists and others all are subject and censured by your Government if they should be such Offenders as by the Rule thereof are justly censurable it being not a matter arbitrary for private persons at their own will and pleasure to exempt themselves from under that Ecclesiasticall Government that is setled by authority Here Gentlemen you may do well to consider whether you do not subject your selves to the contempt and scorn of all other parties who conceit they have as full power by their Rules of Church Discipline to censure you as you have them jam sumus ergo pares yet they dare not censure or punish any out of their Church Membership contrary to the severall Acts made for Toleration To the Act of the 27. September 1650. and to the express Article in the humble Advice above mentioned If you be so bold we have told you before and tell you again an Ordinance of Lords and Commons for setling of your Fresbyterian Government will be no sufficient plea for your Actings contrary to the known Laws since made but will prove you Contemners of all Civil power and may run you upon a Premunire But here you seem offended at us for calling Presbytery a common fold What Presbytery a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been before declared to be tearmed a common fold You might have used a more civil expression What Presbytery interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as you do How is that We shall tell you the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of this word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latine Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselm and others taking this word Presbytery for the Function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest and thus Calvin takes it in his Institutes Quod de impositione manuum Presbyterii dicitur â—non ità accipio quasi Paulus de Seniorum collegio loquatur sedhoc nomine ordinationem ipsam intelligo The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests and in this sense likewise in his Comment upon this place it is interpreted by Calvin saying Presbyterium qui hic collectivum nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sâ—nâ—iunt meo judicio Although he is here as flat opposite to his former Judgement as high noon is to midnight And we fear we shall find you as wavering and unsetled in yours when it comes to scanning For divers of the Fathers you say interpret this word as you do and as you have before declared Now how you interpret it and where to find this place where it is before declared That your Interpretation agreeth with sundry of the Fathers we have not yet discovered Indeed we find you quoting Dr Vsher that Learned and Reverend Antiquary to prove the antiquity of Synods and Assemblies and thereby you think he vindicates your Assemblies in our thoughts from all suspition of Novelty We find also by you out of him there quoted certain Fathers as first Ignatius who by Presbytery mentioned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. 14. did understand the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders And for further proof Tertullian is alledged in his generall Apologie for Christians that old-beaten saying by you and your party praesident probati quique Seniores c. Now do these interpret as you do Is Presbytery such as you pretend to be established by Ordinance of Parliament and such as you stand for in your sense is it we say so understood by Dr Vsher and doth he bring in these Fathers speaking in this sense If we press you to stand to their opinion and sense you will run back how may you then for shame assert that their Interpretation is the same with yours Dr Vshers Judgement of Assemblies agreeth with yours and his proposals of Assemblies are the same in substance with yours Whom you quote you say as more likely to sway with us in case we do differ from you in this point And here these Fathers are brought in giving the same Interpretation as you do will you thus confidently assert
or tendered his judgment as an umpire and composer of differences betwixt us as you here say although we reverence him as a man that was learned and godly and of a farre different spirit from the generality of those that dote upon Episcopacy but for what purpose we quoted him and how farre we accord with him we have as in answer to this occasionally so fully declared our sâ—lves before in our answer to your second Paper And therefore you should not have been thus rash as to impute such things to us for which there is not the least shew of truth as there is not any in what you further adde saying that you would have closed with us on our own termes unto which we have spoken sufficiently in the beginning of this answer to this Paper shewing how much you forgot your selves when you said so before And we must further tell you that however you may conceive of us yet we can still profess with a good conscience that we can cordially our selves joyn in Dr. Bernards wish and heartily recommend it to all sober spirited and godly persons that are sound in the main points of Religion though of different opinions in some things touching Church Government that they would close therein there be nothing more that we long after then an happy healing of breaches amongst those that are the children of peace 4. We having thus vindicated our selves do now come to what followes where you say that Presbytery in the Fathers and Scripture expressions you reverence but ours you still term a common fold and thâ—se godly pretences of ours as you call them as so many waste Papers wherein our Presbytery you say is wrapped to make it look more handsomely and pass more currantly But if you had reverenced Scripture expressions as it had been meet you should you would have abstained from terming our Presbytery a common fold that Presbytery which you acknowledge to be the Scripture expression according to the interpretation of the Fathers by you alleadged being thereby reproached that being Presbytery still and part of that that by you is so ignominiously spoken of as seeing it is disputed betwixt you and us whether ruling Elders be not comprehended under the latitude of the word Presbytery when speech is touching the Ecclesiastical judicatory due reverence unto Scriptural institutions would have withheld you from coming near to the vilifying that which you are not certain but may be of God especially considering how the reformed Churches abroad the late reverend pious and learned Assembly of Divines at home the Provincial Assembly of London and the Ministers of the Provincial Assembly of this County to which you owe respect do all conceive the ruling Elders to be Officers of the Church appointed therein by Christ and so consequently may be comprehended under the latitude of the word Presbytery But the truth is we have cause to fear that you or most of you are so much devoted to Episcopacy that Presbytery in any sense is not any further in esteem with you as any Government of the Church to be owned by you but as you apprehend in this juncture of affairs it being admitted for the present with Prelacy moderated might be a step to erect again in time Episcopacy in its full height and which we judge to be