power of excommunication Some we know there are that would make the Diocesan Bishops the onely Pastors of the Church and that other Ministers do but officiate by deputation from them and under them We hope you are not of the minde of these For then as the dissent in judgement betwixt you and us would be farre greater than as yet we apprehend it is so hence it would follow that till Prelacy should be restored there must not if you would provide for the safety of the persons and estates of them that should mannage the Government be the dispensing of any Church censures at all For you may easily know that not only by Acts and Ordinances of Parliament before made for the abolishing of Archbishops and Bishops c. and which are confirmed by the late humble Advice assented unto by his Highnesse sect 12. the office and jurisdiction of Diocesan Bishops is taken away But there is yet a further Barre put in against Prelacy in the 11. sect of the aforesaid humble Advice where it is expresly cautioned and we judge it was out of a conscientious mindfulness of what had been in those very termes covenanted against that the liberty that is granted to some be not extended to Popery and Prelacy And therefore if any Diocesan Bishop should exercise his jurisdiction and excommunicate any person within this Land wherein by Authority as you may see afterward there is also an appointment of another Government we leave it to those that are learned in the Law to determine whether such Diocesan Bishops would not run themselves into a praemunire But if you do not restrain lawful Pastors to these onely out doubt yet is Whether you mean not onely such Ministers as were ordained by Diocesan Bishops excluding those out of the number that since their being taken away have been ordained by Presbyters only If this be your sense we shall onely at present minde you of what is published to be the Judgement of Doctor Vsher late Primate of Ireland in a Book lately put forth by Doctor Bernard Preacher to the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne and whom though a stranger to us and one of a different judgement from us in the point of Episcopacy yet we reverence for his moderation and profession of his desires for peace wishing that such as do consent in substantials for matter of Doctrine would consider of some conjunction in point of Discipline That private interests and circumstantials might 〈◊〉 keep them thus far asunder In which wish as we do cordially joyn our selves so we heartily desire that all godly and moderate spirited men throughout the Land would also close But the book which the said Doctor hath lately published is intituled The Judgement of the late Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland c. In this Book this Doctor tels us that the late Primate in Answer to a letter of his sent to him as it should seem for that purpose declares his Judgement touching the ordination of the Ministry in the Reformed Churches in France and Holland There he saith that Episcopus Presbyter gradu tantum differunt non ordine And consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had the ordination by Presbyters standeth valid And in the close of his Answer about this point he saith That for the testifying of his Communion with the Churches of the Low-Countryes of whom he had spoken immediately before and which he there professeth He doth love and bonour as true members of the Vniversal Church notwithstanding the difference that was betwixt him and them about the point of Episcopacy he doth professe That with like affection he should receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers if he were in Holland as he should do at the hands of the French Ministers if he were in Charenton See pag. 125. and 126. Hence you may perceive that the Judgement of Dr. Vsher was That the Ordination of Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had standeth valid And consequently if you be of his opinion and you must have stronger reason then ever yet we have seen to bear you out there in if you judge otherwise they ought to bee esteemed lawful Pastors to whom you grant the power of Excommunication Bishops being now taken away and may not therefore ordain according to the present Laws of the Land The said Doctor Bernard hath some animadvertisements upon this Leteer in which Doctor Vsher doth deliver his judgement as abovesaid and there shews that he was not in this judgement of his singular He alledgeth Doctor Davenant that pious and learned Bishop of Sarisbury as consenting with him in it in his determinations quaest 42. and produceth the principal of the Schoolmen Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson Durand c. and declares it to be the General opinion of the Schoolemen Episcopatum ut distinguitur a simplie◠sacerdotio non esse alium ordinem c. see pag. 130. of the aforenamed Book as also pag. 131 132. Where the concurrence of Doctor Davenant with Doctor Vsher in his judgement about this matter is declared more fully He addes also others as in special Doctor Richard Field in his learned Book of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. and lib. 5. cap. 27. And also that Book intituled A defence of the Ordination of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas maintained by Archdeacon Mason against the Romanists And further he saith He hath been assured it was not onely the Judgement of Bishop Overal but that he had a principal hand in it He tels us that the fore-mentioned Author produceth many testimonies The Master of the Sentences and most of the Schoolemen Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas Durand Dominicus Soto Richardus Armachanus Tostatus Alphonsus a Castro Gerson Petrus Canisius to have affirmed the same and at last quoteth Medina a principal Bishop of the Council of Trent who affirmed That Jerome Ambrose Augustine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact were of the same judgement also But you may see these things your selves in Doctor Bernard pag. 132 133 134. We have been onely at the pains to transcribe them We could alledge many more Testimonies to prove this But we count these sufficient and doe alledge these the rather because brought by one that is of the same Judgement with you as we suppose But having declared how farre you accord with us in Judgement touching the way of informing the ignorant and reforming the wicked persons and schismatical c. you tell us That you are not therein so wavering and unsettled in your apprehensions of the Case as to submit either it or them either wholly or in part to the contrary Judgement and determination of a general Council of the Eastern and Western Churches much lesse to a new termed Provincial Assembly at Preston wherein you professe no little to differ from us That which we submitted wholly to the Judgement of the Provincial Assembly was not whether Catechizing was a way appointed by
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
is proved from the grounds already layd For this Jurisdiction of theirs above Presbyters did not belong unto them by Divine Right we having proved that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter to be both one And therefore the Parliament that by Law gave them their power might seeing just cause for it by Law take it away They had also just reason for to take it away in regard of the oppressiveness and burthensomness of it both to Ministers and People to this whole Church and Nation as hath been proved before And therefore what they herein did was justly yea piously and prudently done and for which the Church of God in this Land both Ministers and People do for the present and will for the future see great cause to bless God for many Generations And that they had the concurrence herein of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines is clear from their Exhortation annexed to the Ordinance of Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament with Instructions for taking the League and Covenant in the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales In this Exhortation of the Assembly of Divines in answer to some Objections they apprehended might be made against the taking of the Covenant they thus express themselves If it be sayd for the extirpation of Prelacy to wit the whole Hierarchiall Government standing as yet by the known Laws of the Kingdome is new and unwarrantable This will appear to all impartiall understandings though new to be not onely warrantable but necessary if they consider to omit what some say that this Government was never formally established by any Laws of this Kingdome at all that the very life and soul thereof is already taken from it by an Act passed this present Parliament so as like Jezabels Carkass of which no more was left but the Skull the Feet and the Palmes of her hands nothing of Jurisdiction remains but what is precarious in them and voluntary in those who submit unto them That their whole Government is at best but a humane Constitution and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament in which the Judgment of the whole Kingdome is involved and declared not onely very perjudicial to the civil State but a great hinderance also to the perfect reformation of Religion Yea who knoweth it not to be too much an Enemy thereunto and destructive to the power of Godliness and pure administration of the Ordinances of Christ which moved the well-affected almost throughout this Kingdome long since to petition this Parliament as hath been desired before in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James for a total abolition of the same And then a little after And as for these Clergy-men who pretend that they above all other cannot covenant to extirpate that Government because they have as they say taken a solemn Oath to obey the Bishops in licitis honestis they can tell if they please that they that have sworne Obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all lawfull means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous And yet if there should any Oath be found into which any Ministers or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land in this case they must teach themselves and others that such Oathes call for repentance not pertinacy in them Thus far the Assembly of Divines in their Exhortation for the taking the solemne League and Covenant and which we have thought requisite to transcribe that so it may appear how fully they concurred with the Parliament in what they did touching the abolition of Episcopacy as it doth also confirme by their Testimony severall things that have been mentioned by us wherein the Reader may perceive their concurrence in Judgment with us From all which it is clear that seeing Diocesan Bishops did but obtaine that Jurisdiction they exercised over Presbyters by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church The Parliament finding this Government of Episcopacy to be very oppressive to this Church A great hinderance to the perfect Reformation of Religion and prejudiciall to the civill State they might both lawsully and laudably being therein also backed with the advice of a reverend and learned Synod take it away And hence it will follow that if the Ministers of this Land for severing themselves from the Bishops and with-drawing their Canonicall Obedience from them as some speake the Parliament according to the reverend Synod having before taken away from them all that Jurisdiction over Presbyters that did belong unto them must needs be accused of Schisme It is a good Schisme yea a blessed Schisme to use the words that Gerhard did defending the Protestants with-drawing from the Pope and the Church of Rome that they will be found to be guilty of The blot whereof as it is not to be much regarded so it is easily wiped off and as we think it is already done in the Eyes of all impartiall and unbyassed Readers by these Considerations which we have layd down We have onely one thing more to add which is the third generall Head we offer to the Reader here before we leave this first Argument with which you would perswade us to returne againe to our former Yoke of Bondag 3. For we offer it to the consideration of all impartiall men whether considering what hath been spoken touching the nature of Schisme in the generall and how lawfully and laudably the Parliament did abolish Episcopacy and how they passed by Ordinance the forme of Church-Government Anno 1648. establishing the Presbyterian in roome of the Episcopall and that how it was set up in this County by their Authority If they but observe what your actings have been and what your expressions are in your Papers they will not thereupon see just cause to impute Schisme taken in the worst part and as it is taken most usually unto you who have been so forward though without reason to fasten this blot upon us But we are sure during the prevalency of Episcopacy those that were not guilty of any such disturbance of the peace of the Church by any such boisterous Ventings of the Distempers of their Spirits as you are were counted and called by the Prelates Schismaticks And from which Aspersion though sundry of those being peaceable and godly however Non-conformists were free yet you being very unlike them are not thereby quit But we have now done with the first of those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly whereby you would perswade us to admit againe of Episcopacy and hope we have sayd to it that which is sufficient 2. We therefore now come to the second wherein you still rise higher for therein you insinuate a thing of a farre greater and more dangerous consequence if Episcopacy be not restored For you intimate that it is necessary That the Church of God may be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the
of Antiquity for the space of three hundred years after Christ as imperfect and far from shewing the Universal practise of the Church then and to brand the most approved Authors of those times as spurious and corrupt void of all modesty and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty But suppose the Monuments and Records of Antiquity for the space of three hundred years after Christ were now as you say grown unperfect and not able to shew what was then the Churches practise yet come we to the General Councils which are the best Expositors of Scripture and of the Churches practise and we by them shall find the practise of the Church in former time That famous Council of Nice which must be and is of all wise and Learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselves shews you the practise of the Church in its form of Church Government by Patriarch Metropolitan Arch-Bishop Bishop c. as by the 6th 7th 13th 25th 26th and 27th Canons of the same Council appeareth Not that this Council did constitute and create as some falsly conceit but did onely confirm and strengthen those orders and degrees which were in the Church even from the beginning so are the words of the Council Can. 6. The very first words of that Canon whereby it is ordained that the whole power of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria even as it is also there decreed that the ancient Customes and Priviledges which belonged to the Bishop of Rome Antioch and the Metropolitanes of other Provinces should be preserved are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very words which Ignatius useth to express the Apostolical Traditions Anriqui mores obtineant in Aegypto Lybiâ Pentapoli c. i. e. Let the ancient customes in Aegypt Lybia and Pâ—ntapolis continue that the Patriarcks of Alexandria should have power over all these even those Customes which were deduced down to those times from St Mark the Evangelist not only Bishop of Alexandria but of the Churches of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis also So Eusebius lib 2. cap. 15 16. and others So that these Canons here made gave no new thing did not de novo institute or establish this standing subordination in the Church viz. of all inferiour Officers in the Church to the Bishop in every Diocess of the Bishop in every Province to the Metropolitan of the Metropolitane in every Region to the Patriarch or Primate but did onely confirm it These standing powers and subjection being defined and asserted by the ancient Canons yea the most Ancient even in memorial Apostolicall Tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. cap. 4 6. Concil Antioch cap. 1 20. Concil Chalced. cap. 119. See more of this in Dr Hammond of Schism Cap. 3. sect 22. 23 24 25. cap. 8. sect 8. Thus much to shew the practice of the Church in point of Church Government for the first three hundred years even from generall Councils the best Expositors of the practice of the Church in those times And as they are our best Informers of the Churches practise so are they the best Interpreters of the mind and will of God in Scripture touching Church Government Calvin reckoning up the severall orders and degrees of Bishops Arch-Bishops Metropolitane and Patriarch and rendring the reason of such Governours ordained by the said Council of Nice though he dislike the name Hierarchie which some gave unto that Government yet saith he omitting the name if we look into the thing we shall find that these ancient Bishops did not frame a form of Church Government differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his word Mark we pray the Churches practice in the form of Church Government was hitherto according to the prescript of Gods Word in Calvins judgment And this was 330. years after Christ Yea Beza likewise that earnest â—atron of Presbyterian discipline confesseth That those things which were ordained of the ancient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs assigning their limits and attributing to them certain Authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeal and therefore such sure as was according to knowledg and the word of God otherwise it would be far from being optimus the best zeal And thus we have found a Church Government agreeable to the will of God and universall practise of primitive Churches such a one as we pray for may be established in this Nation putting both together not the word of God alone nor the Churches practice alone but both together and both in their due piaces not crying up the Church above the Scripture nor crying up the Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church but restoring the practice and customes of the Church into that credit is due unto them by invalidating of which all hereticall and schismaticall persons seek to overthrow the Church Nay but yours is that Government which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures and your ruling Elders are jure divino which you cannot part with unless you should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. We answer these Texts are too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of and so you have been often told by many more learned Doctors of our English Church Yet ruling Elders must be found here for so you will have it let Gideâ—ns fleece be wet or dry That is whether there be dew enough in those Texts to water the sense or no Therefore being resolyed on it you wrest the Scriptures which St Peter complains of with Expositions and glosses newly coined to make them speak what they never meant giving such new and strange senses to places of Scripture as the Church of Christ never heard of till of late years This wresting of Scripture Dr Andrews taxeth the Papists withall saying Malus hic Cardinalium mos and we as truly Malus hic Presbyterorum mos rem facias rem si possis rectè si non quocunque modo rem c. such a sense you give of these places which none of the Fathers â—ave or heard of and being a stranger to them we can but terme it an Imagination of yours and so leave it and you to what we have in our last Paper further spoken of it Touching which no reply hath been as yet sent us from you The Animadversions of the Class upon it WE are sure we are now come to that which is the worst part in all your Paper your principles here being very corrupt even in a Doctrinall matter of high concernment and that distemper which was upon your spirit breaking out here into railing in an high degree if not to blasphemie besides your flandering of us and scoffing at us which is ordinary with you of which we shall speak anon particularly 1. But we shall begin with that Representation which you first make of what we
