AN APOLOGY FOR THE English Presbyterians WITH A DEFENCE OF THE Heads of Agreement Assented to by the Vnited Ministers in the Year 91. LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster 1699. TO THE READER IN the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James the First the English Presbyterians were represented to be for such a Church-Government as was Inconsistent with and Destructive of the King's Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical as well as of the Diocesan Form And that the Civil Magistrate might be induc'd to Believe it Three Articles were proposed to be Subscribed unto the First about the Supremacy the other Two about the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church whereupon they who refused Subscription only to the Second and Third were said to do so because they would not Allow of the First This Accusation was the more generally Receiv'd because the English Presbyterians Corresponded with their Brethren in Scotland who deny the Supremacy about Episcopacy the Liturgy and the Ceremonies and among the Conforming Clergy there were some who would have introduced the Classical Government under the Name of Diocesan which moved Archbishop Bancroft to Publish his Scotizing Dangerous Positions and Survey Besides the Classical National Government being founded on a Divine Right was the more frightful to the Queen her Nobility and Gentry who would never suffer the Divine Right of the Diocesan Government knowing that the Divine Right of a National Church Government of any sort and the Regal Supremacy can never simul semel dwell in the same Kingdom the Setting up of the One being a Subversion of the other The English Presbyterians Observing the Nature of the Accusation and the Arts used to insinuate the Belief of it into the Minds of their Governours judg'd it necessary to do their Part to clear themselves from those Imputations which they did in their Protestations Petitions and other Writings by a Free Open and Vndisguised Representation of their Principles about the Nature and Constitution and Power of Particular Churches and also about the King 's Supremacy making it Evident that in all these Points they agreed entirely with the first Reformers even with them who sate up a Church at Franckfort in Queen Mary's day and had a Chief hand in Reforming the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth who settled Parochian Churches which for their Form are the same with Congregational as the only Churches of Divine Institution recognizing all the Superiorities and Preheminences which the Diocesan Bishop hath above the Presbyter to be only Jure Regio or Parliamentario so that as the Parochian Presbyters are of God's Institution the Diocesan Bishop is of the Prince's making and accordingly as every Creator takes care of his own Creature as God has Provided a Maintainance for the Presbyter the King hath also Endowed the Bishop which is as I take it the true reason why Sr. Thomas Ridley a Person Zealous for the Church in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws Par. 3. Cap. 5. Affirms That God hath by his Word made Tythes due to Parochian Churches but not to Diocesan Bishops whose Indowments stood in good Temporal and Finable Lands which Gratious Princes and other good Benefactors of former Ages bestowed upon them The English Presbyterians keeping tightly to those Principles on which the Reformation began were Esteemed by the Nobility and Gentry to be Men of such Peaceable Principles as might be safely Indulg'd who therefore oft in Parliaments made Application to the Prince on their behalf On these Principles the late Union between the Congregational and Presbyterian was entered into giving so much Security to the Church of England that no Sincere Approver of it can have any hand in setting up that Government which endangers it Their being for any such Model is a being for what destroys those Churches which they themselves Believe to be of God's Appointment Nor Indeed can they be for the Divine Institution of any other Particular Churches than what are Congregational unless upon this Principle That the Catholick-Church-Visible is a Govern'd Society that hath a Supreme Power under Christ Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Authorized to Govern the Whole by Legislation and Judgment Which is a Notion so contrary to what not only all true Protestants in general but the English Presbyterians as well as the Congregationalists in particular are for that they detest and abhor it A Clear Conviction of these things upon mature Deliberation and a serious Observation of the Sentiments of our Wisest and most kind Friends with a sincere Desire that my Brethren may be cleared from those Aspersions which either through the Inadvertency of some of themselves or the Crafty Insinuations of their Adversaries hath been cast upon them and that they may continue in the Peaceable Injoyment of that Liberty which through the Auspicious influence of the Government they are Possessed of hath moved me to make this Apologetical Representation of their Genuine Principles Being strongly Perswaded that as our Governours will consider the Real difference there is between the Principles of the English and CLASSICAL Presbyterians and notwithstanding their Indignation against the Latter will always extend their Generous and Christian Compassions towards the Former So my Brethren of the Presbyterian Denomination will give some Evident Demonstrations of their sincere and Constant adherence to those Principles of the English Presbyterians