that cause which in your Preface to these Papers you have printed you profess to love as we do also conceive we may further say without transgression of any rules of charity that if the late King had not been too much bent for the upholding of that kind of Episcopacy that was on foot in his time that spoiled the Pastors of the Churches of that rule which our Church acknowledged did of right belong to them and had not been therein backed with the concurrence of some of you and sundry others throughout the Land that were therein fully of his mind the proposals of Dr. Usher touching the reduction of Episcopacy to the forme of Synodical Government had been more readily complied with then they were to the prevention in likelihood in a good measure of those troubles that afterward did arise about Church Government But however there was no reason why either he or you should have called Presbytery a common fold or why you should though you had been backed with the authority of the greatest Prince on earth have called it the anguis in herbâ whereof you had need to beware and to which you here say nothing though you used that expression concerning it in your first Paper And whereas you had also there said referring to the Paper we published in our several Congregations that she came ushered in with godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and ignorance of the times and the duty incumbent on us to exercise the power that Christ had committed to us for edification and not destruction and then said that these were but so many wast Papers wherein Presbytery was wrapped up to make it look more handsomely and pass more currently yet that is no purgation of you from your uncharitable censuring of us and usurping that which belonged not to you in making your selves judges of that which fell not under your cognizance and which was that which we had charged you with in our answer but from which you do not here acquit yourselves But as touching our selves we are not conscious that we have so farre transgressed the rules of charity in passing hard censures either upon him you or any others but that we may approve our selves here to God touching our innocency herein and the sincerity of our hearts and hereafter stand with boldness before the Tribunal of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ at the great day and we do heartily wish that neither any of you or any others throughout these Nations who adhered to the late King in that war he levyed against the Parliament had given the occasion justly to be complained of at that day as therein his greatest enemies The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VI. And now we come you say to frame an Objection out of your Paper and return our Answer profeising that we pray for the establishment of such a Church Government throughout his Highness Dominions as is consonant to the will of God and Universal practise of primitive Churches By which two viz. the will of God and Uinversal practise of Churches we seem to make up the rule as you say for deciding of Controversies of this Nature or of any other in matters of Religion In which you profess to differ greatly from us as not sound and orthodox For the Word of God is the onely rule to judg of matters of this Nature or of any other matters of Religion and therefore away with the constant and Universal practise of the Church We might have cut the matter a great deal shorter and said That we are for the establishment of that Government that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in
Testament but also from the ould and which books proving the Presbyterian Government as from Christ and his Apostles so also from the Jewish judicatories to which some conceive Christ alludes Matth. 18. when he saith tell the Chutch which were appointed many hundred years before Christ and answering the opposers of this Government in all the materiall points that ever were objected against it by the greatest Champions for Episcopacy were never yet answered that we have seen to this day And for this assistance however you contemn it yet we bless God neither are we ashamed of Mr. Hendersons answer to his late Majesty telling him that the Presbyterian Government was to be found in the Scriptures as our Divines have answered the Papists sufficiently after the same manner touching other matters as we are not ashamed neither to make this defence on the behalf of our Church And though we thank God heartily for those farre abler disputants and Champions of the Protestant cause then we or any of us have ever pretended to be not thinking our selves worthy to be mentioned for any abilities amongst them yet we desire to know which of those Champions though they refused not to fight against the Papists with their own weapons sc the testimonies of Fathers and Councils did ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion as you do or did they not rather stoutly and irrefragably maintain and defend this main point of faith against the adversary 5. But now you come to tell us what reverence you pay to the sacred Scripture for you say you acknowledg it to be an infallible and unerring rule And will not a Papist say so too But let us enquire of you will you acknowledge the Scripture to be the sole supreme judge of controversies in matters of faith Except you come up to this you are as yet in regard of any reverence you pay to the Scriptures no further then a Papist nay you joyn hands with them for they say as you do we may not cry up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men to honour and obey and sano sensu in a right and sound sense we shall say so too But you further declare your selves touching this matter and say that the Scripture where it is plain should guid the Church and the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop and you quote in your margent BP Laud's Preface that is not against Usher but Fisher * But here 1. You mistake the Question for it is not Whether to the Church belongeth not a Ministry for the expounding of the Scriptures This is readily granted to her by us as it is by our Protestant Divines and that the Texts you cite in the margent will prove 2. You plainly discover your opinion to be no other then what in this point is held by the Papists and is abundantly refuted by our Protestant Divines in their writings The matter is plainly thus and no otherwise for when you say where the Scripture is plain it must guid the Church but where there is a doubt or difficulty the Church is to expound the Scriptures you plainly insinuate that the Scriptute is not to be the sole and supreme judge touching controversies in Religion for there is no controversie in Religion but the Adversaries be they Antitrinitarians Arrians Papists or whomsoever may say as you here do in such and such points in controversie the Scripture is not plain here is a doubt and difficulty and we must stand to the Churches determination who is in such cases to expound the Scripture neither is the Scripture in such cases to be the onely sure infallible interpreter of it self to which all parties are to stand and in whose determination alone they are to rest and into which our faith must be resolved which yet is that which is maintained by our Protestant Divines against the Papists and of which we shall speak more fully anon Onely for the present we must mind you that this assertion is fetcht out of the dreggs of Popery and is such an opinion as all sound Protestants will disclaim neither do the Texts you cite in your margent prove any such a thing Not 1 Tim. 3. 