go under the Names of the most approved Authors of the Primitive times referring therein after a more especiall manner to the Epistles of Ignatius are neither spurious nor corrupted But hence it will follow that what is alleadged by you out of Ignatius for the support of the Episcopall cause is not of that waight as to prove what was the practice of the Church in the time of the true Ignatius much less to prove what was the universall practice of the Primitive Church long before the assembling of the Council of Nice or to evidence that that Council in the 6th Canon had any reference to the words of Ignatius which you cite and which might as well be foysted into his works afterwards as other things and so nothing thence to be concluded either with the shew of any certainty or of any good measure of probability 5. Now whereas you will have these ancient customes touching the power and priviledges of the Metrapolitans and Patriarchs to be deduced from St. Marke the Evangelist who you say was not onely Bishop of Alexandria but of the Churches of Egipt Lybia and Pentapolis and will have the subordination of all inferiour Officers in the Church to the Bishop in every Diocess of the Bishop in every Province to the Metropolitan of the Metropolitan in every region to the Patriarch or Primate these standing Powers as you call them and subjection to be defined and asserted by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemoriall Apostolicall tradition and custome you must either prove that the customes standing Powers and subjection that you speak of are warranted defined and asserted by the Canon of Scripture which you will never be able to do or else you do hereby intimate that you would have it to be believed that there are some customes and traditions that are Apostolicall and to be received as such that are not found written in the Canon of the Scripture But by this assertion you gratifie the Papists and open a door to let into the Church the many unwritten traditions they would obtrude upon it under the specious name and title of Apostolicall traditions though you might have known they are abundantly therein consuted by our Divines that yet were never answered by them or any other patrons of unwritten traditions And upon this account we hope we shall be sufficiently excused though we forbear to either examin or say any thing particularly to the Councils and Dr. Hammond that you cite for this purpose But as touching Marke the Evangelist whom you will have to be not onely Bishop of Alexandria but also of Egypt Lybia and Pent apolis also you do herein assert things inconsistent sc that he was an Evangelist and yet an ordinary Bishop For Evangelists properly were extraordinary Officers extraordinarily employd in Preaching of the Gospel without any setled residence upon any one charge were companions of the Apostles and under the Apostles had the care of all Churches and in which sense Mark was an Evangelist as well as in regard of the Gospel which he wrote But Bishops were Officers that were ordinary and fixed to one particular charge neither did they ordinarily travell with the Apostles from place to place as the Evangelists did Neither could Evangelists be any more called Bishops properly then the Apostles could be so called who were not such formally but onely eminently and virtually But as touching Eusebius whom you cite Scaliger saith concerning him that he read ancient Histories parum attentè But further you are to consider that the Apostles themselves were called Bishops in those times and yet they could not be so called properly as is proved by Mr. Banes in his Diocesan Triall who there gives reasons why Apostles neither were nor might be both Apostles and Bishops properly We shall onely urge one of the reasons there mentioned which also doth strongly prove that Mark the Evangelist neither was nor could be an ordinary Bishop for then he is made liable to errour as all ordinary Bishops were and are and then in writing of his Gospel as well as in his teaching he might erre and hereupon occasion is given to call that part of Canonical Scripture in question as the asserting the Apostles to be Bishops properly gives the like occasion to call all their writings in question which is dangerous and no wayes to be admitted of And hence it will follow in what sense soever you call Mark an Evangelist yet he could not be a Bishop properly although it should be granted he had an inspection under the Apostles of all those parts you mention 6. But thus farre we hope it is manifest unto the Reader that as yet you are to shew what the practice of the Church was in point of Church-Government for the space of the first three hundred years after Christ that which you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice not manifesting it either for the whole space or the greatest part thereof as appears by what we have said touching this matter Neither must we allow what again you here further assert sc that General Councils are the best enterpreters of the mind and wiâ—l of God in Scripture touching Church Government the Scripture it self being a farre more sure and safe interpreter of Gods will and minde therein revealed in the plain places thereof when there is a doubt and difficulty arising from the darkness of some other places and as hath been fully shewed as also considering that there was some swerving in point of Church Government from Scripture rule before the first general Council met or assembled when yet there was more purity as to that matter then there was afterward 7. Neither must we suffer that to pass for currant which you here say of Calvin sc that though he disliked the name Hierarchy yet he allowed the thing The place you here chiefly referre to is as we judge that place in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 1 2 3. but especially what we find Sect. 4. where we grant having mentioned Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs and having given the reason of the first institution of them in that fourth Section he hath these words Gubernationem sic constitutam nonnulli Hierarchiam vocarunt nomine ut mihi videtur improprie certè Scripturis inusitato c. Verum si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit i. e. the Governement of the Church so constituted some called the Hierarchie by an improper name as it seems unto me certainly by a name not used in the Scriptures c. But if omitting the Word we look upon the thing we shall find that the ancient Bishops would not frame another forme of governing the Church from that which God hath prescribed in his Word He speaks then here of what was in their intention not as approving every thing they did He saith they
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
of our Presbyterian discipline c. Unto which we say That we have constantly professed against those of the separation That the several Assemblies or Congregations within this Land that make a profession of the true Christian and Apostolique Faith are true Churches of Jesus Christ That the several members of these Congregations are by their birth members as those that were born in the Jewish Church are said to be by the Apostle Jewes by nature Gal. 2. That this their membership was sealed to them in their Baptism that did solemnly admit them as into the universal Church so into the particular wherein they were born We have also constantly maintained against the afore-mentioned Persons That the Ministers of these Churches are true Ministers notwithstanding that exception of theirs against them that they were ordained by Bishops who also themselves were true Ministers in our Judgement though we cannot acknowledge that by divine right they were superiour to their fellow brethren either in regard of order or jurisdiction And that therefore the Word and Sacraments the most essential marks of a true visible Church according to the professed Judgement of our Divines against the Papists on the one hand and those of the separation on the other dispensed by these Vinisters were and are the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ And that hereupon our work was not when the Presbyterian Government was appointed to constitute Churches but to reform them onely And that therefore none within our bounds except they shall renounce Christianity and their Baptisme can be deemed by us to be without in the Apostles sense and so therefore not within the compass and verge of our Presbyterian Government Neither is it their not associating with us in regard of Government that doth exempt them from censure by it if they should be such offenders as by the rules thereof were justly censurable It not being a matter arbitrary for private Persons at their own will and pleasure to exempt themselves from under that Ecclesiastical Government that is settled by Authority And as you know it would not have been allowed of under the former Government 2 And therefore whether you and all others within our bounds be not comprehended within our Government according to the rules laid down in the Ordinance of Parliament above mentioned appointing the form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland and therein ordaining as hath been recited before in the first page thereof and to which we referre you Especially considering that all within the bounds of our several Parishes that are no other now then formerly even Papists and Anabaptists and other Sectaries were under the late Prelatical Government we leave it to you to judge Onely if so we wish you to consider that then you are brought under the Government of Presbytery not so much by us as by the Parliament appointing this Government And then we think you who warn us not to contemn civil power might well out of respect to the Authority ordaining it but especially considering the word Presbytery is a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4 and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been declared before have used a more civil expression then to have called it a common fold into which it should seem your complains it that you should be driven Although Presbytery layes restraint on none but such as being scandalous in their lives and so contemning the Laws of God are therefore truly and indeed the lawless Persons that we speak of But whereas as you suppose This is our chief design in this as in other transactions of ours to subject all to our Government We doe refer our selves to our course of life past and hope it will witnesse with us to all that will judge impartially what our designes have been in our other transactions And as touching our design in the Paper published whether it hath been ought but the information of the ignorant and reformation of the scandalous to the Glory of God and their salvation we leave it to be judged by those that will judge of mens intentions by what is expressed in their words and actions We know very well we are charged by some that we affect Dominion to Lord it over the People and to have all sorts of Persons of what rank soever to stoop to us But we do openly professe that the Government of the Church that is committed unto men is not Despotical but Ministerial That it is no Dominion but a Ministery onely And that the Officers that are intrusted with it are themselves to be subject both in regard of their bodies and estates to the Civil power That by the Ordinance of God they are appointed to be under and that in their Government they have nothing to do with the bodies and estates of any Persons but with their Souls onely Although here we desire to enquire of you whether if you be indeed for the settling of any Government at all in the Church as you professe to be you do not think that all should be subject to it We cannot judge you to be so irrational as to be for a Government and that yet subiection to it must be denyed And if the late Government of the Prelacy was not blamed by you because it required subjection to it we wish you to consider whether upon this account you have reason to censure us But further whereas you tell us That we garnish over our Government with the specious title of Christs Government Throne and Scepter We wish you to consider what in your Answer to an objection that you frame out of our Paper your selves doe say You there tell us You pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is consonant to the will of God and universal practice of primitive Churches that Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the World The expressions you here use are as high touching that Government you would have established as any have been that ever we have used of ours For your prayer is That Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the world The Government then that you are for must be with you Christs Government Throne and Scepter And why do you then condemn us if we have used such expressions concerning our Government till you have convinced us that it is not such When yet you take to your selves the liberty to use the like language concerning the Government you pray may be established But where as you say Presbytery is the main thing driven at here and that however she comes ushered in with a Godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and the ignorance of the times and the duty incumbent upon us
