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
we believe any indifferent Reader will discern are distinct things as the Parliament also in passing them distinguished them and therefore you should not have dealt so disingeniously with us as to have accounted the discourse impertinent which was necessary for your information if you were ignorant If you knowing these Orders and Ordinances would yet have this discourse impertinent notwithstanding your jerking us for calling our selves the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster which terms we told you we gave not to our selves till the Parliament had first given them us we leave it to the Reader what to judge of it Ninthly Here is also another strange assertion when you say it was no question of yours whether our Government be established by the Law of the Land when as in your first paper in the words thereof recited even now you told us of our making Laws and Edicts and publishing them contrary to the Laws in force and questioning whether we had not run our selves into a praemunire Doubtless if our Government be established by Ordinance of Parliament and that Ordinance awarrant us for whatever was published by us in the paper and yet that be asserted by you to be contrary to the Laws in force it must needs be a question of yours whether our Government be established by the Law of the Land as it is that which afterward you go about to prove that it wants the establishment of Authority and so however you dare not tell the Justices of the Peace that have acted on other Ordinances of Parliament that yet are also null and void if that we have acted on be that they are not thereby sufficiently secured against the danger of a praemunire yet you dare tell us of this once and again and yet also it be no question of yours whether our Church-Government be established by the Law of the Land but how contradictory these things are one unto another we leave it to be judged of As touching our starting more doubts then as you say we can assoyl we shall have leisure hereafter to examine in the place where you have a mind to encounter us and now shall follow you in the way you have chosen to go in And so we come unto the next The Gentlemens Paper Sect. II. To that mistake you charge us withall in the Preface of our Paper concerning the Title of yours we answer We finde in the close of that your â—aper these words This presentation is approved by this Provincial Assembly Tho. Johnson Moderator Edw. Gee Scribe So it is approved by the Provincial Assembly under that title of a presentation as we call it in all the Copies we have seen But this as you say might be the mistake of your Scribe and not to be insisted on It is of greater weight and moment you say to take notice of what we publish as our sense and apprehension of it viz. The matter contained in your Paper Not resting in the judgement or determination of any general Council contrary thereto If any such should be much less to one of your Provincial Assemblies c. And here you tell us of a publique and authoritative Judgement that is in Councils concerning matters of Doctrine and Discipline though tied to the rule of Gods Word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law to which we ought to be subject And how far is that viz. They have the power of expounding and explaining the difficult places of Scripture as the Judges have of the exposition of the Law And in this sense we ought to subject to the sense and determination of a general Council And therefore you say Questionless if in the time of S. Augustine who was no conâ—emner of Synods and Councils any in this sense had declared That they would not have submitted their apprehensions to their Judgement he would have cried out against them as well as against the Donatists O Impudentem Vocem And you hope when we have weighed the matter better we will not in this sense see any reason to refuse to submit either our sense and apprehension of your Paper or what we may publish as our own private judgements in other matters about Religion to the judgement of a generall Council supposing it might be had God forbid but we should submit neither need we for this to weigh the matter better for in this sense we have done and yet shall submit to any shall come hereafter Neither had you any reason so to judge your selves or induce others to that perswasion of us that we should in this sense refuse to submit our Judgements to the Judgement of any general Council Our words are plain We publish this our sense and apprehension of it as far as it is plain to us Which words you omitting deale not fairely with us and which words carry another sense with them For so far as the matter conteined in your Paper is plain to us we close and joyn with you Being as we explain our selves afterwards so fully warranted thereto by the Word of God and constant practise of the Catholique Church that therein so far as it is made thus plain unto us we shall not submit our Apprehensions to the Judgement of a general Council But by this Aposiopesis of yours you would make the World believe we refuse to submit our Judgements to the Judgement of a general Council not onely touching matters of faith and such Articles of Religion which are plainly warranted by Gods Word and constant practice of the Catholique Church But also touching matters which are not so plainly set forth in the word of God Touching which last we prosess our willing submission to the Judgement of a general Council and are glad to hear you of the same minde though we fear as we shall hear you declaring anon you will hardly grant that to a general Council which you seem to grant to your Provincial In which we dissent from you as we have said The Animadversions of the Class upon it FIrst We perceive you are resolved to stick to what you have once said though it be only the taking advantage of some litteral mistake and which in our answer we had told you was none of ours when you called our paper by the title of a presentation but imputed it to the Scribe speaking indefinitely which might be yours as well as ours though in your printed Copy you will have us to say what we did not that it was the mistake of our Scribe and however you say now that in all the Copies which you have seen which implies many you find in the close of that our paper these words this presentation is approved by this Provincial Assembly Thomas Johnson Moderator Edward Gee Scribe Yet we believe that if you be put upon the proof it will be hard for you to produce one Copy that was given forth by the Class and written by our Scribe where you find our paper approved by the Provincial