15. that is usually urged by the Papists for that very opinion which you maintain but is sufficiently vindicated by our Divines shewing that the Church is there called the Pillar and ground of Truth in regard of her Ministry onely by her preaching publishing and defending the truth and thereby transmitting it to posterity but not to intimate that the Scripture in any point where there is doubt or difficulty did borrow authority from the Church no more then the Edicts of Princes do from the publishers of them or from the pillars and posts to which they are affixed that they might be the more generally known The other Text sc Cant. 1. 8. proves indeed that the Church hath a Ministry committed to her for the feeding of babes in Christ as well as stronger men which is not denied but if you will stretch it further its plain you wrest it 6. In the last place you urge us with what we our selves granted unto Synods and Councils acknowledging they were invested with an authoritative juridicall power to enquire into try examine censure and judge of matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline and to whose authority we professed our selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit urging Scripture for it c. nothing whereof we do here retract or eat our own words casting that out as unsound and hetrodox as you say we do which before we acknowledged was a Christians duty to practise For here you do not distinguish betwixt the submission of our faith to the determination of Synods and Councils and the submission of our persons to their censure in regard of any matter of Doctrine held forth by us or any practice This latter submission we still do readily yeeld unto them and that in regard of the juridicall authority they are invested with by the Ordinance of God and this submission was that we professed before to yeeld unto them and was that we argued for But as touching the submission of our faith to their determinations or so as to resolve it into any other principles then the Word of God alone or to build it on any other foundation was not that reverence we ever acknowledged was to be paid to Synods and Councils and is that which here we do professedly deny And therefore you do here again no less then slander us when you say we still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and Discipline to the judgment and determination of our Provinciall Assembly and yet deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church whom neither we ever denied to be a guide or their Expositions of Scripture to be an usefull
here urged but we judge these sufficient and so having dispatcht what we promised we shall now proceed 3. For you having not urged Arguments against the rule by us propounded for the determining controversies in matters of Religion but only vented against us the distemper of your spirit for that proposal do now further declare your selves touching what you would have to be the judge and rule for interpretation of the Scripture and do adde unto the universal â—ractice of the Church mentioned in your first Paper the Churches exposition meaning the exposition of Councils and unanimous consent of Fathers as you here declare your selves concerning which we shall 1. Propound the true state of the Question betwixt you and us 2. And then urge some Arguments against the rule by you here made 3. and lastly We shall answer what you have here to say for your opinion As touching the first we do here declare our selves that we do readily grant the Church may expound the Scripture though as we said in our answer which you here acknowledge it be tied to the rule of Gods word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law and so therefore the Churches exposition may and is to be made use of as a meanes appointed by God that we might understand the word where there is a doubt or difficulty but we must not allow what you further adde sc that we are bound up by the Churches exposition as we are according to what you say to those cases in the Law which are the judgement and exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same neither must we close with you when you say the Churches exposition and practice is our rule in such cases and the best rule too or that when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture we must necessarily make another judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture besides Scripture as you speak the Scripture it self being in such a case the only sure interpreter of it self the doubtfull and hard places thereof being to be expounded by the more plain Further we do here declare that we grant the Church is a judge touching matters of Religion in controversie or touching the interpretation of doubtfull or difficult places of Scripture but a ministerial Judge only and not the rule for its interpretation as you speak or such a judge from which there is no appeal no not to the Scriptureit self as you intimate Again the Church is such a judge to which all parties ought to submit in regard of her juridical authority to be censured by her in regard of opinions or practices but not such a judge to whose determination we must submit our faith or resolve it into her sentence In a word we grant unto the Church a Ministry but not a dominion over our faith nor make her interpretation of the Scripture where there is a doubt or difficulty the rule of faith or practice And if you had given to the Church no more nor had ascribed to the Scriptures in this case too little we should not have had this for a controversie that is now a great matter in difference betwixt you and us For whereas you reject the rule propounded by us in our answer touching the determining of controversies in Religion sc the word of God alone and notwithstanding our reasons there urged against your adding the universal and constant practice of the Church unto the word of God to make up the rule to judge by in matters of this nature yet do here professedly adhere to what you did but seem to insinuate in your first Paper and because we had propounded the Scripture only as the only sure rule to walk by you hereupon as hath been said rail upon us calling us Scripturists and scorn and scoff at us for making the word of God alone the rule of faith and manners we hereupon cannot but conceive you ascribe a deal more to the Church then a meer Ministery setting up her determination for the rule of interpreting Scripture and issuing of controversies and take away from the Scripture that which you should yeild unto it even to be the only sure rule for the interpreting it self for though you here acknowledge that the Church in expounding Scripture is tied to the rule of Gods word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law yet you say we were concluded and bound up by her exposition and therefore though she