to exercise the power that Christ hath committed to us for edification and not for destruction that these are but so many waste Papers wherein Presbytery is wrapped up to make it look more handsomely and passe more currantly We do earnestly desire That in the examination of your consciences you would seriously consider whether you have not both transgressed the rules of Charity in passing such hard censures upon us and also usurped that which belongs not to you in making your selves judges of what fals not under your cognizance The things you mention belonging only to be tried by your and our Master to whom we must all stand or fall But we are heartily sorry that Presbytery which stands in no need of any painting or cover to make it look more handsomely and passe more currantly should be accounted by you the anguis in herba whereof you had need to beware it having never given that offence to any as to merit such language SECT VI. BUt now you frame an objection out of our Paper and return your Answer professing That you pray for the establishment of such Church Government throughout his Highnesse Dominions as is consonant to the will of God and universal practice of primitive Churches c. In that you do here joyn the will of God and the universal practice of primitive Churches together as you joyned the Word of God and the constant practise of the Catholique Church before you seem to us to make up the rule whereby we must judge what Government it is that you pray might be established of these two viz. the will of God and the universal practise of primitive Churches Or that it is the universal practise of primitive Churches that must be our sure guide and comment upon the Word of God to tell us what is his will revealed there touching Church Government and discipline If this be your sense as we apprehend it is we must needs professe that herein we greatly differ from you as not conceiving it to be sound and orthodox It being the Word of God alone and the approved practise of the Church recorded there whether it was the universal and constant practise of the Church or no that is to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religion But yet admitting for the present the rule you seem to make we should desire to know from you what that Church Government is which is so consonant to the will of God and universal practise of primitive Churches For our own parts we think it will be very hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any Records of Antiquity what was the universal practise of primitive Churches for the whole space of the first 300. yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof excepting so much as is left upon record in the Scriptures of the new Testament the Monuments of Antiquity that concern those times for the greatest part of them being both imperfect and far from shewing us what was the universal practise of the Church then though the practises of some Churches may be mentioned and likewise very questionable At least it will not be easie to assure us that some of those that goe under the names of the most approved Authors of those times are neither spurious nor corrupted And hereupon it will unavoidably follow that we shall be left very doubtful what Government it is that is most consonant to the universal and constant practise of primitive Churches for that time But as touching the rule it self which you seem here to lay down we cannot close with it We do much honour and reverence the Primitive Churches But yet we believe we owe more reverence to the Scriptures then to judge them either imperfect or not to have light enough in themselves for the resolving all doubts touching matters of faith or practise except it be first resolved what was either the concurrent interpretation of the Fathers or the universal and constant practise of the Churches of those times Besides that admitting this for a rule that the universal and constant practise of the primitive Churches must be that which must assure us what is the will of God revealed in Scripture concerning the Government which he hath appointed in the Church our faith is hereupon resolved into a most uncertain ground and so made fallible and turned into opinion For what monuments of Antiquity besides the Scriptures can assure us touching the matters of fact therein contained that they were such indeed as they are there reported to be the Authors of them themselves being men that were not infallibly guided by the Spirit But yet supposing we could be infallibly assured which yet never can be what was the universal and constant practise of the primitive Churches how shall that be a rule to assure us what is most consonant to the will of God When as we see not especially in such matters as are not absolutely necessary to salvation but that the universal practise of the Churches might in some things be dissonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures And so the universal practise of primitive Churches can be no certain rule to judge by what Church Government is most consonant to the will of God revealed in his Word We know there are corruptions in the best of men There was such hot contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas as caused them to part asunder Peter so failed in his practise as that though before some came from James he did eat with the Gentiles yet when they were come he withdrew himself fearing them of the Circumcision And hereupon not only other Jews likewise dissembled with him but Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation Whence it 's clear that the examples of the best men even in those things wherein they went contrary to the rule of Gods Word are of a spreading nature and the better the Persons that give the bad examples are the greater the danger of the more universal leavening Nay we finde that not onely some few Apostolical men had their failings but even Apostolical primitive Churches did in the very face of the Apostles they being yet alive make great defection both in regard of opinions and practises As from the examples of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the Churches of Asia is manifest The Apostle also tels us that even in his time the mystery of iniquity began to work And in after times we know how the Doctrine was corrupted what grosse superstition crept into the Church what domination was striven for amongst the Pastors and Bishops of the Churches till at length Antichrist was got up into his seat unto which height yet he came not all at once but by steps and degrees Besides it is of fresh remembrance that notwithstanding the reformation happily brought about in our own Church in regard of Doctrine and worship after those dismal Marian times yet the corruption in regard of
Government continued such during the time of the late Prelacy which yet was taken away in other reformed Churches that the Pastors were deprived of that power of rule that our Church acknowledgeth did belong to them of right and which did anciently belong to them however the exercise thereof did after grow into a long disuse as hath been shewed before And therefore when we consider on the one hand that the superiority which the Bishop obtained at the first above the Presbyter in the ancient Church and which was rather obtained consueâ—udine Ecclesiae then by Divine right did at the length grow to that height that the Pastors were spoiled of all power of rule so we cannot much wonder on the other hand that the ruling Elder was quite turned out of doors For the proof of the being and exercise of whose office in the purer times there are notwithstanding produced testimonies of the ancients by Divines both at home and abroad that have written about that subject and to which we do therein refer you As there doe remain some footsteps and shadow of their office in the Church-wardens and Sides-men even to this day And so upon the whole the premisses considered and that we are commanded not to follow a multitude to do evil though it were of the best of men and that therefore the examples and practises though it were of whole Churches are to be no further a rule for us then they follow Christ and as their examples be approved of in the Word of Christ notwithstanding the univerfality and long continuednesse of such practises Whereas you say that you pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is consonant to the will of God and universal practise of primitive Churches we believe you might cut the matter a great deal shorter and say That you are for the establishing of that Government that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in the Scriptures and that the Word of God alone and on which onely Faith must be built and into which at last be resolved when other records of Antiquity that yet are not so ancient as it is have been searcht into never so much shall determine what that is and so those wearisome and endlesse disputes about what is the universal and constant practise of primitive Churches and which if it could be found out in any good measure of probability for the first 300. years after Christ could never yet be so farre issued as to be a sure bottom whereon our faith may safely rest may be cut off It being a most certain rule and especially in matters of faith that the Factum is not to prescribe against the Jus The Practice against the Right or what ought to be done And it being out of all question the safest course for all to bring all doctrines and practices to the sure and infallible Standard and Touchstone the Word of God alone And after you have more seriously weighed the matter and remember how you professe that in the matters you propose in your Pâ—per You rest not in the Judgement or determination of any general Council of the Eastern or Western Churches determining contrary to what you are perswaded is so fully warranted by the Word of God as well as by the constant practice of the Catholick Church although what that was were more likely to be resolved by a general Council then by your selves the proposal of having the Word of God alone to be the Judge of the Controversie about Church Government cannot we think in reason be deny'd by you And we with you shall heartily pray That that Church-Government which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures might be established in these Lands Although we must also professe that we believe that that Government which is established by Authority and which we exercise is for the substantials of it this Government and which we judge also to be most consonant to the practice of the primitive Churches in the purest times And therefore as there was some entrance made by the late Parliament in regard of establishing this Government by ordinances as the Church Government of these Nations And as to the putting those Ordinances in execution there hath been some beginning in the Province of London the Province of this County and in some other places throughout the Land So when there shall be the opportunity offered we shall not be wanting by petitioning or otherwayes to use our best endeavours that it may be fully settled throughout these Lands that so we may not as to Government in the Church any longer continue as a City without wals and a Vineyard without an hedge and so to the undoing of our posterity endanger Religion to be quite lost And upon which consideration we do earnestly desire that all conscientious and moderate spirited men throughout the Land though of different principles whether of the Episcopal or Congregational way would bend themselves so far as possibly they can to accommodate with us in point of practice In which there was so good a progresse made by the late Assembly as to those that were for the Congregational way And as we think also all those that were for the lawfulnesse of submission to the Government of the late Prelacy as it was then exercised and that are of the Judgement of the late Primate of Ireland in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government mentioned before might doe if they would come up towards us so far as we judge their principles would allow them As we do also professe that however we cannot consent to part with the Ruling Elder unlesse we should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. as we judge and dare not give any like consent to admit of a moderate Episcopacy for fear of encroachments upon the Pastors right and whereof late sad experience lessons us to beware as we judge also that the superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter in degree which some maintain is no Apostolical institution and so have the greater reason in that respect to caution against it Yet we do here professe we should so farre as will consist with our principles and the peace of our own consciences be ready to abate or tolerate much for peace sake That so at the length all parties throughout the Land that have any soundness in them in matters of faith and that are sober and godly though of different judgements in lesser matters being weary of their divisions might fall in the necks one of another with mutual embraces and kisses and so at last through the tender mercy of our God there might be an happy closure of breaches and restoring of peace and union in this poor unsettled rent and distracted Church to the glory of God throughout all the Churches SECT VII BUt now as to you and what follows in your Paper and in the mean season till this can be accomplished and
in the form of our Church Government As also the times propounded there for their meetings the power of these Assemblies c. and are the same in substance as with us And all these were propounded as the way of Government in the Ancient Church and as an Expedient c. as abovesad And therefore for so you conclude in the Judgement of this learned and Reverend Antiquary our Provincial Assembly at Preston where the Pastors of the Church are members as he acknowledgeth of right they ought to be in such Assemblies would not have been accounted a new Termed Provincial Assembly Touching all which we shall close and joyn issue with you we willingly submit our selves to that order aud rule therein Expressed which being that which was received in the Ancient Church In the Judgement of that Reverend and learned Antiquary Dr. Vsher who was so acknowledged by all that knew him or are acquainted with his works And also the Assemblies there expressed holding proportion with yours set down in the form of your Church Government and being the same with yours in substance and being proposed as an Expedient for prevention of further troubles c. We fully expect you should also submit your selves unto for Peace and Unities sake and so we close and meet together as in the middle And this the rather in regard of those full and free expressions of yours to that purpose saying We reverence Dr. Bernard for his moderation and profession of his desires for peace wishing That such as do consent in Substantials for matter of Doctrine would consider of some Conjunction in point of Discipline That private Interests and Circumstantials might not keep themselves so far asunder In which wish as we do cordially joyn our selves so we heartily desire that all godly and moderate spirited men throughout the Land would also close And in another place you say However we dare not admit of a moderate Episcopacy for fear of encroachings upon the Pastors right c. Yet we do here professe we should so far as will consist with our principles and the peace of our own Consciences be ready to abate or tolerate much for peace sake That so at the length all parties throughout the Land that have any soundness in them in matters of faith and that are sober and godly though of different judgements in lesser matters being weary of their divisions might fall into the necks of one another with mutual embraces and kisses and so at last through the tender mercy of our God there might be an happy closure of breaches and restoring of peace and union in this poor unsetled rent and distracted Church to the glory of God throughout all Churches Now who are they that disturbe this our happy closure and conjunction We wish not with the Apostle that they were cut off but that they were taken away that trouble us for only they let that will let untill they be taken out of the way and those are the Ruling Elders as you call them We suppofe you mean those whom you have chosen out of the Laity and admitted without further entring into holy Orders into the whole execise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in equal right with the Ministers of the Gospel in which respect your Assemblies and so your Provincial at Preston would be accounted in the judgement of Dr. Vsher a new termed Provincial assembly and stand yet uncleared of suspition of novelty whom you say You cannot consent to part with unlesse you should betray the Truth of Christ as you judge quoting Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. and for further Testimony refer us to some Modern Authors all of yesterday Now whereas you say you cannot part with them unless you betray the Truth of Christ as you judge By this Parenthesis we gather that you are not so wedded to that opinion but you can and will submit to better reason when offered to you And we do again profess to you that we will not willfully and pertinaciously hold a contrary Tenent And in this confidence we proceed to shew to you that Lay-Elders are not meant nor mentioned in those Texts by you alledged Briefly thus but more largely hereafter if what is comprehended in this paper be not judged satisfactory Run over all the Expositers of holy writ whether the Fathers in general or more particular Councils And Calvin saith there can be no better nor surer remedy for deciding ofcontroversies no better sense nor Interpretation of Scripture then what is given by them in such Councils or whether the Fathers apart And first for that Text Rom. 12. here what Dr. Andrews saith and at your leisure examine the Fathers There is no Epistle saith he on which so many of the Fathers have writ Six only I will name Origen Chrysostome Theodoret Ambrose Jerom Oecumenius All which have treated of it Let their Commentaries be looked on upon that place not one of them applyeth it to the Church Government which by all likelihood could not be imagined but they would if that had been the main place for it nor finde those Offices in those words which they in good earnest tell us of c. As much may be said for the other two Texts Not one Father in their Comments upon them giveth such a sense Finde one Exposition for you and which is much we will yield you all Many there are that apply them to the Bishops And so one for those many of our Modern Doctors we could give you to answer those modern you quote in behalf of your Elders of our English Church Dr. Fulk by name we instance in applying these Texts to the Bishops only whom we quote in regard of the moderate judgement he was supposed to be of in point of Church-government and therefore more likely to sway with you than any other we could produce His words are these Amongst the Clergy for Order and Government there was alwayes one principal to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Super-intendent hath been applyed which in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoting these Texts Rom. 12. 8. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Heb. 13. 17. And therefore it can be no betraying of the Truth of Christ if you will seriously weigh it in the ballance of impartial and unprejudicate reason to part with them and to take in the other but a strengthening and a backing of it Wherefore in the name of God and in the tender bowels of Christ we beg again and again beseeching you not to stand upon circumstantials or private interests But to apply your selves to this happy conjuncture and reconcilement of so many poor Christian Souls in truth love and peace in this our English Church in these our days The blessing that may redound to all parties thus reconciled is unconceiveable The lives and manners of dissolute persons and how many there are amongst our selves of that sort we are but too too conscious
