but upon this representation that we have made and the Reader his perusing what he may find in our answer more fully and what you here reply unto it comparing all together he will be better able to judge concerning the whole matter as we doubt not but he will conceive the arguments we urged against the rule you had laid down for the deciding of controversies in matters of Religion standing still in their full strength it will not be necessary for us to urge any more to that purpose till these that we have already urged be answered 2. Yet because you say something against what we insinuated touching making the word of God alone the determiner and so be judge concerning all controversies in Religion and particularly concerning that betwixt you and us touching Church Government we shall first examine what you oppose thereunto and then shall give our reasons for this assertion We cannot call what you oppose us with Arguments but what you say such as it is we shall speak to 1. And first For our laying down this rule you cannot it seems your selves forbear laughter and think it strange if there be any that can forbear laughing hereat with you and then you rail upon us calling us Scripturists and such as cry verbum Domini verbum Domini nothing but Scripture the word of God being there the only rule of faith and manners If these words had been belched out by some railing Rabshakeh a stranger to the true God and the true Religion we should have held our peace and not answered you a word according to the Commandment that was given by Hezekiah saying answer him not or had they been uttered by some Papist or Popish Priest we should not much have wondered but when they come out of the mouths of such as profess themselves to be Protestants and dissenting Christians though in the principle here laid down touching the judge of controversies you are downright Popish and that Mr. Allen an ancient Protestant Minister hath put his hand to such stuff as this who should not have reproached his fellow brethren upon this account it being no wayes allowable that Ministers should press any thing upon the consciences of their people but what they do bring verbum Domini the word of the Lord for We cannot here be silent but must needs tell you that seeing now your Papers are published to the world we must expect a publike retractation of what you have thereby so much dishonoured God and justly offended and grieved the Church of God and not us onely and had the intended treaty gone on we should have insisted on satisfaction as we hinted to you in discourse for that distemper of spirit that you do here and elswhere in your Paper let forth though then the more private might have served the turn before we could have closed with you in any way of accommodation 2. But in the next place you paralell us with those under the Law that cried Templum Domini Templum Domini though we are sure that you cry the Church the Church that is Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord to the prejudice of the Scriptures that are verbum Domini the word of the Lord. 3. Then you come to compare us with the Anabaptists of old of whom you say when they and their Bibles were left together what strange phantasticall opinion soever came in their brain their usuall manner was to say the spirit taught it them quoting Mr. Hooker And yet in the beginning of your second Paper we were your dear friends nay more brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord to whom you returned hearty thanks for our Answer full of civility towards you and thus we might have continued in your esteem of us if we could have come up to your termes in admitting of Episcopacy and casting out the ruling Elders 4. In the next place you proceed to misrepresent our assertion and to father that upon us which is not true and whether that be not slandering we leave it to you to judge for as upon our asserting the Word of God alone to be the judge of all controversies in matters of Religion it followes not that then we must take to our Bibles and burn all other books as you say but rather being the Scriptures are the onely judge and these are profound and deep we must use the greatest diligence and best helps we can to come to understand what is the will and mind of God revealed there so upon this account though we dare not build our faith upon such an unsure foundation as the determination of Councils and Fathers and the Churches practice for matters of Church Government or any other matter in Religion yet we are farre from abandoning or despising them which yet is that you here charge us with But it is you who attribute more unto them then ever the great Champions for the Protestant cause did that will be found joyning hands in this point with the Papists enquiring where was our Church before Luther and whom our Divines answering sufficiently from the Scriptures do yet ex superabundanti prove the main points of the Protestant Religion wherein they differ from them both from Councils and Fathers and making that plea for that Church Government for which you contend and against that which we from the Scriptures argue for which the Papists did against our Protestant Divines for their unwritten traditions and superstitious ceremonies and devotion For you ask of us where was our Church you here sure mean where was our Presbyterian Government else you take not the Church of England to which you belong to be the Church you are members of before Calvin But we answer you though we need not take such an high jumpe over all the practice and successions of the Church as you talk of being able ex superabundanti to evidence it from antiquity in the purer times of the Primitive Church after Christ and his Apostles whereof we have given some account already and shall anon give some further yet it will be sufficient for us and all sound Protestants if we can prove it to be as ancient not as we list but as the Scriptures of the old and new Testament wherein it is to be found and whereof we have given some account also out of what we have in our second Paper urged out of the Vindication of the Presbyterian Government by the Provinciall Assembly of London and the Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici by some London Ministers and of which the Reader and you also if you would take the pains to peruse them may see more at large not onely in Mr. Rutherford's works but also in Aarons Rod blossoming written by Mr. George Gillespi and in the Assertions of the Government of Scotland conceived by some to be penned by the same M. Gillespi yet therein assisted by Mr. Henderson wherein the jus Divinum of the ruling Elders office is proved not onely from the new
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
THE CENSURES of the CHURCH REVIVED In the defence of a short Paper published by the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster in the severall Congregations belonging to their own Association but since Printed without their privity or consent after it had been assaulted by some Gentlemen and others within their bounds in certain Papers presented by them unto the said Classis and since also Printed together with an Answer of that Classis unto the first of their Papers without their knowledg also and consent under the Title of Excommunicatio excommunicata or a Censure of the Presbyterian censures and proceedings in the Classis at Manchester WHEREIN 1. The dangerousness of admitting moderate Episcopacy is shewed 2. The Jus divinum of the Ruling Elders Office is asserted and cleared 3. The aspersions of Schisme and Perjury are wiped off from those that disown Episcopacy 4. The being of a Church and lawfully Ordained Ministry are evidenced and secured sufficiently in the want of Episcopacy 5. The Scriptures asserted and proved to be the sole supreame Judge of all controversies in matters of Religion and the only sure interpreter of themselves not Councils or Fathers or the universall practice of the Primitive Churches 6. The Presbyterian Government vindicated from severall aspersions cast upon it and also the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster and their actings justified in their making out their claime to the civill sanction for the establishment of that Church Government and power which they exercise and likewise a cleare manifestation that their proceedings