know whom we mean by lawfull Pastors our Answer is we mean such Persons as have received their Ordination from men lawfully and truely qualified with a just power of conferring Orders which you and we believe 't is none but you presume one Presbyter may give another Whereupon you instance the opinion of Dr Vsher in a late Letter of his set forth by Dr Bernard and refer us to Dr Bernards animadversions upon it We have perused the Papers to which you refer us and finde that Dr Vsher doth not invalidate the Ordination by Presbyters but with a speciall restriction to such places where Bishops cannot be had But this we must desire you to consider is ex necessitate non ex perjurio pertinaciâ which he in the next page clearely dilucidates his words are these You may easily judge that the Ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworne Cannnical obedience cannot possibly by me be excused from being schismaticall Examine your selves in this particular we shall not judge any man For this Purity amongst Church Officers an Errour first broacht by Ae rius and for which amongst other things he was most justly condemned of Heresie and Ordination by Presbyters otherwise then before expressed cannot possibly be made out by any instance out of Dr Vshers Letter or Dr Bernards animadversions upon it since he is clearly against it and so that Catalogue of Divines Schoolmen and Fathers by you out of him collected is frustraneously cited Concerning submission to the judgement of Councils rightly called and constituted we have said enough before In which point if you will hold to what you profess you shall not have us dissenting from you But we shall finde you of another minde before you come to a conclusion As for your Provinciall Assembly at Preston or any other elsewhere of that nature we say it is a new Termed Assembly Not for the words sake Assembly but new both in respect of the word Provinciall and place at Preston That this County of Lancaster should be termed the Province of Lancaster and the Synods and Assemblies therein convened at Preston or elsewhere should be termed Provinciall all new New also in respect of the Persons constituting this Assembly Lay-men to preside to rule and to have decisive voices in as ample manner as the highest and chiefest in holy Orders is a novelty no Antiquity can plead for it Nor doth Dr Bernard or Bishop Vsher that Learned and reverend Antiquary or the Fathers and Councils there alleadged and by you out of him so confidently cited any way make for such an Assembly And so your Provinciall Assembly at Preston may in the Judgement of Bishop Vshor be accounted a new termed Provinciall Assembly and remains as yet uncleared from all suspition of novelty The Animadversions of the Classe upon it FIrst We must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse the third Section of our Answer to which you do here reply You do in the next Section tell us that the most considerable part of our Answer as to the bulke doth insist on the proof of the establishment of our Government by Authority this you also said in the close of your second Paper But if the Reader but compare what is contained in this Section with what is in the next where we prove this establishment of our Government by authority he will finde our answer here in this one Section is considerably larger then all that great bulk you complain of in the next and it will be found to be as much as all that we have touching this matter throughout our whole answer And therefore we cannot but wonder that you should so much forget your selves and so little consider what you say as again and again to assert with no small confidence what is so farre from truth But in this Section the Reader may further descern that you pass over some things in silence to which you should at the least have made some reply testifying either your assent to them and so your receiving satisfaction or have given us the grounds of your dissent but we shall desire that what was answered by us and is by you replyed unto might be compared together by the candid Reader that he may see with his own eyes wherein you fall short Secondly You profess that in some things you finde we much dissent not only in the third and last concerning the heresie and schisme of those who erre so grosly in Doctrinals or points of Discipline you mention the reason we gave you why we did not so expresly mention them their sin and punishment as the grosly ignorant and scandalous scil the inconsider ableness of the number of the former to the number of these But First This was not the only reason we gave but there was also another mentioned scil because we were to give in to the Provincial Assembly what our apprehensions were touching the case propounded to us by them touching some further meanes to be used for the information of the ignorant and reformation of the scandalous Secondly But yet this you pitch upon because you had a mind to charge us and all others that have in our Congregations severed themselves from the