create that happy and desirable Peace among us that is so thirsted after by all good men 2. But yet we cannot dissemble what we apprehend and is in our thoughts that there are some sorts of Persons in this Land that till God change their Judgments and the frame of their Spirits though we shall so far as is possible and as much as lyeth in us live peaceably with them and with all others and shall be ready to requite good for evill by all Offices and Duties of love toward them yet we see little hopes of any reall and hearty Union and closure with them And here we must profess that however we were willing for our own exoneration if no other end should be thereby attained to entertain a Treaty with you touching an Accommodation and which was pursued by us with all Cordialness and Sincerity being desirous to wait on God in the use of the means for that purpose so far as we saw any hope not knowing what God might work out thereby as will appeare we doubt not to the Reader from our Narrative yet you have now discovered so much bitterness and distemper of Spirit and so much unsoundness in your Principles and Opinions together with a resolvedness to adhere to them for ought we can discern to the contrary that till God do open your Eyes and change your hearts giving you a through sense of and sâ—uâ—d humiliation for what to your own shame you have published to the World in your Papers we have not any great hopes of accommodating with you though we shall not in the mean season cease to pray for you and use the best means we can to bring you into the right way from which you have turned aside But yet we desire we might not be here mistaken For as for such as are moderate and godly Episcopall men That hold Ordination by Presbyters to be lawfull and valid that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same Order of Ministery which are not your Tenents as will appear from both this and your next Paper and that are Orthodox in doctrinall Truths though we may differ from them in Judgment in some Points touching Church Government yet they are such as we do heartily desire to accommodate with and we believe that such tearms might be propounded that betwixt them and us there might be an happy Union as we could heartily wish that all and every of you with whom we have here to deal were of this stamp Although here also we must not conceal that we have many reasons why we dare not admit of moderate Episcopacy as the tearms of accommodation with those of this sort And because it is that which you press us with fully expecting we should submit unto what is propounded by Doctor Vsher in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church although as we have hinted to you we have reason from your own Papers to judge you aime at more then is there propounded we shall not here refuse to give you some of our reasons why we cannot consent to you in these Proposals as you know moderate Episcopacy was that we expresly cautioned against in our Answer to your first Paper And 1 First We shall here mind you of what is well observed by our reverend Brethren of the Province of London in their Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici Part second in the Appendix Pag 117 118 119. There they lay down their fifth Proposition in these words That when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not grounded upon a Jus divinum but upon prudentiall Reasons and Arguments And the chief of them was as Hierome and divers after him say In remedium Schismatis ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the Seeds of Errour might be rooted out of the Church This Proposition thus layd down they add Now that this prudentiall way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appears as Smectymnus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16. 17. and Schismes 1 Cor. 3. 3. and 11. 18. yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy-ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those Breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their Office And though the Apostle saith Opportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vas Yet the Apostle no where saith Opportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are amongst you may be removed 2 Because the Holy-ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not only be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a Stirrop for Antichrist to get up into the Saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity for setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unless men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only amongst Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to Reason Truth History and our own experience And then they add hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 1. that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he adds But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elders of the Church as Hierom sayth Schisms arose and as I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one amongst the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in an higher degree called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth that if Hierom others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schism as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast destroy the former Ministry that fed the Flock Thus far Musculus Sadael also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a Gate they opened to the ambition of Bishops Hence also Dr. Whitakers asking how came in the inequality between Bishops Presbyters answereth out of Hierom that the Schism and Faction of some occasioned the ancient
be prevented and hindred or if they might be easily spoiled of their Freedom We have taken the liberty to suggest what exceptions the forementioned Proposals that were made by Dr Vsher are lyable to and without any intention to reflect in the least measure on so reverend a Person whom in regard of his Piety and Learning we honour though herein of a different apprehension from us we believing he propounded what he did with an honest intention as we have sayd before And we hope there are no moderate Episcopall Men that will entertaine any Animosities against us in this respect wee never intending thereby to set up a Wall of Partition betwixt them and us as we have used this Freedome only to shew what danger there is least if moderate Episcopacy should be admitted again it should within a while grow to that height that they as well as we growing weary of it would be ready to cast it off as an insufferable Yoke We are the fuller of Jealousies in this respect when we consider how far short the Proposals mentioned do fall of the strong Bonds that were layd upon Episcopacy in Scotland and yet it burst them all And because it may be here of use to mention them particularly we shall give the Reader an account of them as we find them expressed in a short Discourse going under the Title of the unlawfulness and danger of limited Prelacy or perpetuall Presidency in the Church briefly discovered Printed in the year 1641. and this the rather because we do not know the things now not being common that sundry Readers might ever come to the knowledge of them if we should not be at some pains to transcibe them thence but there they may be found Page 10 11. by such as have the liberty to peruse that Discourse And thus they run In the year 1600. the Church of Scotland being met in a generall Assembly at Montross these Cautions and Limits were agreed upon the Kings Majesty consenting First That the Minister chosen to this place speaking of him who as constant Moderator was to be in the place of the Bishop shall not be called Bishop but Commissioner of such a place 2. That he shall neither propound to the Parliament any thing in name of the Church without their express Warrant and direction Nor shall he keep silence or consent to any thing prejudiciall to the Weale and Liberty of the Church under the pain of Deposition 3. Under the pain of Infamy and Excommunication he shall at every Assembly give account of the discharging of his Commission and shall submit himself to their censure and stand to their determination whatsoever without Appellation 4. He shall content himself with that part of the Benefice which shall be assigned him not pre-judging any of the Ministers in their Livings 5. He shall not dilapidate his Benefice 6. He is bound as any other Minister to attend his particular Congregation and shall be subject to the triall and censure of his own Presbytery and Provinciall Assembly 7. He shall neither usurp nor claim to himself any power of Jurisdiction in any point of Church-government more then any other Minister 8. In Presbyteries Provinciall and generall Assemblies he shall be have himself in all things and be subject to their censuring as any of the Brethren of the Presbytery 9. At his Admission to his Office he shall swear and subscribe to fulfill all these Points under the pains aforesaid otherwise not to be admitted 10. In case he shall be deposed he shall no more Voice in Parliament nor enjoy his Benefice 11. He shall not have Voice in the generall Assembly unless he be authorised with Commission from his own Presbytery 12. Crimen ambitus shall be a sufficient cause of Deprivation 13. The generall Assembly with the advice of the Synod shall have power of his Nomination or Recommendation 14. He shall lay down his Commission annuatim at the foot of the generall Assembly to be continued or changed as the generall Assembly with his Majesties consent shall think fit 15. Other cautions to be made as the Church shall find occasion One would have thought judging according to the Rules of humane wisdome that these Bonds had been strong enough to have shackled and fettered Episcopacy if it could have been bounded but as it follows in the forementioned Discourse the godly and sincere Ministers disliked this course and some did protest against him foreseeing what afterward came to pass and as it is further there declared for those that did love preheminence above their Brethren c. did afterwards break all those Bonds and finding themselves unable to give account according to the counsell given to Pericles they procured that there should be no free generall Assemblies least they should be called to account and when they were challenged of their Perjury and perfidious dealing their printed Apology declared their Perfidy to be double and which is expressed in their own words to teach us what in this Land might be expected from their Fellows Conditiones aliae pro tempore magis quo contentiosisrixandi ansa praeriperetur quam animo in perpetuum observandi acceptae By this account we may see what Scotland to their sorrow had experience of and what we also may expect would be the Issue here if after Episcopacy hath been thrown out there should be a recidivation and a tampering with it again especially considering that generally the sound and godly Party throughout the Land were heretofore so deeply sensible of those intolerable Burthens they had groaned under through the exorbitances of the Prelates that they not onely did remonstrate their grievances to the Parliament before the Wars begun but did also humbly suggest by way of remedy not the meer clipping of the Bishops Wings or the lopping of some Branches from Episcopacy as sufficient for the redressing of their Grievances but the taking it away both Root and Branch And whereupon the Parliament that then was which will be renowned to all Posterity for easing of the Church of their intolerable Pressures and vindicating the Civil Liberty of the English Nation did proceed to an utter extirpation of it And we hope what ever may be your expectations with whom we have to do in these Papers that neither the good People of this Land nor any succeeding Parliaments will so soon grow weary of their dear-bought liberty as to admit that which might endanger the bringing of their Necks again under the old Yoke 3. But yet further we desire it might be considered that the admitting of moderate Episcopacy would breed great dissatisfaction to sundry godly and conscientious Ministers and Christians at home in these three Nations and occasion much strife and contentious Debates that were likely to arise about it some conceiving it to be utterly unlawfull as being the Introduction of an Officer into the Church that is not of Divine Institution Others that were satisfied touching the lawfulness of it in
end of the World in a succession of a lawfull ordained Ministry And in your next Paper you falling foule upon us and charging us with a rent indeed a Schisme in the highest you add which is not satisfied but with the utter overthrow of the Church from whom they rent Here you lay a great stress upon Episcopacy and such an one as none of our true Protestant Divines that defend the truth of our own and other reformed Churches against the Papists would ever have layd upon it But here two things are hinted which we shall severally examine 1. You intimate that by the taking away of Episcopacy the Church is overthrowne it cannot be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the end of the World except Episcopacy be restored 2. But yet there is a further Implication sc That there cannot be a Succession of a lawfull ordained Ministry which Succession yet you intimate to be necessary to the being of the Church if we have not Bishops againe that may Ordain 1. Unto the first of these we shall answer after we have premised a distinction touching the word Church For either the Church of God amongst us which you here speak of is taken essentially for that part of the Catholick visible Church which in regard of the place of its abode in this Land is called the Church of England as the severall parts of the Sea which yet is but one receive their Denomination from the Shoares they wash Or else you take the word Church for a Ministeriall Church or for the Church represensative as it is taken Matth. 18. 27. This premised we answer If you take the word Church in the former sense your Position is very gross no other then this that for want of Bishops the whole Church of England is at present overthrowne and that there is no way of recovery of it but by the restoring of them and so in the mean season it is no Church with whom we may safely hold Communion which layes a Foundation for separation from it and of Apostasie unto Rome where Bishops may be had We shall therefore to this say no more but onely mind you of what is well observed by Mr. Baxter out of B. Jewell in the defence of the Agreement of the Worcestershire Ministers Page 58. where he hath these words B. Jewell in his defence of the Apology Authorised to be kept in all Churches Part 2. Page 131. Neither doth the Church of England depend on them whom you so often call Apostates as if our Church were no Church without them They are no Apostates Mr. H c. Notwithstanding if there were not one neither of them nor of us left alive yet would not the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine Tertullian saith Nonne Laici sacerdotes sumus Scriptum est regnum quoque sâ—cerdotes Deo patri suo nos fecit differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae authoritas honos per ordinis concessum sanctificatus a Deo Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est concessus offert tingit sacerdos qui est ibi solus Sed ubi tres sunt Ecclesia est licet Laici But if you take the word Church for a Ministeriall or Organized Church we oppose your Position with these following Arguments 1. That which we have already proved sc That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture acceptation will necessarily inferre that the being of a Ministeriall or Organized Church doth not depend on the continuance or restauration of Bishops taking them for such as are superiour to Presbyters either in regard of Order or Jurisdiction For though these be never restored yet Presbyters being continued that yet are Bishops in Scripture sense the Organized and Ministeriall Church of Christ is fufficiently secured against the danger of perishing 2. But by the Tenent you here hold forth you do very uncharitably unchurch the best reformed Churches throughout the World The Protestant Churches of France Scotland the Low countries and Geneva must all be pâ—t out of the number of free Organized and Ministeriall Churches and their Ministers must because they admit not the Bishops that you are for be accounted no lawfull Ministers Yea you here againe very undutifully unchurch your Mother the Church of England if she restore not Episcopacy and herein gratifie the Papists no little that vilifie her and other reformed Churches as no true Churches and â—ry out against their Ministers as no lawfull Ministers But blessed be God both the Church of England and other reformed Churches and their Ministers have had and still have better Advocates and more dutifull Sonnes then you herein approve your selves to be to plead their Cause 3. By this Tenent also it will follow That all the Ordinances that are dispensed in these Churches are null and void Their Baptisme is no Baptisme The Sacrament of the Lords Supper Administred amongst them is no Sacrament and the like must be said of all the Ordinances that are dispensed in our Church by such as were not ordained by Bishops and so it makes them as to outward Church-Priviledges no better then meer Heathens and hereupon it ministers occasion of endless Doubts and Scruples unto the Members of those Churches of questioning the validity of their Baptisme and whether they ought not to be rebaptized which doubts also by your Tenent are occasioned also to all those among your selves that were baptized by such Ministers as were not Ordained by Bishops Thus you see how you lay the Foundation of Anabaptisme which yet you would seem to be zealous Opposers of 4. Add hereunto that hence it will unavoidably follow That you must not hold any Communion with these Churches nor such Congregations in the Church of England where these Ordinances are dispensed by such as were not Ordained by Bishops their Ministers according to your Doctrine being not lawfull Ministers and for the Ordinance dispensed by them null and void And here is a Rent indeed a rent in the highest to use your owne expressions from which our old Episcopall Divines that were sound Protestants would never have excused you no nor Doctor Vsher with whom in some things you profess to close For however he is represented by Doctor Bernard to have held that a Bishop had Superiority in degree above a Presbyter by Apostolicall Institution and had expressed himselfe sharply enough in his Letter to Doctor Bernard Touching the Ordination made by such Presbyters as had severed themselves from Bishops yet a little after speaking of the Churches of the Low-Countries * he sayth For the testifying his Communion with these Churches which he professeth to love and honour as true Members of the Church Universall he should with like affection receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers if he were in Holland as he should at the hands of the French Ministers if he were in Charenton By which you may perceive however he held those Churches