have been regular and orderly according to the forme of Church Government established by Ordinance of Parliament In three full Answers given to any thing objected against their proceedings by the aforesaid Gentlemen and others in any of their Papers Together with a full Narrative of the occasion and grounds of publishing in the Congregations the above mentioned short Paper and of the whole proceedings since from first to last LONDON Printed for George Eversden at the Signe of the Maiden-head in Pauls Church-yard 1659. TO THE Reverend and Beloved the Ministers and Elders meeting in the Provinciall Assembly of the Province of London the Ministers and Elders of the first Classis of the Province of Lancaster meeting at Manchester do heartily wish the Crown of perseverance in a judicious and zealous defence of the Doctrine Government and Discipline of the Lord Jesus both theirs and ours Reverend and beloved Brethren WHen the Sun of Righteousnes had first favourably risen to them that fear the Name of God in this Land after a dark and stormy night of corruption and persecution then even then were the quickning beams of the sun of civil Authority in this inferionr world caused first to light upon you to form your renowned City into severall Classes and afterwards into a Provinciall Assembly not onely that you might have the birth-right of Honour which we cheerfully remember but also that being invested with Authority from Jesus Christ and the civill Magistrate you might be prepared to stand in the front of opposition the powers of Hell being startled and enraged at the unexpected reviving of Gospel Government and Discipline which seemed so long to lye for dead and that having your strength united you might be enabled and encouraged to plead the cause of God against the Divine right of Episcopacy and for the Divine right of the Ruling-Elder that the one might not be shut out of the Church and the other might not recover in the Church both which have been and still are under design VVhat you have already done this way as a thankfull improvement of Divine favour and with speciall reference to the respective Classes and Congregations within your Province doth evidently appear in your Vindication of Presbyterian Government and your Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici which choice fruits of your Provinciall Assembly are not onely refreshing and satisfying for the present but do promise fair for time to come such clusters do shew there is a blessing in the Vine which the Lord of the Vineyard continue and increase When you our Reverend Brethren had first been shined upon and made so fruitfull the Divine grace caused a second enlivening beam of civill Authority to fall upon this remote and despised County to constitute in it also severall Classes and afterwards a Provinciall Assembly since which time such heavenly influence hath been stayed As our Lot hath happily fallen to follow you in the favour of God and civill Authority so we have unhappily fallen into your Lot especially this Classis to be followed with the anger opposition reproaches and contradiction of men of contrary mindes which though hid in the ashes in great measure formerly and but sparkling now and then here and there in a private house or Congregation yet when we would conscientiously and tenderly have improved the Government for the instruction of the ignorant and reformation of the prophane it brake out into a flame and no way but that flame must be hasted to such a Beacon that it might not be quenched till the Nation had seen and taken notice especially the whole opposite party awakened a very design You have pleaded the civil Authority for your acting in the Government but have setled the Government it self for the satisfaction of your own consciences and the consciences of the people of God upon the firm basis of divine Scripture authority and so have we thence you have been authorized to bring into the Church and keep in it by the mercifull intervention of civill Authority the despised governing Elders and so shut out of the Church and keep out of it that Lordly and self-murthering Episcopacy and so have we You have been forced to flie to the testimony of your consciences concerning your aims and ends in your publick undertakings in the cause of God and so have we It was scarce possible for you to wipe off the dirt cast upon you but some of it would unavoidably fall upon them that cast it nor can we Vpon these and other considerations we knew not in what Name of right to publish our enforced Vindication in the same common cause but in your Name who have gone before us in the work and have afforded us light and encouragement whose seasonable and solid Labours have already found acceptance in the Church and blessing from God And we pray that your Bow may abide in strength and the armes of your hands may be made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob that though the Archers have sorely grieved you and shot at you and hated you yet you may still possess the rich blessing of truth in Doctrine Government and Discipline and may foyl the adversaries thereof till the renewed and enlarged favour of God hath overspread this Nation with the Reformation so happily begun and till that so much desired prayed for and endeavoured accommodation of dissenting Brethren alas alas too hardly attained may sincerely
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
it self and yet judged it not necessary might have fears least moderate Episcopacy once admitted might be a step to introduce that kind of Episcopacy or Prelacy that had been expresly covenanted against and upon that account might judge they were obliged by their Covenant to foresee so far as they could such an occasion and to shun it Others again might be much divided amongst themselves if they got over the former Blocks touching the Rules according unto which Episcopacy should be moderated some apprehending the Bonds layd upon it to be too straight and others againe thinking them to be too loose And these Divisions were like to be amongst persons of all Ranks Nobles Knights Citizens Commons of all sorts both of the Gentry Ministry and others Whereupon there were great danger to grow many Debates in the Parliament when that should assemble in the City and throughout the Land Contests of Ministers one a-against another in the Pulpits and at the Presses and amongst private Christians in their private Conferences as it hath been heretofore about the Ceremonies and Episcopacy to the further rending and distracting of our already rent and torne Church and which at this time would be the more dangerous when as the posture of Affairs doth cry aloud upon the wisest Physitians both by their Skill and Power to interpose for the healing of Breaches in England Scotland and Ireland that through our Divisions we be not made a Prey to the common Enemies of our Religion and therefore have no need that such a dangerous bone of Contention should be cast in amongst us as moderate Episcopacy might be like to prove to the sadning of the hearts of Friends and gratifying onely of those that would rejoyce in our ruine 4. It is not also to be sleighted that by admitting of moderate Episcopacy great offence might be taken by the best reformed Churches abroad They have taken notice that in the solemn Covenant that was entred into by these Nations there was not onely an Engagement to endeavour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy that is Church-government by Archbishops Bishops their Chancellors and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiasticall Officers depending on that Hierarchy according to which the Parliaments that have been have constantly declared that no Indulgency should be granted to Popery and Prelacy and this out of a conscientious respect as we have hinted before in our answer to your first Paper unto this solemn engagement as we judged But there was also a promise to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches These things have been published to the World and are known abroad and however other matters contained in the Covenant that are of a civil Concernment may be judged of they being in their own nature variable and not of the like necessity in themselves with matters of Religion and the things of God and to be endeavoured after onely in a