Bishops with schisme that so you might hereby also invalidate that reason rendered of our not mentioning expresly the heretical and schismatical But we hope we have in our answer to your second Paper said that which will be sufficient to wipe off that aspersion and you must pardon us if wherein Dr. Usher in this point differing from us in judgment expressed himself too farre we therein though we otherwise reverence him both for his piety and learning look upon him as a man We cannot as yet be perswaded that the Bishops were the only true constituted Church of England from whom because we have severed our selves you do here though without any reason charge us to be schismatical and to have rent our selves from a true constituted Church Thirdly But seeing in this third and last touching those that are chargeable with heresie and schisme you profess to diffent from us you might have testified either your assent to or dissent from that previous course that in our answer we mentioned was to be taken with these before they were to be excommunicated especially considering we had told you that though you allowed of admonition of the scandalous before there was process to the censure of them yet you said nothing of this course to be taken with the other and wherein therefore we purposely declared our selves that if you judged the previous course of admonition necessary to be held with the scandalous you might not censure us as indulgent toward any of the other that might be in any of our Congregations though we said the number of them was not considerable to the number of the scandalous because we took it to be our duty according to the practice of the
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
of them arise from your unacquaintedness with the rule we walk by Although we were not to be blamed for any mistakes that might arise ab ignorantia juris whether simple or affected that we determine not but leave yâ—u to judge Before we come to make answer more particularly to what follons we are willing to be at some pains to give you some farther account of the power we are awarranted by the civill Authority for to exercise To what Persons within our bounds it extends it self c. Much pains you have taken and that willingly and spent much time and Paper too which hath swelled your Answer to so great a bulk to prove that which was not oppugned nor so much as quest oned by us so Impertinent to the business of our Paper Though you have said you are not willing to spend time about Impertinencies By which however we go on yet you wheel about and are come to the Pole you first started at like a Horse in a mill that travels all day and is no further at night then he was in the morning You went about to prove your Government established by civil Authority the first work you took in hand you are no further yet but going about to prove out of your way quite But since you compell us to follow you a mile we will walk with you twain till we have conducted you if possible into the good old Way again by taking of your Government from that establishment of Authority upon the proof whereof the most considerable part as to the bulk of your Answer doth insist To prove your Presbyterian Government to be established by Law and to be warranted by the civil Authority you produce severall Orders and Ordinances but one more especially you instance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament bearing date the 10th August 1648. Which you say is without any limitation of time and remains unrepealed to this day nay more by the humble Advice assented unto by his Highness it receives strength To which we answer when you speak of a Government establisht by Law we hope you mean such as hath the force and strength of a Law to binde the free born People of this Nation otherwayes you say nothing If such a Law you mean then we much question whether your Ordinance of Lords and Commons though unrepealed to this day be of that force and seeing we be no Lawyers we shall not take upon us the determination of that point but refer you in that particular to the Judgement and resolution of the Sages of the Law who affirm that nothing can have the force of a Law to binde the people without the concurrent consent of the three Estates in Parliament My Lord Cooke is most full throughout his works published by the speciall appointment of that long Parliament Hear you him For the Parliament concerning making and enacting of Laws consists of the King the Lords spiritual and temporall and the Câ—mmons and it is no Act unless it be made by the King the Lords and Commons Again If an Act be made by the King and Commons this binds not for it is no Act of Parliament Ibid. Again It is no Act of Parliament but an Ordinance and therefore binds not 4th part Instit fol 23. Again Nothing can pass as a Law without the Kings râ—yal assent and authority to binde the people 3d part Instâ—â— fol. 9. See him also again in his Instit 4th part fol 232. where he cites severall Charters and Ordinances made in the behalf of the Court of Stannâ—ries and in the end saith These things were done de facto bâ—t let us â—â—rn our selves to that which hath the force of a Law And in the same 4th part cap. 73. of the Courts of forrests fol. 293. see there a prescription good against a Statute of Ed. 3. cap. 2. because it was made but in affirmance of the common Law of the Forrest and against such a Statute a man may prescribe And good also against the Ordinance of 34. E. 1. and the onely reason given is because it was but an Ordinance and no Statute An Ordinance of both Houses is no Law of the Land by their own confession meaning the Parliament saith Judge Jenkins 1 part Coll. Ordinances fol. 728. This was the onely Law stood in force and binding which was made by the concurrent consent of alâ— in the judgement of these