defective in Government for want of Bishops yet he neither upon this account doth unchurch them nor would have refused Communion with them as you by what you do here hold forth must needs do 5. Nay lastly hence it will follow that when all the Bishops in these Lands and those that were Ordained by them shall be dead if there be no Bishops to be found in any other reformed Churches nor Ministers that were Ordained by them a retreat back againe to Rome must be sounded that so we might have a lawfull Ordained Ministry and a Church which yet cannot be but by owning the Pope as the Head of the Church and renouncing the Protestant Religion as in the mean season great advantage is given to the Popish Emissaries to ensnare the weak by such a dangerous Insinuation as this is sc That for want of Bishops or that when all the Bishops are dead and those that were Ordained by them we have amongst us neither Church nor Ministery nor Ordinances and thus must continue to the end of the World except we returne to Rome and which they will not be wanting to tell them But if you had consulted Bishop Jewell Bishop Downame Doctor Feild Bishop Davenant Mr. Mason and other Orthodox Episcopall Divines in this Point and weighed their Defences of the reformed Churches and Ministry against the Papists you would have found they would never have owned such a dangerous and unsound Position as the Argument you here urge us with to admit againe of Episcopacy doth imply Neither do we believe that they if they were now alive would judge that you had here argued well for your Mother the Church of England that hath her selfe also ever since the Reformation even during the time of Episcopacy acknowledged the reformed Churches of France Scotland Low-countries Geneva to be true Churches of Christ and hath given them the right hand of Fellowship as Sister Churches and owned their Ministers Ordained without Bishops by Presbyters onely to be true Ministers 2. We now come to the second thing implyed in this your second Argument with which you would perswade us to admit of Episcopacy which is as we have sayd before that if it be not restored there cannot be a succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry Which succession yet you seem to judge to be necessary unto the continuance of the Church of God amongst us Here two things are implyed 1. The first whereof is that a Succession is necessary to the very being of the Church and of a lawfully Ordained Ministry And so 1. You do hereby strengthen the hands of the Papists who make the Succession of Bishops and Pastors without any interruption from the Apostles to be a Mark of the true Church although they are therein opposed generally by our Protestant Divines The Condition of the Church being many times such that the Succession of publick Teachers and Pastors is interrupted Doctor Sutlive saith well In externa successione quam haeretici saepe habent Orthodoxi non habent nihil est momenti 2. You do also hereby Minister occasion of such scruples unto private Christians as you will never be able satisfactorily to resolve For suppose one on this ground questions the truth of his Baptisme sc Because he doth not know whether he was baptized by one that was Ordained by a Bishop who himselfe also was Ordained by a former true Bishop and he by a former untill the Succession be carried on as high as that we are brought to such a Bishop that was ordained by one of the Apostles How will you be able making this Succession necessary to the continuing of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry to resolve the scruples of such an one What Church-Story shall be able to resolve the doubts that may be moved on this occasion Or on what grounds holding the necessity of this Succession for the continuance of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry will you be able to satisfie the Conscience of such as may be stumbled 3. Nay will not this Assertion give occasion to sundry to question all Churches Ministry and Ordinances and so to turn Seekers the Grounds you lay down giving them occasion to question the truth of our Churches Ministry and Ordinances 4. Neither shall the best and ablest Ministers that are already entred into that Calling or such as are to enter into it be able on your Principles in this particular either to satisfie their owne Consciences touching the lawfulness of their calling or be able to justifie and defend it against those that shall call it in question But our Protestant Divines have more sure Grounds on which to justifie our Churches Ministry and Ordinances and to satisfie their own and their peoples Consciences concerning them then what you insinuate 2. The second thing that is further implyed in this Argument is that the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry to the end of the World doth depend upon Episcopacy which is not true There was a time when Bishops had no Superiority above Presbyters a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture sense being all one as hath been proved before And though this Superiority should never be restored unto them yet the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry might be by the means of Presbyters Ordaining Presbyters And thus we say it was continued not onely in the dayes of Episcopacy though not without the mixture of some corruption cleaving to the Ordination then in use the Bishops notwithstanding their usurped Superiority above their fellow Brethren being themselves also Presbyters and so their Ordination valid in that respect and which we have constantly maintained against those of the separation but also in the darkest times of Popery and that our Ministry descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome as our reverend Brethren of the Province of London do well express it in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici where they do solidly and learnedly prove That the Ministry which is an Institution of Christ passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church And concerning which if any one do doubt we referre him unto the Book for his satisfaction Part 2. cap. 3. where as they well say this great truth so necessary to be knowne in these dayes is fully discussed and made out We have now at length done with both those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly with which you urged us to accept of the Proposall touching the taking in the Bishops wherein we have been the longer though perhaps this Discourse may by you be accounted tedious that so we might wipe off the foule aspersion of Schisme that we are therein charged with and likewise shew that the Church of God and a lawfully Ordained
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
well remember how under the Episcopall government there was a generall admission and that sundry grosly ignorant did croud in amongst the rest unto this Ordinance and therefore that these might be discovered and kept off from this Sacrament till fitter for it we judged it requisite that according to that power that is glven to the Eldership in the form of Church-government for this purpose there should be a triall taken of all the communicants that so there might be some distinction made and not be a promiscuous admitting of all as heretofore And we are sure that such amongst us who having been anciently catechised and a long while commoners at the Lords Table to use your own expressions have witnessed the best confession for their parts and piety have been the most forward to draw on others to be willing to be re-examined by their own good example therein and that the greatest opposers of this course however they may be some of them persons of parts yet have been such as have been either scandalous in their lives or not so forward for piety as were to be desired We have thus given an account of what is our practice in this matter but this examination of communicants de novo was not the thing we here spake of as why the examination of them before their admission of them at the first was here mentioned we have delared before But we see you are willing to lay hold on any thing wherein you apprehend you have any advantage against us though it be never so small Fifthly You charge us again with another non sequitur when we inferre that if the Churches lawfull Pastors have power to excommunicate the scandalous we see not in reason how you can find fault with our proceedings if there should be occasion for our censuring any such persons but this inference yet stands good against any thing by you alleadged to the contrary and in it self is clear and manifest being there is no excommunication that passeth with us against any but by the juridical act of the lawfull Pastors of our several Churches or Congregations and whose power by you should not be questioned or the validity of their censures because of the concurrence of the ruling Elders as by way of preventing an Objection we hinted to you in our answer considering what power was exercised in the time of Episcopacy by the High Commissioners Chancellors and Commissaries as much Lay-men then in your judgement as ruling Elders can be now to whom yet there was a submission by you This reason you say is weak but you do not prove it to be so Nay here you fall short in two main points For 1. You misrepresent the matter of fact and that in two particulars 1. When you would intimate that the High-Commissioners Chancellors and Commissaries did all of them officiate by deputation from and under a lawfull Pastor when as it is manifest the High-Commissioners had no deputation from the Bishop but received their Commission from the King if not the Chancellors also and did act in those Ecclesiasticall censures that were by them passed in joynt and equall power with the Bishop by virtue of their Commission 2. The Parliament that did appoint the ruling-Elders in the form of Church government did not oblige any that were to submit to them to acknowledg the jus divinum of their Office neither do we impose this opinion of them upon any And therefore notwithstanding our own judgment concerning them in this respect the comparison betwixt them and the other as to what is necessary for your satisfaction doth still hould good and is neither weak nor frivolous as you say 2. But if the matter of fact should be granted to have been according to your representation sc that High-Commissioners Chancellours c. did all of them officiate by deputation from or under a lawfull Pastor how doth this help the matter to make your submission to these lawfull and yet your submission to the ruling Elders unlawfull For 1. we are as yet to learn and we think you will never be able to make it good that a trust committed to one by man much less reposed by God in an officer in the Church and particularly in the Pastor may be delegated If this be so he might sufficiently discharge his duty by another preach by another administer the Sacrament by another as well as dispense the censures of the Church by another who yet himself is to give an account of their souls unto God which he will never be able to make in the omission of those duties in his own person though he appoint another unto them But being the highest officer in the Church doth not himself act out of plenitude of power for that were to make him a Pope and Antichrist that belonging only to Jesus Christ the King and Lord of the Church to whom all power is given in Heaven and earth and hath no more but a ministry committed to him which he hath received of Christ as his servant who hath required him to fulfill it he may not depute any other as under him or as his servant to do that which his Lord and master hath intrusted him with and appointed him to do himself 2. But further we do here enquire of you whether by virtue of that deputation which the persons spoken of received from a lawfull Pastor according to your allegation you will have them to be Ecclesiasticall officers or but meer lay-men still If notwithstanding that deputation they be but meer lay-men how will you awarrant them to meddle with Ecelesiasticall censures because deputed thereunto by the Bishop when God hath excluded all those that are but meer lay-men from medling authoritatively with Ecclesiasticall matters If the High-Priest in the time of the Law had given to Vzziah a Commission to have gone into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar of incense and he had so officiated by deputation from and under him would that have been sufficient to have born him out in so doing whenas that work pertained not unto him but unto the Priests the sonnes of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense If by vertue of that deputation they had from the Bishops they were Ecclesiasticall officers invested with authority to exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and dispense Church-censures and so not meer lay-men we may say much more for the outward call unto that office that our ruling Elders do execute they having been elected by the people that anciently had a vote in the choice even of the very Bishops as is clear from the Records of Antiquity and examined by the Pastors of the Churches and by them approved as fit and set apart solemnly to rule in the house of God by exhortation and Prayer as hath been said before 6. But you now go on and declare whom you mean by lawfull Pastors sc such persons as have received their Ordination from men lawfully and
truely qualified with a just power of conferring Orders Now these according to what you have declared in your former Paper are the Bishops without whom you there insinuate the Church of God cannot be continued amongst us in a succession of a lawfully ordained Ministry and so at once cashier out of the numbet of law-full Pastors all such Ministers either of our own or other reformed Churches that are ordained by Presbyters onely and to whom you allow not the power of Ordination as you here also do plainly declare your selves But we have in our answer to that clause quoted out of your former Paper sufficiently as we hope the Reader will judg declared the absurdity of this your opinion And you your selves as all men may see may hereby perceive how vain a thing it is for you and us to labour in any way of accommodation whilst you retain these principles they being destructive to union and your communion in severall of our Churches either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper For how can you have communion in those Ordinances dispensed by such Ministers amongst us as being ordained by Presbyters onely you on this ground will conclude to be no lawfully ordained Ministers And therefore if you be cordiall for union we wish you to revise what you have as touching this matter asserted and weigh what in our former Paper we have opposed unto it But as touching the power of ordaining Presbyters by Presbyters onely you will have it to be our opinion onely and that in this we are singular for you say we and you believe it is none but we presume one Presbyter may confer orders upon another And here indeed 1. If we held that one Presbyter might ordain another Presbyter you had reason to accuse us of singularity but we are professedly against all solitary power in ordination as well as in jurisdiction by whomsoever this power is or hath been exercised 2. But if your meaning be that it is we onely that hold Presbyters alone without any Bishops may ordain Presbyters 1. You might have known that this was and is the judgment of the reformed Churches abroad as well as ours 2. And further you may remember we alleadged out of Dr. Bernard the testimony of severall Episcopall men as well as of Dr. Usher asserting and proving that in places where Bishops cannot be had the ordination of Presbyters standeth valid which speciall restriction we mentioned in our Answer as the Reader will finde and which though added would not have hindred if you had been of the same opinion with them but you might have acknowledged that such as are with us ordained by Presbyters onely are notwithstanding lawfull Pastors Bishops being now taken away by the power of the civil Magistrate and excluded from having any liberty to ordain by those acts where Prelacy is exempted from that indulgence that is granted to some others If also that Catalogue of Divines Schoolmen and Fathers that we cited out of Dr. Bernard who are cited by him also out of others be consulted they will be found to affirm as we said in