subordinate way unto Gods matters and never to be pursued in the manifest destructiveness of the interest of Religion that should be looked upon by all as the greatest and chiefest interest yet they are not likely to imagine that moderate Episcopacy that is not by them admitted but disowned can be of that necessity for us in these Lands for which they do not judge there was any rule given in Gods word requiring the setting of it up at the first as that after all the learned Debates touching Church-government for severall years together that have been in the reverend Assembly of Divines that sate by Ordinance of Parliament at Westminster and after their humble advice to the Parliament touching the Presbyterian Government as that Government they conceived was most agreeable to the word of God as it is evident it is most according to the example of the best reformed Churches and after the Parliament engaged also in that solemn Covenant had as they may conceive in pursuance thereof made so great a progress in the setting up of this Presbyterian Government that they passed by Ordinance the form of Church-government Anno 1648 after advice had with the Assembly of Divines as that Church-government which was to be used in the Church of England and Ireland it should be admitted of to the setting up a partition Wall betwixt us and them instead of coming neerer to them so far as we may do according to Gods word according to the solemn Engagement They cannot hereupon but be greatly grieved when they shall see their hopes so far disappointed as they may hereupon be brought to fear least if moderate Episcopacy be entertained as the Church-Government of these Lands after a while that very Prelacy in the height of it that in the time of our Affliction was vomited up by these Nations as loathsome may be swallowed down again Now we leave it to wise men to judge whether especially at such a time as this when Popish Enemies are banding themselves together against us and it is of so great advantage for our own preservation and the preservation of the true Religion that the Protestant Party throughout Christendome should endeavour after Union it be prudential to minister such occasion of grief and jealousie concerning us to our best Friends abroad as to admit of that which would be so much to their dissatisfaction as it would be occasion of endless strife and debate amongst our selves at home as hath been said before to say nothing of the hatefulness of it unto Scotland that yet we hope is lookt upon by England and Ireland as a neer Sister and Neighbour Church 5. Lastly We offer it to the consideration of all judicious and prudent persons whether there be not more probability of union amongst all sound Orthodox godly moderate Spirited men by means of some other expedients and upon some sober ground then upon the admission of moderate Episcopacy As touching such that are for it in their Judgments that are sober and godly and against Episcopacy in the height of it they might be accommodated in the Presbyterian way with far more safety and far less occasion of Offence as we gather from the Associations of the Ministers of severall Counties that are printed and particularly from that of Essex wherein they profess that many of them think according to Scripture and the way of divers reformed Churches there should be some adjoyned to the Minister in Government called ruling Elders yet that divers also of them are dissatisfied as touching such Elders but all of them also conceive it meet and a Ministers wisdome to see with more Eyes then his own and have the best help he can both to acquaint him with the conversation of his people and to assist him in matters of Concernment that cannot so safely and conveniently be done by him self alone Therefore they also agree as they shall see it fea
we said had spoken so fully touching that point that we knew not what could be added more We shall give the Reader some short accompt of what he may find more at large in the Authors themselves only mentioning some things which the London Ministers in their Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici and the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication of the Presbyterian Government have upon the Texts we urged to prove from them the Divine right of ruling a Elders Office 1. The first Text we urged for the divine right of the ruling Elders Office was Rom. 12. 6 7 8. which runs thus Having then Gifts differing according to the Grace given whether Prophesie let us Prophesie according to the proportion of Faith or Ministry let us wait on our Ministry or he that teacheth on teaching or he that exhorteth on exhortation He that giveth â—et him do it with simplicity He that ruleth with diligence He that sheweth mercy with cheerfulness Upon this Text the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication do thus express themselves In which words say they we have a perfect enumeration of all the ordinary Offices of the Church These Offices are reduced first to two generall heads Prophesie and Ministry and are therefore set down in the Abstract By Prophesie is meant the Faculty of right understanding interpreting and expounding the Scriptures Ministry comprehends all other Employments in the Church Then these generals are subdivided into the speciall Offices contained under them and are therefore put down in the Concrete Under Prophesie are contained 1. He that teacheth that is the Doctor or Teacher 2. He that exhorteth i. e. the Pastor Under Ministry are comprised 1. He that giveth that is the Deacon 2. He that ruleth that is the ruling Elder 3. He that sheweth mercy which * Office pertained unto them who in those dayes had care of the sick So that in these words we have the ruling Elder plainly set down and contradistinguished from the teaching and exhorting Elder as appears by the distributive Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether he that teacheth whether he that exhorteth whether he that ruleth c. And here likewise we have the Divine Institution of the ruling Elder for so the words hold forth Having then gifts differing according to the Grace that is given unto us And this also in the third Verse According as God hath dealt to every man c. This Officer is the Gift of Gods free Grace to the Church for the good of it Thus far the Provinciall Assembly of London And then they vindicate the Text from what is objected against it The London Ministers in their Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici do urge the Argument drawn hence for the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office more fully After they had given a view of the scope and contexture of the Chapter and given the like exposition of the Text quoting also Paraeus and Piscator and Calvin and Beza on the place who give the same exposition as is manifest to him that will but consult those Interpreters upon the Text they then do argue thus from this place Major Whatsoever 1 Members of Christs organical body have an 2 ordinary 3 Office of ruling therein given 4 them of God 5 distinct from all other ordinary standing Officers in the Church 6 together with direction from God how they are to rule they are the ruling Elders we seek and that Jure divino Minor But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He that ruleth mentioned in Rom. 12. 8. is a 1 Member of Christs Organicall Body having an 2 ordinary 3 Office of ruling therein 4 given him of God 5 distinct from all other standing Officers in the Church 6 together with direction how he is to rule Conclus Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He that ruleth mentioned in Rom. 12. 8. is the ruling Elder we seek and that Jure divino The severall particulars noted in the Major and Minor Propositions they do distinctly prove and are too large here to transcribe but they may be seen all made good from Pag. 125. to Pag. 131. And to which we refer the Reader Then they proceed to vindicate this Text from the severall exceptions made against the alledging of it for the proof of the Divine right of the ruling Elders Office by Feild Sutlive Bilson from Pag. 130. to pag. 136. And as touching Dr. Sutlive they have a remarkable passage which they note in the Margin pag. 131. which we think fit to recite in their own words which are as followeth As for this Dr. Sutlive divers times hereafter mentioned the Reader may please to take notice here once for all that he told a reverend Minister in London yet living and ready if need were to testifie the same upon Oath who declared it to one of the Authors of this Treatise Feb. 16. 