Sages and was called the Law of the Land None else in old time was judged valid or to have the force and strength of a Law Nor at this day will any Ordinance of one or both Houses be judged valid without his Highness assent thereunto as we humbly conceive But admitting Ordinances of one or both Houses of Parliament without the Kings of old or his Highness assent of late to have aâ— great a force and strength in them and to be as valid to all intents and purposes as if their assents were given thereto Yet this we affirm of your Ordinance setling Presbyterian Government throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales That it is made of little or no force at this day in respect of those severall subsequent Acts granting liberty to all pious and conscientious Christians throughout this Land to serve God in their own way of worship and disclpline notwithstanding any Law or Ordinance to the contrary which though they amount not to an express yet at least to an implicite Repeal of your Ordinance so far as it is contrary to this Liberty for Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant But stand you upon an express Repeal Then be pleased to peruse an Act made Anno 1650. for Relief of Religious and peaceable people from the rigour of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion And to peruse a little better the humble Advice by you in your Answer alledged and you will finde it far otherwise than you say In the eleventh Section All Ministers throughout the Land and their Assemblies professing the true Protestant Christian Religion though of different judgement in Worship or Discipline are all of them equally protected in the liberty of their profession Have you liberty to exercise your Church Government amongst your selves They as much Have you protection Others as much What power have you that others have not Are these within the bounds of your Association and subject to your Government unless they will renounce their Baptism and Christianity Nay they have their way of Worship and Protection in that way granted them as well as you And as they may not revile or reproach nor disturb you in your Assemblies no more may you them in their Assemblies nor compell any by censures or penalties to submit to your Government Is there a Presbyterian Government so setled by Ordinance as to compell any contrary to this Liberty Reade the Act of 1650. abovesaid and you shall finde an express Repeal Reade also the close of this Section and you shall finde
an express Repeal of it there also in these words All Laws Statutes Ordinances and Clauses in any Law Statute and Ordinance so far as they are contrary to the aforesaid Liberty be repealed Doth not this take from you what you may conceive was granted by former Ordinances Doth your Presbyterian Government for all your Glosses upon it receive strength from hence Doth the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament for setling Presbyterian Government throughout the Land remain yet unrepealed for any thing you have seen or heard to the contrary Yea so you affirm and would have us credit you The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1 IN the first place you charge us that our professions and expressions for peace and unity were not as cordial and real as yours but how is this proved scil because in that answer we gave to your second Paper we put you upon the invalidateing the civil sanction for our Government being before warned by you of not running our selves into a praemunire But let the Reader judge what incivility or unsatisfactoriness there was in this answer or whether there was any thing that did not become cordial wishers of peace and unity godly sober and moderate spirited men as we do not only pretend but hope to approve our selves to be both to God and men If it be indeed inconsistent with either an hearty desire of unity and peace or with godliness and sobriety to insist upon the authority of that Parliament that was instrumental for our freedome from Prelatical bondage and that setled the Government wherein we have acted and that doth fully awarrant us for whatever we have acted therein and to insist upon this authority when we were challenged as transgressors in making Laws and Edicts contrary to the Laws in force then we must confess we pretended only to be for peace and unity when in our hearts we were not real for it But as our own consciences accuse us not of dissembling professing that which we never intended so we believe whatever your censures of us be others will be more equal judges then to say the answer we gave to your first Paper was any evidence thereof and such as know what some of you were in time past will rather conclude that the urging the authority of Parliament for the setling of our Government and the awarranting of our actings was that indeed which you could not brook Secondly But as you judge our answer to your second Paper was uncivill and not suitable to that moderation we made profession of so still you will have the answer we gave unto your first to be full of darkness although even as you here represent it it is very plain to any ordinary understanding to hold forth thus much that because the mistakes we saw you had run into might perhaps some of them arise from your unacquaintedness with the rule we walk by although we said we were not to be blamed for any mistake that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris i. e. in you as the whole tenour of the discourse shewes and therefore we added whether simple or affected that we determined not but left it to you to judge of who were most fit to be judges in a matter of that nature you therein knowing your own hearts best we were willing to be at some pains to acquaint you with it This we desire might be taken notice of because what is here manifestly our meaning