our Answer though you take no notice of it that Episcopacy non est ordo praecisè distinctus a Sacerdotio simplici Bishop Davenant as he is alleadged by Dr. Bernard for this purpose producing the principall of the Schoolmen Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson Durand c. for this opinion Whence also it is evident that they are not by us frustraneously cited though it be an easie matter for you to assert the same without any reason or ever answering to what they were alleadged for to affirm We shall not here deny but Dr. Usher saith that the ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworn canicall obedience could not possibly by him be excused from being schismaticall But yet he doth not say that the ordination by them is null and void although in his judgment there was thereby a schisme made There may be schismes in the Church yea some particular Churches may be schismaticall and yet for the substance of them continue true Churches of Jesus Christ as if it were to our purpose might be cleared both from Scriptures and also Fathers But as touching the aspersion of schisme that is cast on such Presbyters that have severed themselves from the Bishops we hope it is sufficiently wiped off by what we have already spoken in our answer to your second Paper 7. However it seems that charge was not high enough and therefore in this you proceed further charging us with perjury and obstinacy for you having mentioned that speciall restriction of Dr. Ushers of not invalidating the ordination by Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had add and say but this we must desire you to consider is ex necessitate non ex perjurio pertinacia and however you would smooth up the matter by bidding us examine our selves in this particular and saying you shall not judge any man yet it is plain enough to any discerning Reader who they are that are charged by such expressions But as touching the thing it self we shall now examine the justness of the charge And first we shall begin with that of perjury unto which we shall need to say the less considering that the grounds layd in our Answer to your second Paper proving that such Presbyters as since the Parliaments abolishing Prelacy have severed themselves from the Bishops or cast off Episcopacy are not justly to be charged with schisme do here also take place to acquit such Ministers that did swear Canonicall obedience to the Bishops from the guilt of perjury We shall here onely minde you and the Reader of two things 1. That seeing the superiority which the Bishops chalenged and exercised above Presbyters in this Nation did belong unto them onely by the Law of the Land we having proved in our Answer to your second Paper that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture sense are both one and was taken away from them by the Legislative power of this Nation as they might lawfully take it away that power which they exercised not being due to them by Divine right nay being an usurpation upon the Pastors office as hath been also shewd and so their whole Office as Diocesans together with their jurisdiction as sundry also of their Persons are all extinct and as is manifest in particular touching him that was the Bishop of this Dioces we wonder much and we think every Reader will here wonder with us that your great heat for Prelacy should thus farre have transported you as to charge us with perjury for which there is not the least colour Consult Dr. Sanderson de juramenti promissorii obligatione consult all other Casuists and you shall finde that the best and soundest of them do determine with one consent that when the matter of an Oath ceaseth the obligation by vertue of that Oath ceaseth also and therefore Prelacy being taken away by
to what we here assert be pleased to take notice that we meet with a Book printed in this very year 1658. Entituled A collection of Acts and Ordinances of general use made in the Parliament begun and held at Westminster the third day of November 1640. and since unto the adjournment of the Parliament begun and holden the 17th of Septem Anno 1656. and formerly published in print which are here printed at large with marginall notes or abreviated being a continuation of that Work from the end of Mr. Poltons Collection by Henry Scobell Esq Clerk of the Parliament examined by the Original Records and now printed by speciall Order of Parliament In this book as we finde the Ordinance for the Directory of Worship recited at large and likewise the Ordinance above mentioned for the abolishing of Archbishops and Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales so likewise we meet with the Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. establishing the form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland after advice had with the Assembly of Divines and this recited at large as will appear to any that will peruse that book And being the design of that book was to make a continuation of a Collection of Acts and Ordinances of generall use from the end of Mr. Poltons Collection as appears by the Title of it the Parliament that appointed this book to be printed by their speciall Order and Mr. Scobell the Clerk of the Parliament who collected these Acts and Ordinances and examined them by the originall Records were much mistaken in the putting forth this book that is also printed in a large black Character after the manner of the Statutes if no Ordinances of Parliament have in them any force to oblige the people of this Nation 3. We have onely one thing more to add sc that in the 16th Section of the Humble Advice and whereof we minded you in our Answer it is expresly provided that the Acts and Ordinances not contrary thereunto shall continue and remain in force Now that there is nothing in the form of Church Government contrary to any thing contained in the humble Advice we shall make out anon But thus we hope we have said that which may be sufficient for answer to your first exception against the Ordinances of Parliament for Church Government as not having the concurrent consent of the three Estates and to what you alledge out of the Lord Cooke As touching what you urge out of Judg Jenkins saying an Ordinance of both Houses is no Law of the Land by their own confession meaning the Parliament 1. part Coll. of Ordinances fol. 728 we cannot give that credit to his representation of the Parliament he having been an opposer of it as to conclude thence there is no force in any Ordinance of Parliament to oblige the people of this Nation considering that in some of their Ordinances they do as we have said expresly repeal former Acts of Parliament made by the concurrent consent of the three Estates and considering that if they have any where any expressions to that purpose they may be understood either of Ordinances of Parliament made in cases ordinary when the King had not withdrawn himfelf from it or concerning such as were of no long continuance but for the present emergency or of such as were but temporary and long since expired and which sort of Ordinances Mr. Scobell in his Preface to the Book above mentioned saith he collected not but onely such whereof there is or may be daily use as he there speaks We have now donewith your first exception against the Ordinances by us recited for the establishing Church Government and come to your second for admitting Ordinances of Parliament to have an obligatory force in them yet those that concern the establishment of the Presbyterian Government you would have to be repealed Indeed here you said something if you could bring forth any of those subsequent Acts that you speak of granting liberty to pious people in the Land that did repeal the Ordinances for Church Government either implicitly or expresly For we shall not deny that Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant but in this you fall short as in the former There is not any subsequent Act or Ordinance that we have seen or that you mention that grants any liberty to any which is denied in the form of Church Government The Act made 1650 for relief of Religious and peaceable people from the rigour of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion and which you will have to be an express repeal doth not make void the Ordinance which we actâ—on It onely repeals the poenall Statutes that imposed mulcts and punishments on the offenders against those Laws in their bodies or estates It doth not at all refer to the Ecclesiasticall censures nor so much as mention them as will be clear to him that will peruse it And so the Ordinance establishing the form of Church Government stands whole and entire and untoucht at all by this Act. But here we desire two things might be observed 1. That if this Act stood good against our proceedings repealing the Ordinances establishing the Presbyterian Government so as that the persons mentioned in it were thereby exempt from all Ecclesiasticall censure then it must needs much more stand good against all other sorts of persons that have no such Ordinance awarranting their proceedings and would be a barr in their way that they could not censure with Church censures any of their members 2. That being you in your Papers do fully declare your selves for Episcopacy and that the Acts granting some indulgence to some persons yet do still provide that the liberty granted by them should not be extended to Popery and Prelacy neither this nor any other Act for the relief of any pious or concientious Christians can with any colour be alledged by you to the purpose for which you urge them As touching the eleventh Section of the humble Advice to which you referre us we had throughly perused it and seriously weighed it before you minded us of it but we never did neither do we as yet see any contrariety betwixt it and the forme of Church Government established by Ordinance of Parliament We finde still as we told you in our answer though you here neither take notice thereof nor make any reply thereto that it seems clearly to own the Directory for worship and the forme of Church Government as the publique profession of the Nation for worship and Government as we also said in our answer there were the like expressions in the Government of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland as it was publikely declared at Westminster Decemb. 16. 1653. pag. 43. Sect. 37. And if you had pleased you might have found that whatever indulgence is granted to any in this Sect it is there expresly provided that that liberty be not extended to Popery and Prelacy And
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
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
times and so their interpretations of Scriptures often more difficult to be understood then the Scriptures that they interpret this also is very considerable that it will be out of the compass and reach of the most persons of ordinary rank to procure all the writings of the Fathers and Councils that are yet extant as we do not beleeve that any of you are so well stored as that you have such a Library wherein all the Fathers or most of them might be consulted which yet were necessary to be procured if their unanimous consent must be the rule for interpretation of Scripture when there is a doubt or difficulty And if some persons might be found of that ability as to procure the Works of all the Fathers yet it is not easie to imagin how even the Learned though Divines much less the simple and ignorant could ever be able to reade over all their Works compare all the Fathers together and their interpretations that so they might when there was a doubt or difficulty gather what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers touching the interpretation of a Text the sense whereof we questioned And hereupon it will follow that what you propound as the rule yea and the best rule too for interpreting of Scripture is so farre from being such that it is a very unfit and unmeet rule being such as few or none if any at all are able in all cases or the most to make use of But by this time we doubt not notwithstanding your great confidence touching the sureness of your rule that it is manifest from the reasons we have given unto which we might add many more if there were need that your rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures participates not of the nature of what is to be a rule and therefore however the exposition of the Church Fathers and Councils is not to be despised yet it is not to be made a rule but that the onely sure rule for the interpreting of the Scriptures is the Scripture it self But because you alledge something for your assertion we shall now in the last place examine it of what nature and strength it is And â— You quote the late King in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although his assertion is more limited then yours as from the words you cite is clear and manifest And as touching that which his words are alledged for we must say that such a Church Government as is not found instituted in Scripture in regard of the substantials of it is therefore contrary to the commands of Scripture because not found instituted there and this we affirm touching that Episcopall Government that you plead for that superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter in regard of order and jurisdiction being a meer device of man without and against Scripturall warrant as it was that that was unknown to the primitive Church in the more ancient and purer times and of which afterward 2. But you further add and say that except your rule for interpreting of Scripture be admitted of we shall seem to abound in our own sense and to utter our own fancies or desires to be believed on our bare word and so to give way to private interpretation whereas we should deliver that sense which hath been aforetime given by our forefathers and forerunners in the Christian faith unto which we say that whether it be the interpretation that we ourselves shall give of Scripture or it be the interpretation of others however Fathers or Councils and forerunners in the Christian faith yet if it be an interpretation inferred or brought to the Scripture and not found in the Scripture the uttering of that interpretation is the uttering our own or other mens fancies and so is that private interpretation of Scripture which the Apostle Peter 2d Epist ch 1. ver 20. condemns and to whose words there you do here point it being the Holy Ghost the author of Scripture whose interpretation is that publike interpretation that the whole Church and every member thereof is to give heed to and is that which is opposed to the private interpretation mentioned as the Apostle shews ver 21. in the words following But seeing you do here urge the very popish argument and that text which they quote touching the rule they make for interpretation of Scripture in direct opposition to our Protestant Divines it is hence very clear that your opinion touching the rule of interpreting of the Scriptures and judg of controversies in matters of Religion which you make to be the Churches exposition and consent of Fathers and Councils is the very same with theirs and wherein you approve not your selves to be either sound Protestants or to own the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Papists in this particular 3. Yet you go on and urge another argument for when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture not to admit for a rule the exposition of the Church consent of Fathers and Councils you say that is dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others but we say as we have shewed before that to impose a necessity of admitting the interpretation given by the Church Fathers Councils when it is not evident from the Text so expounded either the words of it scope or other circumstances of it the things going before or following after or from some other Texts with which it is compared this is certainly dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of Gods people and which Paul though so great an Apostle and immediately and infallibly inspired would not presume to do 2 Cor. 1. â—4 The Church having onely a Ministery committed to her which is onely to propound that sense of Scripture which the Scripture it self gives and no more 4. But thus say you the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists though out of the word of God too giving the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the Primitive Church and Councils gave But this is not the question whether our Divines defended the Protestant Religion against the Papists not onely out of the Word of God but from the testimonie also of Fathers and Councils but whether they did ever make the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Councils the judg of controversies or rule for interpreting of Scripture He that shall hold the affirmative here doth plainly shew he is a stranger to the writings of the best and ablest defenders of the Protestant Religion We shall readily grant that our Divines do ex super abundanti defend the truth against the Papists from the testimony of Fathers and Councils but did never assert that the defence of it from the Scriptures alone was not sufficient as they would never have quarrelled with the Papists touching the judg of controversies and the rule for interpretation of Scripture if they would have been contented to have stood to its determination It s true Mr. Philpot that glorious
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
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