1646. That he was sorry with all his heart that ever he put Pen to Paper to write against Beza as he had done in the behalf of the proud domineering Prelates And he spoke this with great indignation It is good for men then to take heed that they be not too hot for the Prelacy nor too earnest in contending against the Office of ruling Elders for we see they may come to repent hereof before they die 2. In the next place follows 1 Cor. 12. 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then gifts of healing helps Governments diversities of Tongues The Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication urge this Text thus Here we have an enumeration of sundry Officers of the Church and amongst others there are Helps Governments By Helps are meant Deacons as not onely our reformed Divines but Chrysostome and Estius and others observe And by Governments are meant the ruling Elders That this may the better appear they do here prove six things 1. That by Governments are meant men exercising Government the Abstract being put for the Concrete which they shew appears first by the beginning of the Verse God hath set some in his Church which relates to Persons not to Offices Secondly By the 29 and 30 Verses where the Apostle speaks Concretively of those things which he had spoken of before Abstractively Are all Workers of Miracles Have all the gifts of Healing Do all speak with Tongues c. And so by consequence Are all Helpers are all Governours 2. That the Governour here meant must needs be a Church Governour not the civil Magistrate because this is beside the whole scope of the Chapter treating meerly on Spirituall Church Matters not at all of Secular or Civil Because also it is said expresly That he is seated in the Church Now the Magistrate as such is not placed by God in the Church but in the Common-weale And lastly Because the Apostle writes of such Governours that had at that time
the Reader for his more full satisfaction may â—ee upon his perusall Pag. 47 48. The Authors of the Jus divinum regiminis ecclesiastici do urge the Argument for the Divine right of ruling Elders Office from this Text more fully and do very learnedly and elaborately vindicate it from twelve severall exceptions that are made against it by those that do oppose it from Pag. 150. to pag. 169. and whereunto for his more full satisfaction we do refer the Reader We shall forbear to mention what is further urged either by the Provinciall Assembly of London out of the Old Testament and New or by the rest of the Authors we have quoted in our former Answer or by the Author of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland that fully and learnedly discussed this Point some years before to prove the Office of ruling Elders to be by divine right We conceive by this account given it is manifest enough unto the unprejudiced Reader that the learned Labours of our reverend Brethren in this matter and their Arguments urged from these very Texts that we alledged were not so contemptible but that they might have merited a better answer when we referred you to them then to have been turned off as not worth the weighing because they are but of Yesterday And however our pains be accounted of by you in transcribing out of them what we have done yet we hope it will not be esteemed useless by judicious and sober persons such who never have seen the Labours of our Brethren in this kind having this advantage by it that they have a tast given them of what is more at large sayd by feverall reverend learned and godly Divines for the Divine right of that Office that is so much despised and hereby have some direction given them where they may find this truth more fully vindicated as they also that are acquainted fully with their Labours may reap this Fruit by what we have recited that the memory of what they knew before will hereby be revived and hence it may be to both sufficiently manifest that so much is spoken touching this matter that it will not be to any great purpose to add any more But now let us consider what you oppose unto all that is said by the Authors we quoted for the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government and particularly of the Office of ruling Elders In the first place we take notice that when we said We could not part with the ruling Elders unless we should betray the truth of Christ as we judged by this Parenthesis you gather that we are not so wedded to the opinion but that we can and will submit to better reason when offered to us Unto which we say That we are ready to hear what you or any others shall present unto us for the clearing up the mind and will of God in this or any other point in Controversie amongst such as are godly sober and Orthodox in the main points of Christian Religion And if you will not wilfully and pertinaciously hold a contrary Tenent as you profess or at least a Tenent contrary to what your Principles might allow you there would be the greater hopes that you would cease the debate touching this matter But before we can be convinced that the ruling Elder is not an Officer of Jesus Christ held forth in those Texts that we quoted we must have far stronger reasons brought then you urge although you profess that you will proceed to shew us that Lay-Elders as you mistake them are not meant nor mentioned in those Texts by us alledged Here is indeed much undertaken but little performed And however you promise to do this hereafter more largely if what is comprehended in this Paper be not judged satisfactory yet in your next wherein you would make shew as if you had given in a full reply to our Answer you perform nothing So easiea matter is it with you to undertake great things and fall short in your performances But we must here needs tell you that if you will indeed satisfie us you must perform more then onely as here you do send us to the Fathers in generall or more particular Councils or the Fathers apart and which you will have to be the onely sure rule for the interpretation of Scriptures though how soundly this is asserted by you will come to be examined in our answer to your next Paper neither must you think that the bare allegation of the exposition of some Fathers for we are not wholly destitute of the testimony of them touching the matter in controversie as we shall shew anon ought to be of that weight with us as that they should be forthwith received as the certain interpretations of these Texts against the Arguments that are urged from them by moderne Synods and Assemblies learned and able Divines Expositers of the Scriptures both of our own and other reforned Churches for that interpretation of them which we close with and whereof we have given account already in part And yet we are far from contemning either Fathers or Councils but shall give them all that due respect that our truly Protestant Divines have given them in their Writings against the Papists as we do heartily wish that you had not expressed your selves especially in your next Paper to be too Popish in respect of that Authority which you profess they are in with you which yet is an honour given them that they themselves would have disavowed and of which afterwards more fully In the mean season you have not dealt fairly with Calvin in fathering upon him what he doth not say though in your Printed Copy you cover the matter not quoting the place where he should assert any such thing as you alledge him for The thing you charge upon him in both is one and the same Your words are these Calvin saith there can be no better nor surer remedy of deciding of controversies no better sense nor interpretation of Scripture then what is given by the Fathers in such Councils The places you quote in that Copy you presented unto us are those in his Institutions Lib. 4. cap. 9. Sect. 8. 13. But in these places there is nothing that can with any colour be alledged to make out what you charge upon him In the 8. Sect. it is confessed he would not have all Councils condemned and the Acts of them all rescinded as we are far from desiring any such thing but he saith Quoties concilii alicujus decretum profertur expendi primum diligentur velim quo tempore habitum sit qua de causa habitum quo concilio quales homines interfuerint deinde illud ipsum de quo agitur ad Scripturae amussim examinari idque in eum modum ut concilii definitio pondus suum habeat sitque instar praejudicii neque tamen examen quod dixi impediat You may here perceive that as he would not have the determinations of