as Delivered long ago in their Protestations c. and lately in the Heads of Agreement and Particularly to those Articles of it by which they are set at the greatest Distance from Intermedling with the National Church Form Farewel ERRATA PAge 49. line 20. for Especially read Specifically p. 61. l. 6. for as read and l. 16. for Ecclesiastical read Classical AN APOLOGY FOR THE English Presbyterians THE Prejudices which are in the minds of many against the Presbyterians in this Kingdom arising from some mistaken Notions entertain'd about the Principles which Men of that Denomination are said to embrace there can't be I think a more Effectual Apology made for them than what is done by an Impartial Representation of those Principles they do really own and what tho' laid to their Charge they do with the most Indignation and Abhorrence disavow I will therefore faithfully propose what the English Presbyterians for whom alone I make this Plea do and do not hold And for the greater satisfaction of my Reader I will set in the clearest Light I can the Notions espoused by the Classical or Scotch Presbyterians with which the English could never comply though upon the Supposal that they are zealous Defenders of that Classical Government they have fall'n under the Displeasure and Contempt of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Gonours SECT I. What are the Principles about Church-Government held by the English Presbyterians wherein they do differ from the Classical-Scotch-Presbyterians §. 1 THE Principles held by the English Presbyterians about the Constitution and Power of Particular Churches
English Presbyterians being firm Adherers unto the first Reformers did in their Opposition to the Papal Tyranny hold first That there was no proper Visible Church but what was Particular secondly That Particular Churches were of the same Extent with Single Congregations and the Power of those in Office was confined to the Limits of a single Congregation §. 16 The Learned Mr. Cartwright a Person of that esteem amongst the Nonconformists in the Reign of the Queen as to be chosen by them to defend their Principles against Dr. Whtgift expressing their sense with much Freedom and Clearness I need insist on no other to prove what I affirm of them and who-ever is conversant with the Books then written will see that their Authors so generally and frequently refer'd themselves to his Writings and so constantly undertook his Defence as to be satisfied that the mentioning what was pressed by others is altogether unnecessary §. 17 This Learned Cartwright writing in Defence of the Admonition tot he Parliament Published in the Year 1572. Answered by Dr. Whitgift doth not only make a Reply to that Answer which was in the Year 1574. defended by Whitgift But in his Reply to this Defence of the Answer Anno 1575. expresseth himself fully to this effect I both mention Cartwright's Reply to Whitgift's Defence of the Answer and do inculcate it because Fuller Heylin and Walton have told the World that the Defence of the Answer kept the Field with all the Marks of an absolute Victory whereas it 's most manifest that Cartwright made a Reply thereunto in two Parts the First Anno 1575. and Anno 1577. he Published the rest And what is Remarkable Fuller in the same or very next Page where he so confidently avers that Cartwright never Replyed to the Second Answer doth himself refer to the first part of the Reply that was made unto it See his Church Hist Cent. 16. l. 9. p. 102. Now in the first Part of this second Reply Cartwright fully Confirms the Truth of my Assertion That every Particular Church should have her Bishop is manifest by Paul to Timothy For seeing the Discription of a Bishop which he gives doth Agree unto the Minister of every Congregation and nothing there requir'd in the one which is not in the other it follows that the Minister of every Congregation is the Bishop thereof For the Description agreeing with every of them the things described must likewise Secondly unless he do by this description of the Bishop set forth the nature of every Minister of the Word in his Congregation in describing the Offices of the Church he has left out the Principalest Members and was more careful in describing the Deacons Ministry not occupied in the Word than the teaching Ministries But that is absurd it must follow that he understood them by the name of Bishop Furthermore St. Paul's Bishop was appointed to the same Place whereunto his Deacons But his Deacons were assigned to a Particular Congregation St. Paul also there assigning the Charge and Care of the Bishop over the Church of God must either give him Charge over the Whole Body of the Catholick Church or over One Particular Congregation or of the Faithfull Company of one House But he extendeth not the Charge over all the Catholick Church for that were to make a Pope not a Bishop nor restraineth him to the Faithful of one Household considering that he opposeth the Government of his House to the Government of the Church It followeth therefore that he appointeth him to one Particular Church That by this Word Church must be understood one of these three Significations it standeth upon this Ground that in none of St. Paul's other Epistles or St. Luke's Writings that word Church is ever used otherwise and never signifieth the Church either of a Province or Diocese Rep. 2. Part. 1. p. 360. and in page 687. saith he I have shewed that Scripture useth not to call a Province or Diocese a Church but either the whole Vniversal or else a Particular Congregation Thus you see how Mr. Cartwright doth not only hold a Presbyter and a Bishop to be the same office but that the office of a Presbyter is Appropriated to a single Congregatio and that the Holy Scripture never speakes of a Diocesane or Provincial Church but only of the Vniversal which is Invisible and a Particular Church and therefore not of a Classical Church But §. 