even from your own representation is afterwards most grosly perverted by you for you would make the world to believe that we assert such an absurd position as this that we were not to be blamed for our ignorance of the Law and then cry out of it as a strange saying But you did warily forbear the imputing any such thing to us here where our words are too plain to be so wrested and reserve this for another place hoping the Reader would by that time he came thither have forgotten what you had here represented us to have said and there take the matter wholly upon trust from you believing us to be so farre devoid of reason as you would there make us to be But this is but a small part in comparison of the injury you do us yet we desire you might see it that you might not hereafter be charged with it by him that is to be the supream Judge betwixt you and us at the great day Thirdly As touching the pains that we have taken and of which you do here again complain as having swelled our answer to so great a bulk yea so as that the most considerable part thereof as to the bulk insists thereon as you say scil to prove our Presbyterian Government to be warranted by the civil anthority and which you say was not by you oppugned nor so much as questioned by you as also touching your judging this discourse to be impertinent we referre the Reader unto what we have already said in the sixth seventh eighth and ninth Animadversions on the first Section of this Paper as also to what we mind him of in the first Animadversion on the third Section thereof by perusal of all which he will find how much you forgot your selves when you come over and over again with such assertions they having in them no more shew of truth then only to evidence that it is wearisome to you to hear of Ordinances of Parliament especially such as are for the setling of the Presbyterian Government or what makes for our own necessary vindication and to manifest that our actings in the management of that Government have been regular and orderly according to the forme of Church-Government appointed by authority and to see that we took off that Objection that is commonly made against the Presbyterian Government as being established by the Parliament but for three yeares only and unto which purposes all the Orders or Ordinances of Parliament or Rules by them given and by us recited tended and all which in the fourth Section of it to which the complaint here refers takes not up above four leafes of our answer which yet in your Preface your selves say is seven sheets Fourthly But what you cannot make out with any colour of truth you hope to do by scoffs and jeers and therefore you say we wheel about and are come to the pole we first started at like an horse in a mill that travels all day and is no further at night then he was in the morning in which also there is as little truth as in your other assertions we having already shewed that our first essay was to give you some account how the termes when we called this the first Class within the Province of Lancaster which you had called ours were no other then the Parliament had given us by their Order That which we attempted in the fourth Section of our answer to which you here reply was to shew that the Ordinances of Parliament for the
Presbyterian Government were still in force and that those rules laid down in them awarranted all our actings and particularly what we had published in our several Congregations in our Paper and which whosoever doth not so start at because they are Ordinances of Parliament but that he keeps in his right mind he will see to be different things But you do still go on with your flowts and will needs have it to be that we went about to prove which is your own phrase and not ours our Government to be established by civill authority the first work we took in hand and that we are no further yet but going about to prove your own phrase again as if the matter must needs be as you say it is or therefore true because you represent it to be so after a scoffing manner Fifthly And when you have thus pleased your selves with your taunting expressions you now would profess to do us a kindness being willing to conduct us if possible into the good old way again by taking off our Government from the establishment of authority upon the proof whereof as you say so great a part of our answer doth insist But seeing the way you herein go as will appear anon doth quite overthrow all other Ordinances of Parliament as well as those that are for the establishment of the Presbyterian Government you must excuse us though upon your most earnest entreaty we dare not follow you in this your way being wâ—ll assured we should be then indeed out of our way quite Sixthly But now you come to answer to the Orders and Ordinances of Parliament by uâ—recited and so to the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Aug 29. 1648 establishing the forme of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland and which remaines as we said unrepealed to this day and receives strength by the humble Advice assented to by his late Highness and which Ordinance was by us more especially insisted on But what is it that you alleadge to take away the strength of any Ordinance of Parliament that we made mention of in our answer In the first place you tell us that when we speak of a Government established by Law you hope we mean such as hath the strength and force of a Law to bind the free born people of this Nation and thereupon you question whether our Ordinance of the Lords and Commons though unrepealed to this day be of that force and touching this you referre us to the judgement and resolution of the Sages of the Law affirming that nothing can have the force of a Law to bind the people without the concurrent consent of the three estates in Parliament and you instance