all Synods promiscuously to be admitted so he would have their decrees that are produced to be examined according to the rule of Scripture notwithstanding that reverence which he from whom therein we differ not doth give them But you may see he further goes on and adds Vtinam eum omnes modum servarent quem praescribâ—t Augustinus libro adversus Maximinum tertio Nam cum hunc haereticum de syncdorum decretis litigantem breviter vult compescere Nec â—go inquit Nicenam Synodum tibi nec tu mihi Aâ—iminensem debes tanquam praejudicaturus objicere Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed quae utrisque sunt communes res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum rotione certet The intelligent Reader will hereby sufficiently perceive that however Calvin gives due respect unto Councils yet both he and Augustine whom he cites would have all Controversies touching matters of Religion to be determined by the Authorities or Testimonies of Scriptures And however he presently after saith That those ancient Synods the Nicene Constantinopolitan the first Ephesine and that at Chalcedon and the like we do willingly receive and reverence as holy Quantum attinet ad fidei dâ—gmata So far as concerns the Doctrines of Faith let that be marked and acknowledgeth that they containe nothing but the pure Native interpretation of the Scriptures Yet what is that to what you would father upon him Viz. That there can be no better sence nor interpretation of the Scriptures then what is given by the Fathers in such Councils All that Calvin saith is That he acknowledgeth these Councils did in Doctrinals rightly interpret the Scriptures but he would not have their interpretation of Scripture for to be the rule of its interpretation as in your next Paper when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture you assert it ought to be and which there you alledging this place of Calvin would represent him to patronize and for which purpose you do also seem to alledge him here Although the Reader by what hath been quoted out of him in this Section will see the contrary Besides that he did not say touching matters of Discipline and Government which are the things onely in Controversie betwixt you and us those Councils he spake of did containe nothing but the pure and native interpretation of the Scriptures but limited the same to Doctrinals as we have shewed And therefore we leave it to the Reader to judge whether you have thus far dealt fairely with Calvin or no. You also quoted the thirteenth Section of this ninth Chapter lib. 4. But there we find onely that he expresseth himselfe thus Nos certe libenter concedimus si quo de dogmate incidat disceptat nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium quam si verorum Episcopoâ—um Synodus conveniat ubi controversum dogma excutiatur He acknowledgeth then that when a Controversie doth arise there is no better nor surer remedy for the determining it then by a Synod of true Bishops which are the Bishops mentioned in Timâ—thy and Titus in Calvins sence but yet he concludes that very Section thus Hoc autem perpetuum esse nego ut vera certa sit scripturae interpretatio quae conâ—ilii suffragiis fuerit recepta i. e. But this I deny to be perpetuall that that is a true and certain interpretation of Scripture which hath been received by the Suffrages of a Council And if we should here press you to that which Calvin saith as touching this point Seeing it hath been determined by the late Synod or Assembly of Divines that As there were in the Jewish Church Elders of the people joyned with the Priests Levites in the Government of the Church as appeareth in the 2 Chron. 19. 8 9 10 so Christ hath instituted a Government and Governors Ecclesiasticall in the Church hath furnished some in his Church besides the Ministers of the Word with Gifts for Goverment and with Commission to execute the same when called thereunto who are to joyn with the Minister in the Government of the Church Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 2. 8. which Officers reformed Churches commonly call Elders You ought nor against their determination touching this matter in Controversie betwixt you and us by your opposition to trouble and disturb the peace of the Church and which is that which seems to be clearly Calvins mind in this Section This for the Vindication of Calvin is we hope sufficient As touching the Fathers you wish us to consult on Rom. 12. intimating out of Doctor Andrews That not one of them applyeth it to the Church Government and as much you say may be sayd for the other Texts not one Father in their Comment giveth such a sense and which you are so confident of that you offer that if we find one exposition for us you will yeild us all Unto this we say 1. That we believe all wise and sober Readers will easily discern that your over-much confidence hath put you on to over-shoot a great deal too far For we can hardly be brought to perswade our selves that you have any of you much less all of you who are the Subscribers of this Paper consulted all the Fathers upon any and much less upon all these Texts And if so it was a great deal too much presumption to make such an offer upon the Testimony of Doctor Andrews that yet is alledged by you to speak but to onely one of the Texts or any other having not consulted all the Fathers your selves and that upon every Text. For what an hazard do you put your Cause upon If but one Father be produced against you in this matter if you should be taken at your word it is quite lost And if it be Gods Cause and Truth you stand for can you be excused that you have offered to quit it upon such easie tearms But we will be more liberall to you then to take you at such a disadvantage though you have been too presumpteously liberall in making such an offer 2. But suppose none of the Fathers could be produced thus to expound any of these Texts If from the Texts themselves and what may be urged from other places of the Scriptures both in the Old and New Testament it may be gathered that that is the meaning of them which we with sundry other moderne Authors give why should this Interpretation be rejected because not backed with the Testimony of some of the Fathers thus expounding them Is not the Scripture sufficient to expound it self This indeed is your opinion as appeareth plainly from your next Paper but the Popish unsoundness of it we question not but to discover when we come to it 3. But if the Fathers do not many of them determine the Controversie touching ruling Elders from these Texts it having been started since their time yet is it not sufficient if they
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
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