18 What I shall offer from the multitude of Nonconformists whose Sorrows encreased on James the First 's coming to the English Throne will evidence what I affirm to Persons of the meanest Capacities For Dr. Ames who gathered up the sence of these Old Nonconformists whom he styles in his Preface to his English Puritanism Rigid Presbyterians declared positively that they Hold and Maintain That every Company Congregation and Assembly of true Believers joining together according to the Order of the Gospel in the true Worship of God is a true Visible Church of Christ and that the same Title viz. of True Visible Church is Improperly given to other Societies Combinations or Assemblies whatsoever That Christ Jesus hath not Subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other Superiour Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than unto that which is within it self So that if a whole Church or Congregation shall err in any Matter of Faith and Religion no other Churches or Spiritual Church-Officers have by any Warrant from the Word of God Power to Censure Punish or Controul the same But are only to Counsel or Advise the same and leave their Souls to the immediate Judgment of Christ and their Bodies to the Sword and Power of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE who alone upon Earth hath Power to Punish a whole Church or Congregation They hold that every Established Church ought as a special Prerogative wherewith she is endowed by Jesus ChrisT to have Power and Liberty to choose their own Spiritual and Ecclesaistical Officers They hold and believe the EQuality in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority of Churches and Church-Ministers is no more Derogatory and Repugnant to the State and Glory of a Monarch than the Parity and Equality of School-Masters or Masters of Families Chap. 2. § 1. 5. 11. There was also about this time a Protestation of the Kings Supremacy made in the Name of the Afflicted Ministers in which they declare That they confine and bound all Ecclesiastical Power within the Limits only of one Particular Congregation holding that the greatest Ecclesiastical Power ought not to stretch beyond the same And that it is an ARROGATING PRINCELY Supremacy for any Ecclesaistical Person or Persons whosoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over many Churches That it is utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Eclesiastical Jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation And therefore some of the most Honest and Godly in the Congregation ought to be adjoined to the Minister in the Spiritual Regiment of
three Yachts which may do better Service but it 's folly to make one that would reach from Calais to Dover which must lie like a Log unmeet for Sailing and the Ends for which all Ships are Built Which he mentions to shew that the extending a particular Church beyond the Bounds of a single Congregation doth frustrate the End of its Institution or as Mr. Baxter has it makes the Impossibility of Christ's Discipline in our Churches undeniable §. 9 5. This Point being with much earnestness stated by this Learned Person he declares in the Narrative he wrote of his own Life P. 339. That one Charge which the Nonconformists brought against our Prelacy is That it destroyeth the Species or Form of Particular Churches Instituted by Christ The Churches Instituted by Christ are Holy Societies Associated for PERSONAL Communion under their Particular Pastors But all such Societies are Destroyed by the Diocesan Frame Ergo It is destructive of the Form of Particular Churches Instituted by Christ They viz. the Nonconformists distinguish between Personal Local Communion of Saints by Pastors and their Flocks and Communion of Heat only we have Heart-Communion with all the Catholick Church throughout the World But a Holy Communion of Souls or Individual Persons as Members of the same Particular Church for Publick Worship and a Holy Life is ESPECIALLY distinct from the former as is apparent by the Distinct End 2. The Distinct Manner of Communion yea and the Matter of it And in his Treatise of Episcopacy more fully We cannot Subscribe to that Form of Church Government as God or Lawful which in its Nature Excludeth or Destroyeth the ver Specifical Nature of the Particular Churches which were Instituted by the Holy Ghost and settled in the Primitive Times But such we take the present Diocesan Form to be Ergo The Major will be denied by very few that we have to do with The Minor I thus prove The Species of a Particular Church which the Holy Ghost did Institute was One Society of Christians united under one or more Bishops for PERSONAL COMMUNIONâ—… in Publick Worship and Holy Living The Diocesan English Frame is Destructive of or Inconsistent with the Species of a Particular Church Ergo The Diocesan English Frame is Inconsistent with or Destructive of the Species of the Holy Ghost's Institution In the Major 1. By Bishops I mean Sacred Ministers Authorized by Divine Appointment to be the STATED Guides of the Church by Doctrine Worship and Discipline By Personal Communion I mean That the said Churches were no more numerous than our English Parishes nor had more Assemblies or no more than could have the same Personal Communion and that there were never any Churches Infimae vel primae Speciei which consisted of many such Stated Assemblies I shall therefore now Prove That the Churches of the Holy Ghost's Institution were no more Numerous or were such Single Congregations 1. From the Holy Scriptures 2. From the Confession of the Diocesans 3. From the Testimony of Antiquity All proving fully That the Ancient Episcopal Churches were but such single Societies or Congregations as I have described §. 