be tyed in her expounding of Scripture according to this concession yet by this assertion it will follow that we are bound to believe she hath rightly expounded the Scripture according to her duty for you say her exposition and practice is our rule and best rule too and that we necessarily make another judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture or else we prove nothing and that else we give way to private interpretation which is the Popish false gloss upon the Text pointed at in that expression and anon you tell of another judge and rule besides the Scripture that is to be submitted unto even such as the Papists themselves cannot exâ—… viz. the Primitive Churches practice and universal and â—…nimous consent of Fathers and general Councils and which though you would father upon Mr. Philpot and Calvin yet is that 〈◊〉 they together with all other sound Protestants in their wâ—…s against the Papists have unanimously disclaimed 〈…〉 as the Papists more anciently seeing if they muâ—… the determination of Scriptures they were cast â—…ly to Councils and the unanimous consent of Fathers as to the rule whereby they would be tryed so you with them betake your selves to these and refuse to be tryed by the Scriptures as the sole judg because thence it is manifest that that Episcopacy that you are for is quite cashiered the whole current of the Scripture of the New Testament making a Bishop and a Presbyter all one But the Question betwixt us being thus stated as we gave our reasons even now why the Scriptures were to be the only judge of controversies and rule of faith and life so we shall now give our reasons why the Churches exposition the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not to be the rule of its interpretation much less the best rule where there is a doubt or difficulty as you assert Argument 1. Because it is God only that is the author of Scripture all Scripture being given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. It is he only that is the chief Law-giver and Doctor of the Church Jam. 4. 12. Mat. 22. 10. and therefore he only speaking in the Scripture and in the hearts of his people by his Spirit is the supream and infallible interpreter of Scripture every one being the best interpreter of his own words and the Law-giver best understanding the meaning of the Law he makes and being the Scriptures cannot be interpreted and understood but by that same Spirit whereby they are written whence that of Bernard Nunquam
Pauli sensum ingredieris nisi Pauli spiritum imbiberis and again Nunquam Davidem intelliges donec ipsâ experientiâ Psalmorum affectus indueris and therefore the exposition of the Church the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not the best rule for the interpreting of the Scripture Argument 2. Because no men can be sufficient interpreters of the Scripture so as when there is a doubt or difficulty by the interposition of their authority they can remove it and determine the controversie about it because then they should have a dominion over the soul and over faith which the Apostle denies 2 Cor. 1. 24. yea then faith which standeth not in the wisdome of men but in the power of God 1 Cor. 2. 5. should be resolved into the sentence and judgement of men and their sentence be the matter of our faith or the thing that were to be believed and whereon our faith were to be built which were quite to overthrow it and to bring in an humane faith in the room of a divine But on the contrary when there is any controversie about any matter of Religion and so about the interpretation of any Text of Scripture the controversie is to be determined and the doubt and difficulty to be removed not by the authority of any men but by the authority of God and of the Scriptures Whence it was that the Fathers of the Nicene Council disputing with Arrius pressed him with the authority of Scriptures and condemned him by the testimonies thereof And therefore not the unanimous consent of the Fathers and of Councils is to be the rule for the interpreting of Scriptures Argument 3. The unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule for interpreting of the Scriptures because then this should alwayes have been the rule it being of the nature of that which is a rule that it be alwayes one and that sure firme and perpetual but that this was not alwayes a rule is manifest because there was once a time when there were no writings of the Fathers extant nor when there had been any general Councils the Council of Nice that was the first general Council of all other after the death of the Apostles not having been convened till above three hundred yeares after Christ and many of the Fathers having written nothings till four hundred yeares after Christ and some not till five hundred or six hundred yeares after him and so before that time the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils could not be the rule of interpreting Scriptures Besides after the Fathers had written yet there is not in all things an unanimous consent amongst them in their interpreting of Scripture as might be evidenced by several and sundry examples You your selves told us that the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of the word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latin Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselme and others taking this word Presbytery for the function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest as you express it The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and some others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters We shall adde only another example Origen Jerome Athanasius Ambrose do so interpret those words of the Apostle Rom. 7. where he saith I am carnal sold under sin c. as that they say Paul doth not there speak concerning himself but in the person of a man not regenerated whereas Augustine will have it to be understood as indeed it ought to be touching a man that is regenerated and so that Paul there speakes of himself as he most certainly doth Many more examples of this kind might be given but by these we may sufficiently conjecture of the rest Argument 4. Adde unto the former that the Fathers have sundry of them erred which is so manifest to him that is conversant in their writings that it will not be denyed as if any should be so impudent as to deny it it is easie to make it good in manifold instances yea some general Councils have erred as that Council held at Ariminum that established the Arrian heresie and the second Council of Ephesus that confirmed the Eutichian heresie and the second Council of Nice that established the worshipping of Images which is forbidden in the Law of God Whereupon the Fathers have acknowledged that the authority of Councils was only so far of force as their determinations are agreeable to Scriptures and that there lyes an appeal from all unto the Scripture Whence that of Athanasius speaking concerning the Arrians of old urging Councils Fruâ—â—ra inquit circumcursitantes praeteâ—unt ob fidem concilia se postulare Divina enim Scriptura perfectior est sufficientior omnibus Conciliis We see he acknowledged the divine Scriptures to be more perfect and