particularly in the Lord Cook and several passages in his Institutes In answer unto all which we must needs in the first place as we did in our answer to your first Paper apologize for our selves that being no Lawyers we shall not take upon us to determine any Law case and that our cause in this particular were fitter to be pleaded by the learned in the Law that have farre better abilities for it then we have only till some of these undertake in this particular to plead for us we hope we may be allowed freely to speak for our selves And here we shall not say all that we could much less what persons better able to deal in an argument of this nature might But that which we shall say is first something in the general then we shall proceed to answer more particularly In the generall we say two things 1. That if the Ordinances of Parliament for Church Government be of no force because there was not the concurent consent of three Estates to the making of them then all Ordinances of Parliament without exception of any are null and void and of no force to binde the people as well as those that concern Church Government and so it concerns all Committees that have been throughout the Land and those that have acted under them or do yet act and all Judges and Justices that have acted or do act upon any Ordinance of Parliament to consider what they have to say to what you do here alledge against their proceedings as well as against ours Nay then the Act made Anno 1650 for Relief of Religious and peaceable People that yet is afterwards much insisted on by you is of no force for to that questionless there was not the concurrent consent of three Estates in Parliament 2. That the Parliament themselves who made these Ordinances declared That the King having not onely withdrawn himself from the Parliament but leavied war against it salus populi was suprema Lex and thereupon by Ordinance of ParliameÌ„t they proceeded to settle the affairs both of Church and State without his consent yea and to repeal some former acts and as they did expresly when they passed the Ordinance for the Directory for Worship repealing the Acts of Parliament that had been passed formerly for the Book of Common Prayer as appears by their Ordinance for that purpose of Jan. 3d 1644. And also when they passed another Ordinance Octob. 9. 1646. for the abolishing of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wâ—les by which they are expresly disâ—nabled to use or put in ure any Archiepiscopall or Episcopall jurisdiction or authority by force of any Letters Pattents from the Crown made or to be made or by any other authority whatsoever any Law Statute usage or custome to the contrary notwithstanding as appears from the very words of that Ordinance And if we forget not it was by them in those times further declared That however the King had withdrawn his Person from the Parliament yet his Royall Authority could not be withdrawn But we know that what the Parliament in those dayes acted in the passing those and such like Ordinances was approved by the Sages of the Law that in those times adhered to the Parliament And this will now lead us to return our more particular answer to what you present for to take away the obliging force of Ordinances of Parliament And therefore 1. We say That that long Parliament as you call it who did so much honour the Lord Cook as to publish his Works by their special appointment did so well understand him that they were well assured there was not any thing in them that condemned their proceedings as illegal as on the contrary we do thereupon conceive that if he had been alive in those times he would have justified them And further we say under correction that all youalledg out of him was and is to be understood in cases ordinary not as it was in the times when the Ordinances for Church Government and other Ordinances for the setling the affairs of the Nation were passed when the King had withdrawn himself from the Parliament and levyed war against it 2. But to add some further confirmation
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
customes not to be found mentioned or awarranted by the Scriptures making with them the Scriptures imperfect and that their imperfection must be supplyed by these unwritten traditions but wherein they are opposed by our Protestant Divines to whom we send you touching this matter 3. But that we may come to speak to the Canons themselves that you cite out of this Council particularly 1. First We do not find in that sixth Canon that you do chiefly insist on any of the words Patriarch Primate or Archbishop at all there used only it is decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria he is not called the Patriarch as you call him have power over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis We confess the word Metropolitane is used in this Canon but not any of the other above-mentioned the like whereunto is to be observed touching the seventh Canon by you cited And yet we lay no great stress on this that these words are not there found but hint only thus much to you by the way who take advantage at us in regard of words though without reason but shall grant unto you that the things understood by those words may be there found As touching the thirteenth which you here quote that speakes nothing at all touching the business but wholly concernes the lapsed Catechumeni And whereas you cite the twenty fifth twenty sixth and twenty seventh Canons of this Council you do therein both wrong this Council and your selves in fathering upon them supposititious Canons there being not above twenty Canons that are genuine Indeed it is well observed by Lucas Osiander after he had recited in his Epitome of Ecclesiastical History Centur. 