10 6. What Mr. B. here affirms respects chiefly the Communion of the Church and upon this account he doth from the Specifical Difference there is between Catholick and Particular Church Communion and from the Inconsistence there is between Diocesan and Parish or Congregational Churches and the Destructive Nature of the Diocesan Government as 't is framed to destroy Congregational Churches from these Topicks he brings those Arguments by which he defends our Non-conformity to the Church of England which he could never have done were he not full well assured that the Nonconformists generally held Particular Churches to be Congregational And §. 11 7. That he was satisfied his Arguments were as much against Classical as they were against Diocesan Churches evidently appears by what he hath in his Treatise of Episcopacy Part 1. C. 7. P. 120. when he saith That by a Diocesan Church WE mean all the Christians within that Circuit who have but one Bishop over them tho' they be of MANY PARISH CHURCHES yea FEW PRESBYTERIANS take the Word so Narrow as this For I think too many of them do with Rutherford Distinguish between a Worshipping Church and a Governing Church and SADLING THE HORSE FOR PRELACY TO MOUNT ON do Affirm that many about Twelve usually of these Worshiping Churches like our Parishes may make but one Governed or Presbyterial Church §. 12 What more directly belongs to the Government of the Church we shall consider if God will elsewhere and will only Note in this place That whoever will consult Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy and what he saith of the Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Instituted Churches will find that the English Presbyterians whom he describes were as much against the Classical Presbytery as the Congregationalists are We will in the next propose the Sentiments of those English Presbyterians who entered into an Union with their Congregational Brethren SECT V. The Difference between the Classical Presbyterian and the Congregationalist stated The Design of the late Union and the Principles upon which 't was founded consistent with the Established National Chuch Form and such as Justifie the Separation of the First Reformers from Rome The Classical odel Destructive of them and therefore Rejected §. 1 THAT it may be the more easily understood what Principles the Presbyterians who were Men of Sense and Integrity must be supposed to be of when they Vnited with their Congregational Brethren I will give an Impartial State of the Controversie about the Nature and Power of Instituted Churches as discuss'd by them who were for the Classical Church Government and by the Independents forty or fifty Years ago §. 2 This Controversie as to that part of it which concerns my present Purpose may be reduced to these Heads 1. Whether there be a Catholick-Visible-Political-Church 2. Whether there be a Particular Church Essential Vnorganiz'd vested with a Power to choose their own Officers Or An Ecclesia Institute sit Genus An Integrum §. 3 In the Writings of Cawdrey Hudson Hooker Stone Allen Sheppard and the Dissenting Brethren of the Westminster Assembly there being an Impartial State of this Controversie I will out of their Writings set it in as clear a Light as I can §. 4 1. The Learned Mr. Cawdrey who agreeth in Opinion with the Judicious Mr. Hudson and the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum doth in his Vindiciae Vindiciarum and Review of Mr. Hooker's Survey declare not only for a Visible Catholick Church but That this Visible Catholick Church may in a fair and candid Sense be said to be POLITICAL and that the Notion of CHURCH-ESSENTIAL or HOMOGENOUS is but the Modus or State of a Church applicable both to the whole Chuch and every compleat Congregation consisting of Visible Saints and Officers But it is not possible there should be an Essential-Church existing without Officers If
Spiritual and Ecclesiastical be appropriated to particular Congregations then all that Power exercised in Classical Diocesane Provincial National Patriarchal and Oecumenical Synods or Assemblies falls to the ground together with their having Authority to determine Controversies of Faith for sublato fundamento tollitur opus as has been already observed §. 8 This being for many Years after the Reformation began in this Land generally received the English Presbyterians took Advantage against that Part of the Church of England which retaining too much of the Catholick Church Leven would fain have preserved somewhat of the old Papal Power Some feeble Efforts were put forth in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and James the First but re infecta and in the Reign of Charles the First by the help of Archbishop Laud and his Followers great Advancements were made towards the Restoring this Power But §. 