sufficient then all Councils But hence it is clear that if both Fathers and Councils have erred the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule much less the best rule as you speak of interpretinâ— Scriptures Argument 5. Besides sundry of the Fathers and of the writings that go under the names of the most approved Fathers are doubtfull others suppositious and spurious and others corrupted This is clear because there have been many writers heretofore that have been publikely adorned with the title of the Fathers that are now rejected as heterodox and unworthy to be called by the names they go under and whereof if you doubt learned Voetius doth afford you a catalogue That there are also many suppositious and spurious works attributed to the genuine and true Fathers and published with their works which some receive others reject others do doubt concerning is so cleare and manifest that it will not be questioned by any that ever saluted the Fathers writings and had either sound judgement of his own or would believe the censures of the Learned concerning them as of Rivet Erasmus Perkins and others and which is so clear that the Papists themselves as Bellarmine Cajetan and others will not deny it and as if it were to our purpose might be particularly proved by instancing in the suppositious writings attributed to Ignatius Cyprian Basil Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Augustine and others of the most approved Fathers and from all which it will follow that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be a rule for the interpreting of Scripture it being that which will be disputed concerning some whether they be not meer feigned Fathers and concerning sundry of the works that are attributed to the genuine Fathers and in which such Scriptures may be interpreted where there is doubt and difficulty whether they be not suppositious Argument 6. To say nothing of the difficulties or obscurities in the genuine Fathers and their genuine writings by reason of phrases now grown out of use Idiotisms Histories and Antiquities that make them the more hard to us of these
may be attributed to some approved Authors may be spurious or corrupted when yet the Authors themselves are not branded And therefore this is but another of your wonted slanders and which through out your Paper are but too common with you But as to the thing it self who knowes not but in the Primitive times there were many spurious works put forth under the names even of the Apostles as appears from 2 Thes 2. 2. and blessed Martyrs that yet are generally rejected as none of theirs and of which sort were those many false Gospels that we read of as of Thomas Andrew Nicodemus and St Peter and St Markes Mass of this sort also are the Apostles constitutions held for Apocryphal as Mr. Perkins shewes in the Decretals and were condemned by the sixth Council of Constantinople The works also of Dionysius Areopagita are by many learned men absolutely denyed to be the works of that Dionysius mentioned Act. 17. for which they do in their Comments upon that Chapter and elsewhere give many reasons We might instance in many others as we shall come anon to speak touching the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius and unto which we had special reference in the passages we used that you here except against but yet without the least reflection upon so glorious a Confessor of the faith of Christ as he was And such as are equal judges and who know what were the practices of Impostors in the Primitive times in putting out their own corrupt writings under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs of those times that thereby they might gain belief to their errors will be farre from censuring us to be void of all modesty and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty as you here do because we said some of the workes that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times were spurious or corrupted considering what Rivet Cocus in his censur a patrum and Perkins in his preparatives to the demonstration of the probleme and other learned men do say touching this matter and we may here well say to you that you had shewed more judgement and honesty your selves if you had not censured us as persons destitute of both and also all modesty for that which all those that read the Fathers with any measure of judgement will readily acknowledge 2. Having vindicated our selves from what you aspersed us with we now come to examine what you cite for the antiquity of Episcopacy which is the Government you plead for And here we observe you take a very high jumpe to use your own expression over all that is to be found in the writings of the Fathers who lived in the three first Centuries of the Church and only pitch upon the Council of Nice that which you find there making as you apprehend most for your purpose and as you say shewing the practice of the Church in its forme of Church Government by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. Although you having a little before insisted upon the exposition and practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Fathers as well as general Councils as the rule to which you would bring Church Governement to be tried and in your first Paper and this also telling of the universal and constant practice of the Church should not so quickly have forgot your own rule and mentioned nothing at all before the Council of Nice out of the writings of the Fathers to evidence what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof touching Church Government especially considering that this was that which in our answer to your first Paper we had put you to prove But you think may be this you do sufficiently by citing the Council of Nice generall Councils shewing us as you say what the Churches practice was considering also that this Council did ratifie and confirme what had been anciently practised by the Church before the sixth Canon mentioning an ancient custome which by it is established Unto this and what further you do here urge for the proving from this Council that which you cite it for we have severall things to say 1. And first though we do most readily yeild all due reverence and esteem unto this Council that was and will be famous for the condemning of Arrius together with his damnable heresie yet we shall mind you of what Augustine quoted by Calvin and alleadged in our answer to your second Paper saith touching insisting on the testimony of this Council He in his Book against Maximinius when he would silence that Heretick contending with him touching the decrees of Synods saith that neither he would object to him the Synod of Nice nor he ought to object to him the Synod of Ariminum but would have them both to contend not by the authority of either of these Synods but by the authority of Scriptures It is also clear from Ecclesiastical story that Constantine did admonish this Council after they were assembled that in the determining and judging of heavenly Doctrine seeing they had in readiness the Evangelical Apostolical and Prophetical Bookes they should fetch from thence their formes of censure and so determine controversies of Religion from the Scriptures