time when the Council of Nice assembled all at once but by steps and degrees and that it was then nothing like to what it grew up to afterward and further that however those godly Fathers that did first set it up and afterwards upheld it did so out of a good intention yet that therein they were but subservient to what afterward was effected in the Bishop of Rome to lift up Antichrist into his seat and which is not much to be wondred at whenas the Apostle tells us that in his dayes the mystery of iniquity did then already work and that good men may be instrumental though unwittingly to promote and advance a very ill and bad designe God therein leaving them to themselves and he thereby in his secret and unsearchable providence though just holy and wise bringing that about which he had before appointed in his eternal counsel And yet for all this we do averre that however as Hierome doth well observe at the first a Bishop and a Presbyter were the same and that before by the instinct of the Devil there were contentions in Religion and it was said amongst the people I am of Paul I of Apollo I of Cephas the Churches were governed by the common counsell of the Presbyters but that after every one thought that those were his which he did baptize not Christs it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be chosen and set over the rest unto whom all the care of the Church should belong and the seeds of schismes taken away Yet not only in that age but long afterward as also long before the assembling of the Council of Nice that speakes of Metropolitans and confirming their power a Bishop and Presbyter were acknowledged to be one order of Ministery as they did also joyn with the Bishops after their setting up in the Governement of the Church as is acknowledged and proved by Dr. Usher in his reduction of Episcopacy to the forme of Synodical Governement in the ancient Church and which indeed is that which is acknowledged by your selves For you confessed before that Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and others of the Greek Fathers with some of the Latines also did take the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests as you express it making Bishops and Presbyters mutually to expound each other as hath been already observed And herein you are not alone as hath been partly shewed before and is abundantly shewed by others and particularly by our reverend Brethren of the Province of London who in their Jus divinum Ministerij Evangelici prove not only from the Scriptures that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one but do urge also sundry other testimonies for the proof thereof not only out of Hierome and Augustine but likewise do alleadg Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles shewing the same thing out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustine Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophilact and do further urge that Michael Medina affirmes lib. 1. de Sacris originibus that not only Hierome but also that Ambrose Augustine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact were of the same judgement with Ae rius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture besides other testimonies which they do there urge But David Blondellus in his Apologia pro sententiâ Hieronymi doth clear this up so fully in that his large Treatise penned on purpose to shew what concurrence of Antiquity there is for this opinion of Hierome that we believe those that are unprejudiced that will but take the paines to read and weigh what he there presents will readily grant that long before the Council of Nice and long after it was acknowledged that a Bishop and Presbyter are one order of Ministery We have thus said that which we judge sufficient unto the Canons themselves that you cite out of the Council of Nice and particularly to the sixth Canon of that Council on which you lay the greatest weight and shall now proceed to examine what follows 4. For you will have the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we used in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice to be the very words which Ignatius useth to express the Apostolicall traditions Antiqui mores obtineant in Egypto Lybia Pentapoli c. i. e. Let the ancient customes of Egypt Lybia and Pentapoli continue that the Patriarch of Alexandria should have power over all these But concerning the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius you might know there are different opinions of the Learned about them Salmasius conceives they were written by a pseudo-Ignatius to bring into credit that Episcopall Government that deviated from the primitive institution and that they were written at that very time when that was set up Others that conceive any of them to be genuine yet do not receive them all Mr. Perkins in his Preparatives to the demonstration of the Probleme observes that seaven Epistles of his Hierome and Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 35 36. reckon for true but now they are increased unto twelve five whereof he judges to be counterfeit and these to be 1. ad Mariam 2. ad Tarsenses 3. ad Hieron 4. ad Antiochenos 5. ad Philippenses Dr. Usher that Reverend and Learned Antiquary acknowledgeth onely six of these Epistles to be genuine and saith the other six are spurious and of those six that he acknowledgeth he saith they are depraved and corrupted Nay Mr. Perkins observes that Bellarmine himself confesseth of these Epistles that the Greek copies are corrupted And to evidence this we wish you to consider two passages onely that we shall instance in In his Epistle to the Trallians he boasteth of his knowledg for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am able to understand heavenly things the orders of Angels the differences of Archangels and of the heavenly Hoast the differences between powers and dominations the distances of thrones and powers yea as followes a little after the Kingdom of the Lord and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God Almighty These expressions savour not of that humility that was in that faithfull servant of Christ the true Ignatius And in his Epistle ad Smyrnenses he takes upon him to correct if not to contradict Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He saith my son honour God and the King but I say honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests c. and after him it behoveth you to honour the King More here might be urged but these and other passages that might be instanced in do shew plainly that these Epistles are either counterfeit or corrupted And this was the reason of those expressions we used in our Answer when we said it would not be easie to assure us that some Works that
for interpreting of Scripture or that judging the Government of the Church by Patriarchs Metropolitans Archbishops Bishops then Chancellours and Commissaries Deanes Deanes and Chapters Arcadeacâ—ns and other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchie not to be a Government agreeable o the will of God and universall practice of Primitive Churches do therefore cast it off which yet w fear are Articles in fome mens Creeds 5. But having spoken what we judge sufficient unto what you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice and to what you further have urged for the proving of that which you do here cite it for we shall now proceed to consider what you have to say against our Government as not being that which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scripture and to prove that the ruling Elders are not jure divino nor any such Officers appointed by Christ in his word but that they may be parted with without any danger of betraying the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. Now here we might have reasonably expected that you should have urged some arguments to have proved that ruling Elders are not meant in these Texts considering what more large satisfaction you promised in your second Paper afterward if what was comprehended therein was not judged satisfactory But we find that notwistanding your large promises and confident and high undertakings you discover barrenness in arguing though what is wanting in reasons you make out in foul language yet we shall consider the utmost that you say First in answer to these Texts you say they are too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of But this you should have made good and not magisterially have asserted it as you do without all proof But you think it is enough that we have been often told so by many more learned Doctors of our Church And we must tell you who it seems reckon your selves in the number of these learned Doctors that it is a greater part of learning to prove these Texts to be too general to prove a ruling Presbytery out of then only to say so much as by that account which we have given you in our second Paper we have there shewed that both the Provincial Assembly of London in their vindication of the Presbyterian Government and the London Ministers in their Jus divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici do more then say that these Texts do hold forth such an Officer in the Church as the ruling Elder for they do also prove it yea and that he is there particularly mentioned and distinguished from all other Officers of the Church they also together with the Assertors of the Government of the Church of Scotland to whom with other reverend and learned men of our own and other reformed Churches we have referred you do answer whatever we have heard alleadged by those many more learned Doctors of our English Church that you here speak of to prove these Texts to be too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of And therefore it is not according to our will or what we are resolved on that the ruling Elders are found there but according to the clear evidence of strong and good reason shewing notwithstanding your scoff that the sense we have given of these Texts is the true sense and meaning of them But though you urge no argument to convince us of so great a fault yet you can readily enough accuse us of wresting the Scriptures with expositions and glosses to make them speak what they never meant and which you think is sufficiently made forth by telling us that we put such strange senses to places of Scripture as the Church of Christ never heard of till of late yeares as if nothing were to be received that is contained in Scripture as the true sense and meaning thereof but what can be confirmed to be so by the testimony of Fathers and Councils or as if all the expositions that had been given of these and other Texts of Scripture by the Church of Christ till of late yeares were now to be made evident from the writings of the Fathers that are extant shewing what the expositions given by the Church were or as if the expositions of reverend and learned Synods and Assemblies of Divines of our own or other reformed Churches having had the help of all the labours of those that had been in the Church of Christ before them backed with the evidence of Scripture reason and the circumstances of the Texts were all to be sleighted and to be had in no account both by us and you who yet profess though in your practice you shew but little of it to reverence Synods and to be ready to submit to their determination although we have also told you in our answer to your second Paper that however it being no controversie in the purest Primitive times of the Church whether ruling Elders were understood in those Texts nor this case brought before the Synods of those times that ever we have read of and so not that occasion given to the Fathers to discuss this matter upon their expositions of those Texts we are not wholly destitute of the testimony of the Fathers for the being of such an Officer as the ruling Elder in the Church and do herein referre you and the Reader to what we have said to this purpose in our answer to your second Paper But yet for all this we must with you be esteemed wresters of the Scriptures and to brand us the more you apply unto us yea to all Presbyters what Dr. Andrews taxed the Papists withall whereby you shew the esteem we are in with you in that you herein parallel us with the Popish Cardinals which is also the charity you have towards us who in your second Paper whilest you had hopes by courting us to have brought us on to a compliance with you were your dear friends nay more brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord and this also is that more large satisfaction that you now give us in performance of your promise there made if what was comprehended in that Paper was not sufficient But having here said nothing that can have any shew of this promised satisfaction you do well to referre us to what in your second Paper you say you had further spoken of it for the Reader hence may be ready to think though he find here little but flouts and uncharitable censures yet there you had said something to the purpose which yet when it is summed up will be found to be only this sc your sending us to the Fathers to consult what interpretation they gave and telling us none of them expound these Texts as we do which yet is that you say over again here and to which there is no need to return any further answer then what hath been already made only we cannot but take notice that your way of giving satisfaction is very easie sc by ridding your hands quickly of
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
there which you doing but partially and catching only at some passages that you think makes for your purpose do most grosly wrong him by your misrepresentation And if we should deal by other Authors even such as are for the Episcopal Government as you deal by Calvin which of them almost but we might make to appear Patronizers of the Presbyterian Government But you will have Calvin to say that in the ancient Church the Bishops did all viz. make and publish Canons a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church Thus you represent him to hold forth the Bishops exercising solitary power of jurisdiction in those times which as it is in it self as contrary to truth as light is to darkeness so it is expresly contrary to what Calvin saith in the very next Section to that which you cite For in the former Section he saith that they to whom the Office of preaching was enjoyned speaking still of the ancient Church they called all those Presbyters These saith he did in every City chcose out one out of their own number to whom they gave more specially the title of Bishop lest dissentions should arise from equality as oft it comes to pass But yet he presently adds and saith Neque tamen honore dignitate superior er at Episcopus ut dominium in Collegas haberet sed quas partes habet Consul in Senatu ut referret de negotijs sententtias roget consulendo monendo hortando alijs praeeat authoritate suâ totam actionem regat quod decretum communi consilio fuerit exequatur id muneris sustinebat Episcopus in Presbyterorum caetu atque id ipsum pro temporum necessitate fuisse humano consensu inductum fatentur ipsi veteres And then he quotes Hierome asserting a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one We wonder very much where your modesty and ingenuity nay common honesty was when being you could not but take notice of these things in Calvin in this second Section else you read him very negligently yet you say as you here do that according to Calvin's representation of the Government of the ancient Church the Bishops did all make and publish Canons a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church Whereas you see Calvin saith the Bishop had no dominion over the rest of the Presbyters whom he here calls his Colleagues that he had but only that Office which the Consul had in the Senate and is no more then what the Moderators have in our Assemblies as is clear from what he here particularly recites and further shews that he was only to execute what was decreed by common counsell and further saith that even this that did belong unto him the Ancients themselves confess was introduced by humane consent and that in regard of the necessity of the times And as touching what was appointed by the Council of Nice touching Archbishops and Patriarchs and whereof he makes mention in Section fourth we have told you before what you may find in Calvin himself in that place where he saith they were rarissimi usus of very seldome use and that their use was chiefly for the assembling of Synods But thus we believe all men will see that Calvin is so express and full for the Presbyterian Government and no patronizer of the Episcopall that they will conclude such as represent him otherwise are either very weak or make little conscience of falsifying the Authors which they cite and that you have taken off our Calvin no otherwise then by misinterpreting and grosly wronging him as after the same manner you took off Beza before and both whom however you in scorn call Modern Doctors yet are such Doctors as both you and we may learn much from 4. And thus we are brought to the Authors which we quoted for Fathers you say we have none though that also is not true we having in our Answer to your second Paper produced clear testimonies out of Origen Ambrose Augustine Optatus giving in clear evidence for the being of the ruling Elders office in their times But as touching our modern Authors the Assembly of Divines the London Ministers in their Jus divinum the Provinciall Synod of London in their Vindication Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gillespie however you despise them again as before as being but of yesterday yet they are such who as in regard of their known and approved piety and learning as they are deservedly in high esteem in the Church so they are such as we reverence and are not ashamed to cite though this you count but a painting of our margent with them and further say of them they may serve our turn amongst the ignorant and vulgar sort who measure all by tale and not by weight whereby you pour forth such scorn and contempt upon so many reverend and glorious lights as we beleeve all moderate spirited men though in their judgments for the cause which you profess to love will be ashamed of and will disown in you And however you say that others that know what and who many of them are will sc for our referring you to them conclude we draw very near the dreggs yet you had approved your selves to have been farre more profound persons if being sent by us to consider what arguments they urged for the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government you had in your reply to our Answer answered them and so rather discovered their weakness then by such expressions as you here use to have branded either us for referring you to them or them by saying that others know what and who they are who yet do neither know any thing by them nor can by their detracting pens publish any thing touching them to the world that will ever lessen their esteem with learned godly sober and judicious persons that are acquainted with their learned Labours And however you may please your selves in your vâ—lifying them and us for referring you to them yet this is that which you should have remembred must be accounted for one day But why did not you who tell us of drawing very near the dregs here take notice of what in our answer immediately followed you having in your first Paper enquired of us why we had called our Government the present Government and then demanded is there no present Government in any Church or assembly of Saints but where our discipline is erected are all the rest at present without Government or where hath ours been this fifteen hundred years past till this present c. unto all which and that which followed there in your Paper we returned you our Answer yet you take not notice of it though if we had dealt thus by you and yet had made a shew to have answered you as you do pretend to answer us we should not have thought you had wronged us in your telling us here of drawing near the dreggs 5. And now to conclude this Section whereas you here again tell us that as for