4. lib. 2. Chap. 10. the twenty Canons of this Council and which only he judged to be genuine that there are other besides these that are read in some supposititious writings of the Fathers under the names of Athanasius and Ambrose but he judges them and that rightly to be falsly ascribed to the Synod of Nice Perhaps you judged us to be so little conversant in the Fathers and Councils as that we should have let all these things pass for currant if otherwise we see you are so addicted to the Episcopall cause that you matter not so you can make it out though it be out of supposititious writings 2. As to the main thing you cite this Council for and that which indeed is chiefly to be here insisted on sc the ancient custome that the sixth Canon speakes of touching the power and dignity of the Metropolitanes which yet was not such as you imagine at the first appointing them and of which more anon Let it be granted as you would have it that this Council did not constitute and create those Metropolitans but confirme them and what power and dignity they had before according to an ancient custome yet we say that ancient custome is to be limited in in regard of its Antiquity And 1. It cannot referre so high as to the times of the Apostles there being then no Metropolitan Bishops they being never at all mentioned in the New Testament either by that name or the thing thereby signified 2. Neither can it referre to the age next unto the Apostles because in that age and a good while after a Bishop and Presbyter were all one We shall for the proof of this first mention a very observable passage in a Letter written by the Lord Digby unto Sir Kenelmne Digby and which for the observableness of it is cited by others and with good reason considering how much he was for that kind of Episcopacy that you contend for His words are these He that will reduce the Church now to the forme of Government in the most Primitive times should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of Government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a forme not chosen for the best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forced the Church from what it wisht to what it might not suffering the dignity and State Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it and which soon afterward upon the least lucida intervâlla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy c. You see this Gentleman who was firme for Monarchical Episcopacy doth yet acknowledge that in the most Primitive times and first age of the Church that kind of Episcopacy had no footing and that the Presbyterian Government as it is in Scotland and so consequently as it is in other reformed Churches and with us is nearer to the Primitive patterne of the Church then that Episcopal Governement which you would prove from the Council of Nice And therefore in those times there was no such superiority of a Bishop over a Presbyter no Archbishops and Metropolitans or Primates and Patriarehs as you speak of and for which you quote this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice But if you would peruse Blondellus his Apologia pro sententiâ Hieronymi de Episcopis Presbyteris he would give you a particular and large account touching this matter he undertaking to prove as he is a man of vast reading that untill the year 140. or thereabout there was not any Bishop over Presbyters And in the dayes of Polycarpe we find in his Epistle to the Philippians but two orders of Ministery mentioned sc Bishops and Deacons according to what Paul in his Epistle to the Church had signified more anciently Hear his own words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. therefore you ought to abstain from all these things being subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as unto God and Christ And therefore this ancient custome mentioned in this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which you quote must hereupon be limited and restrained in regard of ancientness and is not to be understood so as to referre to the whole space of 327. years after Christ or thereabout before its assembling although the custome of appointing Metropolitans before might be called ancient comparatively with those customes which were but sprung up more lately or were very new And though we shall not undertake to shew what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for either the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof though it concerned you who are so confident that the whole stream of testimonies to be produced shewing the unanimous consent of Fathers and the universal and constant practice of the Church even up to the Apostles dayes runs so for Episcopacy that there is not the least rivulet for any others to have made this out yet this we may say that Episcopacy did not grow up to that height that it was in at that
the work and it is only in one way which is briefly this sc what exposition the Fathers unanimously give of any Text of Scripture that must be received and what exposiition cannot be backed with their concurrent testimony that is to be rejected and this ought to satisfie But unto this one answer doth serve the turn sc that your principle is unsound and very corrupt and which hath been already in our answer to this Section so fully evidenced that it is needless here to add any more And this for answer to what you present in this Section may be sufficient The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VII But now as to you and what followes say you and so go on mintaining your power of excommunication and the extent of it being as you pretend backt by the Authoritie of the civil Magistrate which Authoritie is taken off by severall subsequent Acts of Parliament and so your Church-Government and Church-censures are of no force upon any but such as are willingly and no longer then they are willingly subject thereto as we have shewed before