and according unto which religious and worthy counsel they proceeded disputing with Arrius from the Scriptures and by the testimonies thereof condemning his heresie 2. Seeing you will have it that the forme of Church Governement by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. was established by this Council and that this Council established nothing herein but what had been defined and asserted as you say afterward by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custome and that the customes which this Council speakes of were deduced down to those times from St Mark the Evangelist We do here enquire of you whether the Church Governement that you would prove from this Council be jure divino or by divine right If it be as we suppose you will and must say it is for which purpose you say it is defined and asserted by immemorial Apostolical tradition and deduced from Mark the Evangelist we do then again enquire of you whether the Governement of the Church by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop c. be to be found in Scripture If you say it be we desire you to prove it and make it to appear that it is there found If you say it is not to be found in Scripture it is in vain to urge the authority of the Council of Nice or any other Councils for to prove the divine right of that which is not to be found in Scripture Further you should consider that you alleadging for it immemorial Apostolical traditions and customes of which the Scripture is silent do again joyn hands with the Papists pleading for the authority of unwritten traditions and
would not they had not any such a will purpose or intention he doth not say as you say that they did not frame a forme of Church Government differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his Word He had intimated in the first Section that many of the Canons that were made in those times sc of the ancient Church did seem to express more then was to be found in sacred Scripture and though in regard of that good measure of purity of Governement and Discipline that did remain in those times he doth seem to extenuate what deviation there was from the word of God yet he doth not allow of every thing that was then appointed In the second Section he comes to shew how Bishop came up at the first sc that for the prevention of Schisme the Presbyters chose out of their number in every City one to whom they gave the title of Bishop and that upon this reason lest dissentions should arise from equality But withall there shewes that the Bishop thus superiour to the rest of the Presbyters in honour and dignity had not any dominion over the Presbyters whom he calls his Colleagues but only had that office as the Consul in the Senate and as indeed the Moderatour hath in our Assemblies as from that which he there instaneeth in that did at the first belong to him is clear and manifest And then he addes and saith even this it self the Ancients themselves confess was at the first brought in Pro temporum necessitate in regard of the necessity of the times and humano consensu by the consent and agreement of men as he proves out of Hierome And in the fourth Section which you chiefly here referre to he saith whereas every Province had amongst the Bishops one Archbishop and whereas also in the Synod of Nice there were constituted Patriarchs who were above the Archbishops in regard of dignity that did belong as he there saith to the conservation of the discipline But yet addes Quanquam in hâe disputatione praeteriri non potest quod â—arissimi â—rat usus i e. although in this disputation it may not be omitted that it was of most seldome or rare use And then he shews that the use of the Archbishop was for the calling a Provincial Synod as there might be occasion when the matter requiring it could not be determined by fewer and so by a lesser Assembly and in case the cause was more weighty or difficult that then the Patriarch was to call a more general Synod from which there was to be no appeal but to a general Council And thus Calvin shewes what was the reason of the first institution of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs but from that account given by him of this their first appointment it is manifest that their superiority above their fellow Brethren was not from the beginning it being but an humane constitution only and that at the first yea even in the time of the Nicene Council it was nothing like to what it grew to be afterward And that that power even of the Patriarchs and Metropolitans that was appointed or confirmed by the Nicene Council was nothing like unto that power that was exercised by the Bishops and Archbishops in this Land whilest Episcopacy stood their power at that time being chiefly if not only for the calling of Synods sc Provinciall or of a larger circuit as there might be need and they having therein only a presidency or moderatorship and not exercising any dominion over their Colleagues according to that representation of the matter of fact that Calvin truely makes And because the appointment of them was done out of a good intent without any will or purpose to appoint any forme of Government in the Church differing from that which God had appointed in his word and as an Ecclesiastical constitution only which the godly Fathers in those times thought might be of use though afterward as we have before shewed it proved otherwise and considering what a good measure of the ancient discipline remained entire in those times Calvin did therefore speak moderately of what they did though he did not as is manifest approve of all they did But thus the Reader may discerne that you have not dealt any more fairly with Calvin here whom in this place you would make to be a justifier and patron of Prelacy then you have dealt with him elsewhere though by what we have said we hope he is sufficiently vindicated and the contrary to what you alleadge him for fully evidenced And this that hath been said concerning Calvin will likewise shew how Beza is to be understood if he any where say what the ancient Fathers appointed touching the Hierarchy was done optimo zelâ— out of a very good zeal For by that expression he only approves of their pious and good intent in what they did but not of all that was done and when you call him that earnest patron of Presbyterian discipline you should not by stretching his words beyond their scope have represented him to have approved of that which the Presbyterian discipline doth not own 8. And thus having answered fully to what you have said for that Government which you are for and pray might be established in this Nation we must still mind you that whatever you here again say to the contrary as yet you have not proved this Church Government to be agreeable either to the will of God which was not as yet attempted to be made out by you or to the universal practice of Primitive Churches your proof for this falling far short and that however now you would mince the matter speaking of the rule whereby we are to judge touching Church Government or other matters of Religion in saying you put both together not the word of God alone nor the Churches practice alone but both together and which is not to be disallowed of when it is clear that the Churches practice is agreeable to the word of God yet by what you have discovered to be your opinion in this Section and of which we have fully spoken it is manifest you have given that to the Church Councils and Fathers and their exposition which is proper to the Scripture sc to be the only sure interpreter of it self and judge in all controversies of Religion and which is that which we have asserted and defended against you in this answer and by giving of which unto the Scripture we have detracted nothing from the credit that is due unto the Church or her lawfull and laudable customes which we are so farre from any wayes invalidating that we do assert and defend the same as also her authority against all heretical and schismatical persons that seek her overthrow although we see no reason to count those heretical and schismatical persons that seek to overthrow the Church that cannot either believe that the Church is the only iudge of coutroversies in matters of Religion or her exposition the best and surest rule