Assembly under the title of a presentation but of a representation only as we said in our answer But as in the Preface to these papers that you printed you insinuate that we are men of low and cheap abilities and in this paper do afterwards jeer and scoff at us as persons destitute of all learning as if you would monopolize as all power and jurisdiction so all learning and make the same proper to your selves and your own party though we hope we have so much as to fathom the depth of that which you would make some shew of so here we have cause to fear you had a mind to represent us and which is worse the Provincial Assembly too and those reverend and learned brethren the Moderator and Scribe of it also to be such poor illiterate persons as did not well know how how to write good English Secondly In your representing what we said touching submitting to Synods and Councils you do it but by the halfes and so deal unfaithfully never so much as mentioning what we had in our answer in the first place declared viz. that our faith was not to be resolved into the determination of any company of men on earth whatsoever or to be built on the judgement of Synods and Councills c. for which we gave our reasons And further we there said that when you had said in your first paper that as touching what you therein declare as your sense and apprehensions of ours that we published you did not rest in the judgement and determination of any general Concil contrary thereunto if your meaning therein was the same with what we had declared ours to be you had not us differing from you After we came to declare in what respects they were to be reverenced viz. as they were the ordinances of God and in respect of their authoritative judgement and that in that respect they were to be submitted to in which respect we said we submitted our apprehensions in the case propounded to the judgement of the Provincial Assembly But to make this more plain we proceeded to distinguish betwixt a private and publick judgement in matters of Religion allowing the private to our selves and others who we said were all of us to see with our own eyes and judge concerning what is to be believed in matters of this nature Again we distinguished the publick and authoritative judgement into a concional which belonged we said to every Minister to whom the key of Doctrine was committed by himself singly and juridical which we said belonged to Synods and Councils who having the key of Discipline committed to them were to enquire into try examine censure and judge of matters of Doctrine and Discipline authoritatively though tyed to the Word in such proceedings and likewise to censure offenders and then we applyed this to our purpose and said that it was in this sense that we submitted our apprehensions in the paper we published to the judgement of the Provincial Assembly and for which we urged our grounds all which will be clear to the Reader upon the perusal of the second Section of our answer But you only mention this last branch and say we tell you of an authoritative judgement of Synods and Councills and how we hoped when you had weigbed the matter better you would not in this respect see cause to submit what you may publish as your own private judgements about matters of Religion to the judgement of a general Council suppose it might be had But seeing towards the close of this Section you profess you are glad to hear us of the same mind with you touching this submission to Synods and Councills you should not thus maimedly have represented out opinion considering how vastly different ours and yours is in this matter as will appear from what hath been declared to be ours and what you declare to be yours in this Section and which we shall manifest anon to the Reader Thirdly You seem here to abhorre the refusal to submit what you have published or may publish as your own private judgement in matters of Religion to the judgement of a general Council that hath been or any that may be hereafter and do complain that we should either our selves judge or induce others to the perswasion of you that you should refuse to submit your judgement in the sense declared But here we must mind you that the sense we declared was that there was to be a submission to them in regard of their juridical authority not that faith was to be built on their judgement And in this latter you will be found to submit too much as if they should determine against you we fear in the former you would be found to submit too little We shall give the Reader our Reasons for both that we may not seem to wrong you in fastening upon you without ground what perhaps as we have expressed the matter you may be ready to disclaim For the first You do in this very Section profess as touching matters which are not so plainly set forth in the word of God your willing submission to the judgement of a general Council and hereafter in the sixth Section of this Paper you say where there is a doubt or difficulty the Church may expound the Scripture although you grant what we said soil that it is tyed to the rule of Gods words in such proceedings as Judges to the Law though we do not see it is lawfull for any private persons to examine whether in case of such a doubt or difficulty the Church hath given the right sense of Scripture but must notwithstanding any grounds they may have from that Text which the Church may expound or other Texts of Scripture to the contrary submit their faith and belief in the case to the Churches determination For you there add and say we are bâ—und up by that speaking of the Churches exposition as you say 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 practice as you there further say is our rule in such cases and the best rule too and when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture it is to give way to private interpretation and dominari fidei to lord it over the faith of others to utter any other sense of Scripture which you there call the uttering of mens own fancies then hath been delivered by our Forefathers as you do more fully declare your selves in that place From all which it follows that however in this Section you say in matters of faith and such articles as are plainly warranted by Gods word and constant practice of the Catholique Church you refuse to submit your judgement to the judgement of a general Council yet in matters of Religion that are not so plainly set forth you do and to the Churches exposition where there is a doubt and difficulty which is your rule
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
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
answered to that Objection which you made out of our Paper wherein as you cut it short so you do manifestly deprave our words for though speaking of that which was to be the rule of deciding controversies touching Ghurch Government or of any other matters of Religion we said That the Word of God alone and then added which you here wholly leave out and the approved practice of the Church recorded there whether it was the universal and constant practice of the Church or no is to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religon yet we never said away therefore with the constant and universal practice of the hCurch this being an addition of your own and which when you profess to represent what we said was no more fair then your former substraction especially when such additions or substractions belonged to the true stating of the Question betwixt you and us although if the universall and constant practice of the Church must be added to the will and Word of God or it is not a sufficient and perfect rule whereby to guide us we may well then say away with the constant and Universal practice of the Church in this sense And yet in our Answer you might have taken notice that we said we did much honour and reverence the Primitive Churches although we professed we owed greater reverence to the Scriptures then to them and whereby we did not judg they were any whit disparaged as they themselves would never have thought upon such an expression But in our Answer after we had propounded the rule which you seemed to us to make for deciding of the controversie touching Church Government and other matters of Religion sc the Word or will of God and the constant and Universal practice of the Church as if the Word of God alone except confirmed or explained by the constant and Universal practice of the Church when there were any doubt about any matter as here you speak were not of it self sufficient to determine it and which is that rule which here you own we first supposing it were admitted of put you upon it to prove what was the Universal prctice of Primitive Churches in the matter of Church Government intimating to you that we thought it would be hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any Records of Antiquity what thaâ— was for the whole space of three hundred years after Christ or the greatest part thereof excepting so much as was left upon record in the Scriptures of the new Testament for which we gave you our reasons unto which you say something after you had first vented your distemper against us for not admitting your rule but how satisfactory will come afterward to be examined In the next place we came to oppose the rule it self and for this also we gave you our reasons none of which you do either recite in your representation of what we had here said or return any answer to afterward and which is such a kind of replying to our Answer as we believe all ingenuous rationall men would have been ashamed of who