The Civil Sword doth and can reach others your Ecclesiastical cannot The Act inflicts a civill punishment whether corporall or pecuniarie upon all lawless persons whether such as contemn Gods Laws or Mans and not a spirituall and therefore not censurable by you And this is a mistake of yours to think that notwithstanding the punishment inflicted upon the offender by the civill Magistrate you may for the same offence proceed to execute Church-censures also so a man may come to be punished twice for one offence which is against the Law and therefore in such Statutes as in 1 Mar. cap. 3. and 1 Eliz. cap. 12. where there is a punishment prescribed to be inflicted by the Civill Magistrate upon the transgressors of that Act and also another to be inflicted by the Church yet there is a speciall Proviso immediately follows That whatsoever person offending the premises shall for any the offences afore-recited receive punishment of the Ordinarie having testimoniall thereof under the said Ordinaries Seal shall not for the same offence eftsoon be convicted before the Justice nor in likewise receiving for the said offence punishment by the Justice he shall not receive for the said offence punishment of the Ordinary Now these latter Acts and Ordinances against drunkennesse swearing prophanation of the Sabbath c. enjoyning punishment by the Civill Magistrate only hath utterly taken off all power of excommunication And therefore our advice to you to complain to the Civill Magistrate of such lawlesse persons was not amiss because that Sword is sharper and longer then any you have or can pretend to The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. IF we went on to maintain our power of censuring the scandalous according to what as we told you both God and the civil Authority had entrusted us with it concerned you the more to have made good what you undertook But herein you have fallen short as we have sufficiently proved by what we have said in answer to the fourth Section of this Paper whereby also we doubt not but it will appear that we are backt by the Authority of the civil Magistrate and that this Authority is not taken off by any subsequent Acts of Parliament that you have instanced in and that therefore our Church Government and censures are still of force and that it doth not depend on the voluntariness of the members of our severall Congregations being subject thereunto but upon the Parliaments appointing them to this subjection that any persons within the bounds of this Association are subject to this Government 2. We do readily grant the Civil Sword doth and can reach as those offendors against the Laws of the Lands that submit to the Churches censures so also those that are unwilling to be subject thereunto But your Argument is very inconsequent when you would inferre that the Act or Acts of Parliament inflict a civil punishment whether corporall or pecuniary upon all lawless persons whether such as contemn Gods Laws or mans and not a spirituall therefore such offenders are not censurable by us For except there had been some late Act that had repealed the Ordinance of 1648 for Church Government that appoints the inflicting of spirituall censures such offendors as are justly censurable by that Ordinance are still censurable by us Neither do we yet see how it is our mistake to think that notwithstanding the punishment inflicted upon the offendor by the Civil Magistrate we may for the same offence proceed to execute Church censures also or that it is either sound Divinity or good Law that a man may not be punished twice for one offence which yet is the argument whereby you would prove us therein for to mistake Indeed we hold it not just that one and the same person should be punished twice for one and the same offence with one and the same kinde of punishment but that such offendors as are punishable by the civil Magistrate with civil punishments may be proceeded against by the Church with Church censures is manifest 1. From your own concessions You had granted in your first Paper that such as are scandalous and wicked in their lives were to be admonished both publikely and privately and that if notwithstanding they continue still in their scandalous courses and would not reform the Churches lawfull Pastors had power to excommunicate such And in your second Paper it was one of the Arguments you urged to bring us to a compliance with your Proposals there that by that means the lives and manners of dissolute persons might with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed or by due censures be corrected and amended But now you eat your own words and flatly contradict what there you had granted for now you say such offendors as are punishable by the civil Magisttate according to the Acts that inflict civil punishment are not censurable at all by the Churches lawfull Pastors nor by us since we have refused to comply with your Proposals for then a man may come to be punished twice for one offence 2. From the justice and equity that is in so doing considering the different nature of Civil punishments and Ecclesiasticall censures the one being only corporall or respecting the outward man the other being spirituall and respecting the soul And therefore seeing men consist not only of bodies but have souls also such as are offenders against the Laws both of God and men may and ought to be punished as with civil punishment appointed by the civl Magistrate to be inflicted on the outward man so also with Ecclesiasticall censures appointed by Jesus Christ to be inflicted on the soul in case of impenitency 3. This also further appears by the necessity and usefullness that there may be of this double punishment The Magistrate may have punished the offendor in his purse or body and yet he continue in an insensible and impenitent state in which respect