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
all Churches Congregations in their own way to all and all alike though you might have observed that the way of Prelacy was ever in the number of those wayes particularly cautioned against and that those of the Presbyterian way have that prerogative above all those of other wayes to whom any indulgence is granted that their way of Government is owned and established by the Parliament as the Government of the Nation which is not to be said for any of the other And therefore neither the Church at Manchester nor our Classical Presbytery meeting there are protected meerly upon the account of possession of that place as you imagine but because being awarranted thereunto by Authority of Parliament they set up that Government which the Parliament appointed and established as the Government of the Nation and who also in their approval of the division of this County into nine Classical Presbyteryes appointed Prestwich wherein the Government was set up and exercised for along while although since Mr. Allen's return thither the Eldership of that Congregation could do little to be within the bounds of this Classical Association and Middleton and Burie in the latter of which Congregations the Presbyterian Government according to Ordinance of Parliament was also set up though the present Minister joyn not in it are appointed to be within the bounds of the second Class And so these Congregations that you would suggest have a liberty for some way of worship and different Government from the Presbyterian granted unto them and exercised by them though they are not any of them under any character of indulgence granted to others other wayes are all of them under the power of the Provincial Assembly of this County and one of them under the power of this and two of them under the power of the neighbour Classical Association And hereupon we are certain we are not mistaken when we say that there is no other Government but the Presbyterian that was owned by the Parliament they establishing this Government only as the Government of the Nation and which we do not see but is also acknowledged by the humble Advice assented unto by his Late Highness as we have said before 2. But now you say leaving the civil Sanction we come to the divine right of Pres ytery and prove it to be the only Government in singulari because it is that only Government which Christ hath preser bed in his Word But here we have cause to complain you do us manifest wrong in that you would represent us either absurdly proving idem per idem or that Presbytery is of divine right because it is so or to argue very weakly in saying it is of divine right because it is prescribed by Christ in his Word and so leave the matter without any further proof nothing whereof at all is any where to be found in our answer only we find the same in that chimerical fancy which you had first conceivd your selves and then were pleased to impute unto us Then you adde and what Christ hath thus prescribed must needs be de jure one and the same in every Church which words did not here follow whereby you render what we had plainly expressed not intelligible to what purpose it was uttered But because we desire the matter might be judged of neither according to your representation of it or what we say of it we shall give the Reader a full account of all that was here expressed by us and which he will find upon the perusal of our answer whereby he will perceive that we were not at all reasoning as you represent us but only declaring our judgement and that in plain expressions without any ambiguity Our words speaking of the Presbyterian Government were these And as it is that which we judge to be most agreeable to the will of God so also we conceive that whatever is of Christs prescribing in any other different Government whether Episeopal or Congregational is to be found here as we do apprehend the redundancies of them both to be taken away in this and the defects of them both to be bere supplied and however there may be differences amongst godly ment concerning Church Government which it is in particular that Christ hath prescribed in his Word yet we judg that the Government which Christ hath prescribed in his Word is but one as all those must say so too that not being Erastians do bold that one Church Government or other is of divine right The Reader will hereby perceive that we did without any manner of reasoning at all only declare our judgements but you represent us as arguing and that absurdly and then you mangle our words breaking them off from what they had immediate and necessary dependance on and reference to for having thus farre declared our selves we came to answer to what you had urged in your first Paper out of Calvin saying Scimusenim unicuique Ecclesiae c. to which we said the circumstantials of Government of which we told you we did believe if you had quoted the place where Calvin used those words it would appear he speakes being variable and so but the accidentals of Government may not be one and the same in all Churches And then we added the words you in part mention but if Christ have prescribed a Government in his Word for the substantials of it it must be de jure one and the same in every Church And then further said and that the Presbyterian Government is that in particular which is there prescribed in Calvin ' s judgement is so manifest by his workes to the whole Christian world that it needs no proof Whereby it is very manifest to any ordinary understanding that the expressions we here use and which you mention have reference to what you had cited out of Calvin in your first Paper shewing that however he might say that every Church might have their different formes of Government in regard of the circumstantials of it yet seeing the Government prescribed by Christ in his Word for the substantials of it is but one and in Calvin's judgement the Presbyterian Government is that Government when Calvin saith Scimus enim unieuique Ecclesiae c. he was to be understood to speak concerning the circumstantials of Government only and not of the substantials thereof Hence also it is clear that we were not here neither arguing for the divine right of Presbytery but only declaring and proving how Calvin was to be understood in the expressions you quoted But as we have said you mangle our words and break them off from what immediately went before whereby from your representation it is not conceivable to what they referred but then you joyning them to other words going before to which they had no reference represent them to have been used by us to have patched up such a poor argument for the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government as before hath been declared but whether