would have conceived they were obliged either to have returned some answer to our arguments or to have never replyed at at all but been silent But seeing you mention them not we shall give the Reader a short account what they were and referre him to the answer it self where he may see them more fully The reasons we gave why we could not admit of the rule you laid down were three although we did not in our answer number them and which perhaps might be the reason why you might think if you took no notice of them such an escape might the more easily pass The first reason we urged against your rule was because thereby the Scriptures were accused as imperfect or as not having light enough in themselves for the resolving all doubts touching matters of faith and practice except it were first known what was the universal practice of Primitive Churches 2. The second was because admitting the constant and universal practice of Primitive Churches to be that which must assure us what is the will of God concerning Church Government our faith is hereupon resolved into a most uncertain ground and so made fallible and turned into opinion there being no monuments of antiquity besides the Scriptures that could infallibly assure us touching the matters of fact therein contained 3. Our third reason was because if we could be assured what was the universal and constant practice of the Primitive Churches yet that could not be a rule to us what is most consonant to the will of God considering that in such matters as are not absolutely necessary to salvation we did not see but the universal practice of the Churches might in some things be dissonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures We here shewed there were corruptions and so failings in practice in the best of men instancing in the hot contention betwixt Paul and Bâ—rnabas Peters dissimulation Gal. 2. and not only in these Apostolical men but also in Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Galatia Asia and then shewed how afterward corruptions grew in the Church in Doctrine and Government as the Reader will see more fully upon perusall of our answer and where he will finde all these reasons though you here were pleased to take no notice of any of them But we hereupon inferred that whereas you say that you pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is most consonant to the will of God and universal practice of Primitive Churches we did believe you might cut the matter a great deal shorter which you eagerly catch at in the representation you make 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 only 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 searched into never so much shall determine what that is and so those wearisome and endless disputes about what is the universall and constant practice of Primitive Churches and which if it could not be found out in any good measure of probability for the first three hundred yeares after Christ could never yet be so far issued as to be a sure bottome 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 We have been the larger in making this representation of what we had answered because yours is here so short and also because you come not at all afterward to answer any of our reasons but fall upon us with foule language as if that were sufficient to answer an argument
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
Comment thereon for the better helping us to understand what was Gods will revealed there touching Church Government and Discipline but denied them to be our sure guid and further asserted the Word of God alone to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religion and which are the words we used in that part of our Answer to which you here reply as it is a received rule amongst Protestant Divines that the onely sure rule or guid for the interpreting of Scripture is not Fathers Councils or the practice of the Church and wherein we must further oppose you anon giving you our reasons for that also but the Scripture it self that is the onely infallible comment or sure guide or as we spake interpreter And now we leave it to the Reader to judge how true it was said by you that we seemed to submit to our Provinciall what we will hardly grant to a Generall Council But you hitherto having no otherwise then thus opposed what we had intimated to you was to be the onely rule and sole judge of controversies in matters of Religion sc the Word of God alone we shall now proceed to give you our Reasons according to what we promised for this assertion And however this pains to some may seem needless considering how full our Divines are in this point in their writings against the Papists yet we judge it necessary to say something though it be but what hath been said before that so we may neither seem to sleight any means we are obliged to use to reduce you from your errour nor neglect the souls of those that are committed to our charge in not laying before them some grounds for the better establishing them in the present truth Our Reasons then for making the Scriptures the only rule of faith and life and sole supreme judge of all controversies in matters of Religion are briefly these Argument 1. Because it is the Scripture onely or Word of God contained there that begets divine faith and full assurance in matters of Religion so as to remove all doubts and scruples and hence it is that faith is said to come by hearing Rom. 10. 17. i. e. from the sense of Scripture truely perceived and rightly understood Timothy is also said to have gained the assurance of what he had learned from the Scriptures 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. neither is there any other firm foundation whereon we can build but the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. and therefore it is the Scripture onely that is the sole judge of controversies removing all doubts and scruples and so determining the matters in difference touching Religion in whose sentence onely we can rest and to whose determination we must stand Argument 2. If the Scriptures must be refused as the sole and supreme judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion then it is because they are either imperfect and so not reaching to all cases and matters in controversie or else because they are obscure and so not sufficiently plain for the resolving of all doubts whereupon there is a necessity supposed of appeal to some other judge But the Scriptures are not imperfect for the Law and Scripture of the Old Testament is said to be perfect Psal 19. 7. And therefore there was nothing wanting in it that was necessary for the instruction of the people of God under the Old Testament in matters of Religion that concerned them to know integrum or that which is perfect being that according to the description of the Philosopher Cui nihil deest extra quod nihil eorum quae sunt ejus accipi potest i. e. that to which nothing is wanting and without which nothing of those things that belong unto it can be taken And hence it is that God did so strictly prohibit his people of old that they should not either adde any thing to or detract any thing from his Law Deut. 4. 2. and therefore much more are the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament perfect neither is there any case in matters of Religion needfull to be resolved but the determination thereof is to be found there especially considering all Scripture is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. And as the Scriptures are not to be accused of imperfection so neither of obscurity The word of God is a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths Psal 119. 105. and hereupon our only sure guid as a torch or lanthorne in the night that so we may be guided in the way we should walk and thereby be cautioned against errours on all hands The Apostle Peter also speaking of the Scripture calls it a more sure word of propheâ—sie whereunto we should do well to take heed as to a light shineing in a dark place 2 Pet. 1. 19. and therefore the Scripture is sufficiently plain for the resolving of all doubts and determining of all controversies in Religion Although if in some things the Scripture be obscure yet this is no sufficient reason for the refusal of it as the sole determiner of controversies perspicuity not being of the essence and nature of a rule but certainty and authority the Laws of men being often obscure as Lawyers know and yet not thereupon ceasing to be a rule Argument 3. God is the author of Scripture all Scripture being given by inspiration from him 2 Tim. 3. 