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
be it further declared by the Authority aforesaid That every Person and Persons that shall not diligently perform the duties aforesaid according to the true meaning thereof not having reasonable excuse to the cootrary shall be deemed and taken to be offenders against this Law and shall be proceeded against accordingly Can you say now that you have power to censure such as forsake the publique Assemblies by any Ordinance of Parliament or rules as you call them of your Church Government when not only the pious and peaceable minded people but the obstinate also are exempted from the rigor of former Laws and onely taken to be offenders against this Law and no other and shall be proceeded against accordingly Dare you yet proceed to censure notwithstanding this Act If you do you are very bold and may run into a Praemunire Though you say you are not to be blamed for any mistakes that may arise ab ignorantia juris whether simple or effected A strange saying we have heard it said Ignorantia facti excusat but Ignorantia juris non excusat no not a simple ignorance much less an affected one The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. IF you had weighed what we had answered you could not with any colour have said that we answered not your question you might have observed that we spake of our Assemblies as they were parts of the Church of England and of the same constitution with her and whom though those of the separation do un-church in regard of the mixture or the scandalous persons in them denying our Church in that respect to be true or our assemblies to be the assemblies of Saints yet we justified in our Answer from the examples of the Church of Corinth and the Churches of Galatia to whom the Apostle writes as to Saints and calls Churches notwithstanding such corruptions in them though we did not deny but the scandalous in our Church and assemblies were the spots thereof And seeing we acknowledged such assemblies were true Churches notwithstanding those scandalous persons that were found in them you had no reason to imagin that none else besides our selves were by us accounted Saints none brethren and sisters in Christ but such as stand for our discipline which you cannot mention but you must brand in calling it pretended you might from our answer have gathered that all other assemblies in our Land where the word of God and Sacraments are dispensed were taken into the number of those assemblies we spake of they being parts also of the Church of England as well as our own however they may some of them differ from us in point of discipline We told you in our Answer particularly that in the Church of Corinth there were some that denied the resurrection others made rents and schismes and sundry grosly scandalous and yet it was a true Church And therefore how should we be conceived to have denied such assemblies in our Land that are parts of the Church of England and of the same constitution with her for the substance not to be the assemblies of the Saints if they stand not for our Discipline Yet you would make the world to beleeve we meant no further in that Answer we gave you then not to un-Church or un-Saint our selves or assemblies because of the corruptions of them which yet we must tell you might have been the fewer if you and others who are members of these assemblies had shewed your selves more pliable to good order and discipline and to have been furtherers and not hinderers of their reformation 2. We spake in our Answer of some that had of late rent themselves from our Churches because of the scandalousness of the corrupt members and said that seeing our principles and practises are manifestly known to be utterly against them as against the opinions and practises of the Douatists of old you had no reason to apply that of Augustine unto us when he cried out against them ô impudentem vocem But now you will not have any to have rent themselves from our Church excepting such who having admitted themselves members or professed themselves of our Association have rent themselves from us and who you say are but a few so farre as you have heard But here you do not approve your selves good disputants against those of the separation who being by their birth members of the Church of England whereof our assemblies are but parts and of the same constitution with her as we said before and have rent themselves from it or from our Assemblies that are parts of it are justly chargeable with schisme they having hereby rent themselves from a true Church wherof they were members and whose membership is argued from their being born in gremio Ecclesiae not from their admitting themselves members of it afterward or their professing of themselves to be thereof members We had in our Answer to your first Paper hinted to you this ground of their membership when in Answer to what you had to the like purpose there suggested as you do here we told you that the severall Congregations within this Land that make a profession of the true Christian and Apostolike faith are true Churches of Jesus Christ that the severall members of these Congregations are by their birth members as those that were born in the Jewish Church are said to be by the Apostle Jews by nature Gal. 2. that this their membership was sealed to them in their baptisme that did solemnly admit them as into the universall Church so into the particular wherein they were born But as in this Paper where you should have replied to these propositions if you approved not of them you answered nothing to them though in your first Paper you would have exempted your selves from being subject to our Government because you had not admitted your selves members of some one or other of our Congregations or were any associates of ours as you there expressed your selves so here you come over again with the same unsound principle and yet say nothing to make it out intimating that none are to be accounted to have rent themselves from us but such as have admitted themselves members or professed themselves of our association whereas if being members by their birth of the Church of England they after rend themselves from any of our assemblies or others that are parts and members of it and of the same constitution with it they are guilty of schisme and which you must say or whatever you cry out against it you do not upon any sure principle oppose it 3. But this blot of schisme you would fasten upon us however though it be neither upon your own principles here laid down or any other whereby you can prove us guilty And to make this out you say that we or many of us had sworn Canonical obedience to the Government by Bishops and subscribed the 39 Articles of the Church of England and hereupon because we are not now for
were not within the bounds of the Class To which the Committee returned Answer they might then take Mr Allen and Mr Pollet that were two Ministers that had subscribed the first Paper and the Class would appoint two Ministers only on their behalf to meet these and some Elders to meet with the like number of Gentlemen to be by them nominated But this not being accepted of and the Committee not being authorized by the Classe to appoint a meeting with those that were out of their bounds it was concluded by the Committee that they would make report to the Class what was desired by Mr Mosely on the behalf of the Gentlemen that so the Class might take that proposall of theirs into their consideration And Mr Mosely said that he would desire Mr Allen and some others to be at the next Classicall meeting to receive the Answer of the Class touching the same And thus the matter betwixt Mr Mosely and the Committee was issued l Classicall Records Mr Allen Nicholas Mosely Esq and other Gentlemen came again to the Class the matter of accommodation was proposed between them and the Class they desired liberty to choose some persons for their part that were not within the Class which was consented unto by the Class the persons nominated by them were Mr Allen Mr Clayton Mr Lightfoot Ministers Mr Nicholas Mosely Mr Francis Mosely and Mr Nathaneell Robinson Gentlemen By the Class were nominated Mr Heyrick Mr Angier Mr Harrison Ministers Mr Hide Captain Ashton Mr Wickins Ruling Elders and the time and place of meeting was by mutuall consent to be agreed on when Mr Heyrich should by the providence of God be returned from London m Classicall Records July 13. 1658. This Class having notice that the Papers which have passed between this Class and Mr Allen and others were Printed with a Preface unto them it was agreed that Mr Heyricke Mr Angier Senior Mr Harrison Mr Newcome Mr Constantine Mr Leigh Mr Jones Mr Walker Ministers Mr Robert Hyde Esq Captain Ashton Mr Strangways Mr Wickins Mr Meare Mr Buxtons Mr Byrome Ruling Elders they or any five of them three being Ministers be a Committee to take this matter into consideration and to meet as they judg fit and see occasion to proceed in this business and to make report of their proceedings the next Class n Classicall Records Aug. 10. 1658. The Committee appointed by the last Class to take into consideration the business of the Papers lately Printed as beforesaid gave an account to this present Class of their proceedings viz. That upon their meeting they agreed to write a Letter to Mr Allen which was in these words directed o Classicall Records To his Reverend Brother Mr Allen at Prestwich These Sir At our Classicall meeting in May last your self and others with you did agree with us upon a meeting in order to an accommodation The time for it was referred by mutuall consent till Mr Heyricks return from London your selves promising upon his return the first Class after to appoint some to attend the Class for the appointing the time and place for the said meeting you were some of you according to the said Agreement expected this day but instead of that we meet with all the Papers Printed and a Preface annexed to them This is to desire you that you would be pleased in the behalf of your self and the rest to certifie us under your hands whether your self and the rest do own the Printing of the Papers with the Preface This I was commanded by the Class to send to you and to desire your speedy Answer Your respective Brother W. Leigh MODERATOR Be pleased to direct your Answer to Mr Heyricke This Letter was the next day delivered to Mr Allen he promised to attend in person on Mr Heyricke the next day after which he accordingly did the account of which their further Answer to the Letter is thus given in under Mr Heyrickes hand Mr Allen came to Mr Heyricke Mr Mosely of the Ancoats accompanying him he said concerning the Printing of the Papers and the Preface he knew nothing of them and therefore he brought Mr Mosely who could give the account Mr Heyricke desired the Answer in writing they both promised they would speak with the rest of the Subscribers and they would within a Fortnight give their Answer in writing within the time prefixed Mr Allen came to Mr Heyricke and told him he had met with them that had Subscribed the Paper and they denied that he should give any Answer in writing saying the Class would but take advantage by it and that now he must own both the Papers and the Preface that there might be no breach amongst themselves RICHARD HEYRICKE 2 Cor. 12. 13. Dr Goffe Dr Vane Dr Bayly c. See Legenda lignea Dr. Hamm. See pag. 144. of his last Book Even as a General Council it self is subject to errour Gal. 2. * The Assemblies Propâ—sitions about Church Government The Jus Divinum by London Ministers The Provincial Synod of London their vindication of the Presbyterian Government Rutherfords due right of Presbyteries Aarons Rod by Gillaspie * Cl. Cop. Full of civility toward us though not of brevity * Cl. Cop. another Cl. Cop. taken away are those any Minister Cl. Cop. Instit lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 8. c 15. Dr. And. Serm. upon worshipping imaginations See Sect. 5. Reasons against moderate Episcopacy 1. Reason Sect. 10. * Wren excommunicated suspended or deprived silenced fifty godly painfull Ministers in two years in Norwiâ—h Diocess for not reading the Book for Sports on the Lords-day for using conceived Prayer before and after Sermon for not reading the Service at the Altar and such like expelled three thousand persons with their Families into other Lands by such dealings Bishop Pierce his practises in the like kind are not forgotten He put down Ministers and Preaching till he thanked God that he had not a Lecture in his Diocess He suspended Ministers for preaching on Market-dayes yea put the Minister to Penance that did but explain the Church Catechisme c. See Mr. Baxter on these things in his defence of the Worcestershire Agreement Pag. 51. 2 Reason * Resutat libel de Regim Eccles Scotorum in pag. 89. 3. Reason 4 Reason 5. Reason * Vide pag. 13. Of the Essex Agreement The Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office Pag. 42 43. Esthius in Rom. 1â— Aliis placet etiam hac parte speciale quoddam charisma sive officium significari misereri dicaâ—â—â— iis qui ab ecclesia curandis miseris postissimum aegrotis praefectus est i. isque praebet obsequia velut etiam hodie fit in nosocomiis qui sensus handquaquam improbabilâ—s est * Vide pag. 38 39 40. 41 42. Calvin in locum Chrysost upon 1 Cor. 12. 28. Estius upon 1 Cor. 12. 28. Vide pag. 45 46 47. 48. * See the Propositions of the Assembly touching Church-government bound up with the Confession of Faith Catechisme pag. 9 10. The imputtion of Schtaken off * See Sect. 9 of their third Paper * Vide loc theol tom 5. cap. 11. Sect. 156. Page 1. * Ibid. ex Acts 20. 27 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken Mat. 2. 6. Rev. 12. 5. and 19. 15. The being of the Church a lawfully Ordained Ministry secured in the want of Episcopacy * Vide pa. 128. of Dr. Bernards late Book * Vide pa. 126. Lib. de Ecclesia cap. 18. fo 123. Cl. cop We have already returned our thanks for your Answer full of civility as to us though not of brevity * See the first Section of it towards the close Cl. cop The Scribe * This is manifest from the advice of the Assembly to the Parliament touching Church Government Cl. cop Say now Cl. cop Several Associations a See forme of Church-government pag. 30. * See Sr Francis Bacon Matth. 28. ver 18. Col. 4. 17. 2 Chr. 26. 18. Vide pag. 130. of their last Book published by Dr Bernard The imputation of perjury taken off a See their jus divinum Ministerij evangelici part 2. pag. 143 144. 2d part Institut fol. 157 158. ‖ See Sect. 9. toward the end The claim for the Presbyterian Government to the civil Sanction made good Cl. cop censurable Cl. cop For this all parties hisse you and laugh you to scorn having as full c. Object Answ Lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 16. in fine Cl. cop wandering Cl. cop He was a Person of known Eminency in his dayes Cl. cop the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 15. Cant. 1. 8. Bishop Lauds preface against Usher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 17. â— Cl. cop cap. 9. 20. cap. 19. Sect. 5. Cl. cop this mannâ— wresting The Jesuite The Scriptures the sole supreme judge of all matters in Religion Councils and Fathers not the rule of the Scriptures interpretation ‖ See the Provincial Assembly of London in their Jus divinum Ministerij Evangelici part 2. pag. 107. See also Mr. Baxter in his desence of the Worcesteshire agreement pag. 61 62. ‖ See his Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus * part 2. cap 4. * See quest 2. p. 29. Cl. cop cap 2. Civil penalties do not free from Ecclesiastical censure See the â—ction Statutâ— Fardin Pulton See Câ— on of tâ— tutes â—â— dinanaton Cl. cop is See Sâ— towardâ— te rend◠‖ The of Irela Bishop colne th of Carli * Censure to which only the Relative They in the 5th Order is limited Apage Cl. cop Cl. cop * Ha ha hae a The same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Nineveh not Calah is a great City where the Relative c. * See part 1. page 51 52.