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
Presbytery was set up what they would amount to had we lived the age of Episcopacy 1â—00 yeares and upwards though the raign of Episcopacy is as we have shewed of a farre younger date and especially Episcopacy in the height of it hereby intimating that they would have farre exceeded in number all the Canons that ever were made during the whole space of time wherein Episcopacy hath been on foot For answer unto this we shall here only mind you of what you who are well acquainted with the Book of Common Prayer may find therein after the Preface of it entreating of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained where you have these words Some speaking of Ceremonies are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so encreased in these latter dayes that the burden of them was intollerable whereof St. Augustine in his time complained that they were grown to such a number that the state of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter then were the Jewes And he counselled that such yoke and burden should be taken away as time would serve quietly to do it But what would St. Augustine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies of late dayes used amongst us whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark that they did more confound and darken then declare and set forth Christs benefits to us And yet all this that is here spoken of your selves will say must needs have been during the standing of Episcopacy When you can bring forth such a testimony as this complaining touching the number and burdensomeness of Canons and Ceremonies whilest Presbytery hath been on foot any where by either the friends or enemies to it if they will but speak the truth there may be then some reason to give credit to what you would here suggest but on this we shall give you leave to breath And in the mean season we cannot but take notice that such is the charity that you have towards us that you compare us with the Papists for the burdensomenesse of Rites and Ceremonies imposed by us on the Church though your first Paper wherein you cried out Quare oneramini Ritibus referred only to those few orders mentioned in that of ours that was published in our Congregations some whereof your selves acknowledge there to be the orders of Christ and censure us as Dr. Andrews doth Bellarmine in behalf of our English Church Nobis non tam articulosa fides c. Though if Dr. Andrews had been now alive he would have been ashamed of those that should have made use of his words with such an application of them as you do here make The Gentlemens Paper Sect. XI And now we are come to our last charge as you call it which as it is high so you judg it hath little reason in it for the bearing it up But how take you it off Why first you observe That we omit to mention the first part of this Order and unto which that which follows in the two next Orders doth refer We grant it doth but we say not that onely but to the latter branch of that Order also touching the Catechized Persons and therefore we say if they refuse to present themselves before the Eldership by this your Order the Minister must exhort and admonish them But that is wholly of our adding you say and say it again Is wholly our own and none of yours Why will you thus boldly averr so manifest an untruth Is not the Order express That the Minister when he Catechiseth the severall families shall exhort such persons in them as he finds to be of competent knowledge and are blameless of life that they present themselves to the Eldership c And do not your selves confesse that you said the Minister was to exhort and that was all But we adde and say He shall exhort and admonish How can these words then be wholly our own and none of yours Because we adde the word Admonish therefore must the rest be none of yours but wholly ours But oh the learned Criticks of our age To exhort and to admonish are two different things which we confound together taking them for one and the same which is in us a radicall and grand mistake What every admonition a kind of Church censure or in order as you call it thereto no exhortation so We confess our ignorance of such a distinction not having as yet learned it either from Scripture Fathers Councils School-men or any known approved Author find it us in Scripture you that are for the word of God alone But in the the mean time we must tell you if our Translators erre not they are promiscuously used in Scripture Read Acts 20. 32. I ceased not to admonish every one of you with tears Is this more then to exhort Was it in order to Church censure Again Rom. 15. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. able to admonish one another say some Translations able to exhort one another say others is this a radical and grand mistake in them Again Col. 3. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. admonishing your own selves Is this in order to Church-censure Is it more then exhorting Again Titus 3. 1. Admone illos saith Hierom Admone illos saith Calvin upon the place Our English Bibles some render it Admonish others Warne them to be subject c. Is this in order to Church censure is it more then an Exhortation Again Titus 2. 14. These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority Is to exhort Cum omni imperio with all Rule and Authority less then to admonish Nay more Is private admonition a part of or in order to Church censure according to Christ's rule Mat. 18. or St Pauls Titus 2. 10. Post unam alteram admonitionem Is that private admonition we say mentioned in the first part of your 4th Order against onely the scandalous and forsakers of publique Assemblies and not the exhortation of the Minister to such as are of competent knowledge and blameless of life that they present themselves before the Eldership in order to Church censure Apage Calvin is clear against you upon that text of Titus 3. 10. saying Admonitionem Intelligit nempe Paulus non quamlibet vel privati Hominis sed quae fit à Ministro public â Ecclesiae authoritate So not every private admonition is in order to excommunication in Calvins judgement then what more then an exhortation thus have not Scripture nor Calvin noted this difference 'twixt an exhortation and admonition nor can you we believe produce Fathers or Schoolmen those Criticks speaking for you nor hath Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra noted such a difference nor any we have read of and yet it is in us a radical and grand mistake Yes and the Relative They is as grand a mistake and errour in