9 The general Vogue of the Episcopal as well as the Cry of the Nonconformists being against the Exercise of any such Power the Difficulties the Archbishop met with were next to insuperable especially upon the account of the Different Copies about the Twentieth Article of the Church of England for as some Copies begin thus The Church hath Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith it is not Lawfull c. So others begin at It is not Lawfull c. Whereupon Laud's Party found it necessary to oppugn the old Doctrine about the Authority and Government of the Church and whereas the 20th Article in some Ancient Copies of the Queen's Reign began at It is not Lawfull for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word c. 't was such an obstacle in the way of their Designs that they were hard put to it and found it necessary if possible to remove it And accordingly §. 10 Dr. Heylin a chief Instrument in this Design did on the 24th day of April Ann. 1627. answer in the Divinity-Schools at Oxon upon these two Questions viz. 1. An Ecclesia unquam fuit invisibilis And 2. An Ecclesia possit errare Both which he determined in the Negative And in stating of the first he fell upon a different way from that of Dr. Prideaux in his Lecture De Visibilitate Ecclesiae and other Tractates of and about that time in which the Visibility of the Church was no otherwise proved than as scattered amongst the Waldenses Wickliffists Hussists c. For Heylin not liking this manner of Proceeding because it utterly discontinued the Succession in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy chose rather to look for a Continual Visible Church in Asia Ethiopia Greece Italy and Rome it self §. 11 In the Year 1633. Heylin was at Oxon to Answer for his Degree of Doctor and insisted on the Authority of the Church as formerly he did on the Infallibility and Visibility of it His Questions were 1. An Ecclesia habeat Authoritatem in Decernendis fidei Controversiis 2. Interpretandi Scripturas 3. Decernendi Ritus Ceremonias all which he held in the Affirmative declaring it to be the Plain and Positive Doctrine of the Church of England in the 20th Article which runs thus in terminis viz. Habet Ecclesia Ritus sive Ceremonias statuendi Jus in fidei Controversiis Authoritatem But §. 12 Dr. Prideaux then in the Chair expressed great Dissatisfaction with Heylin charging him with falsifying the Publick Doctrine of the Church as others accused Laud and other Bishops for making this Addition the better to support their Power and Tyranny But saith Heylin in his Examen Historicum Archbishop Laud in his Speech in the Star-Chamber June 15. 1637. made it appear that the said Clause was in a Printed Book of Articles published in the Year 1563. being but very few Months after they had passed in the Convocation which was on the 29th of January 1562. in the English Account and more than so he shewed unto the Lords a Copy of the 20th Article exemplified out of the Records and attested by the hands of a Publick Notary in which that very Clause was found which had been charged upon the Bishops for an Innovation And thus much I can say of my own Knowledge that having occasion to consult the Records of Convocation I found this controverted Clause verbatim in these following words Habet Ecclesia Ritus statuendi Jus in fidei Controversiis Authoritatem so far Dr. Heylin p. 144. who further adds That in the Year 1571 the Puritan Faction beginning to grow very strong the Articles were again Printed in Latin and English and this Clause left out Published according to those Copies in the Harmony of Confessions Printed at Geneva Ann. 1612. That the Archbishop in his Speech p. 71. was of this Opinion too §. 13 There was we see a great deal of stress laid on this Clause of the 20th Article because the Assertion that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith is so necessary to National and larger Synods and Assemblies and the laying aside this Clause so accommodated to the Principles on which the Reformation was begun and carried on For which reason I will offer what I know of this matter and therein be very impartial §. 14 1. That this Clause is not either in the Latin or English Copies Printed Ann. 1571. is granted by Dr. Heylin and I have by me a Copy in Latin published by John Day Ann. 1575. in which 't is not 2. I have seen a Copy Ann. 1563. in which it is and so it may be in the Records of the Convocations as has been suggested for ought that I do know to the contrary However 3. I do affirm upon my own Knowledge and in most humble manner address my self to the present Archbishop of Canterbury who was of C. C. C. C. to Dr. Green Master and to the worthy Fellows of that Colledge for their concurrent Testimony that in the Manuscript Library given to that House by Archbishop Matthew Parker there are the Articles of the Church of England which I can't call thirty nine because they are more subscribed by the Bishops in the Year 1562. with the number of Pages and of every Line in each Page in which the Articles are and that the twentieth Article is exactly the same with the twenty first of Edward VI. without this Clause whence I conclude first That the leaving of it out being as is acknowledged by Archbishop Laud and Dr. Heylin most adjusted to the Principles of the Nonconformists the true and genuine Reason is because the first Reformers of the Church of England and the Nonconformists were of a mind in this Particular and opposed the Papal Tyranny upon the same Foundation Secondly That although in the beginning of the Queen there were some otherwise minded who added this Clause to the Copy of 1563. yet the Bishops unanimously adhered to the Copy which laid this Clause aside But to return It is manifest §. 15 That the Old Nonconformists whom I call