16. received by immediate divine revelation 2 Pet. 1. 21. and is the word of Christ Col. 3. 16. and therefore is the testimony and sentence of God himself the supreme Judge and therefore is to be acknowledged by all to be the only sure guid and determiner of all controversies in Religion Argument 4. Nothing is to be believed in matters of Religion and to be received as from God or to be taught in the Church but what is confirmed by the testimony of Scripture whence it was that in the old time the people were sent to the Law and to the Testimonies Isa 8. 20. Paul taught nothing but what was to be found in the Prophets and Moses Act. 26. 22. and hence it was also that the Bereans were commended for trying by the touchstone of the Scriptures what they heard from Paul Act. 17. 11. And therefore the Scriptures are the only rule and supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion Argument 5. The people of God are commanded that they turn not aside either to the right hand or to the left from that path that is chalked forth in the Scriptures for them to walk in Deut. 5. 32. and Chap. 17. 20. Josh 1. 7. and therefore the Scripture is the only sure rule in matters of Religion to which we must exactly keep and from which we must not in the least thing turn aside Many more reasons might be
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
Martyr might be willing to fight with the Papists with those weapons they so oâ—ten call for Antiquity Vniversality Vnity but where did he ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies and the onely rule for interpretation of the Scriptures as you do Besides it is to be observed that it was matters of Doctrine that he and other Protestant writers did offer to defend against the Papists from the testimony of Fathers and Councils not matters touching Church Government and discipline which began sooner to be corrupted the mystery of iniquity working even in the Apostles dayes and the godly Fathers in the Primitive times sundry of them laying a foundation though unwillingly for Antichrists getting up into his seat when the Doctrine was kept pure and inviolable in respect whereof it is that Calvin whom you cite when he acknowledgeth that the first four generall Councils did contain nothing but the pure and native interpretation of the Scriptures doth expresly limit his words and saith quantum attinet ad fâ—dei dogmata so forre as concerns the doctrines of faith and as we have noted before in our Answer to your second Paper where also we have shewed you how those words of his are to be understood when he saith nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium quam si verorum Episcoporum Synodus conveniat ubi controversum dogma excutiatur If there be a disputation or difference touching any Doctrine there is no better nor more certain remedâ— then if a Synod of true Bishops do convene where the controveâ—tâ—d Doâ—â—riae may be discussed but he concludes hoc autem perpetuum esse nego ut vera certa sit Scripturae interpretatio quae Concilii suffragiis fuerit recepta i. e. but this I deny to be perpetuall that that is a true and certain interpretation of Scripture which hath been received by the suffrages or determination of a Council And therefore you wrong Calvin and Mr. Philpot and the best and ablest of our Protestant Divines when you say they willingly submit to a judge and rule besides the Scriptures however they refuse noâ— to try the Doctrines of the adversaries by that which they themselves sc the Papists cannot except against it being their own rule they propound to be tried by sc the exposition of the Fathers and Councils and whose interpretation is not by them acknowledged to be that publike interpretation in opposition to the private wherein they professed to rest any farther then it appeareth to be the true sense of the Scripture or holy Ghost the only publike interâ—reter But it is you and not they that are so willing to submit to a judge and rule besides the Scriptures sc the primitive Churches practice and universall and unauimous consent of Fathers and generall Councils and to this rule you bring the Church Government to be tried thereby because your plea from Scripture for that kind of Episcopacy which you so earnestly contend for is but weak and the most you have to say for it is from Fathers and Councils and practice of the Church since the Canon of the Scripture hath been perfected although we must tell you that that Episcopacy which the Fathers you would be tried by speak of was nothing like that Episcopal Government of later times Neither will upon this score as you say our Presbytery be quite out of doors or be found to be wholly destitute of Examples and practice of the Church and testimonies of the Fathers neither can you prove that therein the whole stream runs so for Episcopacy that there is not the least rivulet for any others and as you from the late King affirm by which we are now brought unto what we put you upon in the first place to prove sc what that Church Government is which is so consonant to the will God and universall practice of primitive Churches 4. And therefore having fully discussed whatever you have urged against the Scriptures being the rule to judge by in this controversie we shall now not refuse to try what strength there is in what you alleadge for to prove what was the universal and constant practice of Primitive Churches in this matter But 1. We must remove that aspersion that you cast upon us when you say that we being sensible that the whole streame of the examples and practice of the Church and testimonies of the Fathers runs for Episcopacy have not way to evade this rule but unâ liturâ to blot out all records and monuments of Antiquity for the space of three hundred yeares after Christ as imperfâ—ct But the words that we used in our answer to your first Paper will speak for us which we shall here therefore recite because you do not Having put you to prove what that Church Government is which is so consonant to the will of God and universal practice of Primitive Churches we thus declared our selves For our parts we said we think it will be very hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any records of antiquity what was the universal practice of Primitive Churches for the whole space of the first three hundred 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 concerne these times for the greatest part of them being both imperfect and far from shewing us what was the universal practice of the Church then though the practices 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 go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times are neither spurious nor corrupted From the words of our answer thus recited it is manifest we did not unâ liturâ blot out all records and monuments of Antiquity for the space of three hundred yeares after Christ we only said they were imperfect and said it would be hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any records of Antiquity what was the universal practice of Primitive Churches for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof And is not this manifest to him that is conversant in Ecclesiastical story Doth not Baronius himself despair of making up any perfect story of a good part of this time next unto the Apostles dayes And if it had been easie for you to have demonstrated what was the universal practice of the Church for the whole or greatest part of this time why did you not begin your demonstration hereof sooner then from the Council of Nice Again we said that it would not be easie for to assure us that some of the works that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times are neither spurious nor corrupted but we did not as you charge uâ— brand the most approved Authors of those times as spurious and corrupted The workes that
may be attributed to some approved Authors may be spurious or corrupted when yet the Authors themselves are not branded And therefore this is but another of your wonted slanders and which through out your Paper are but too common with you But as to the thing it self who knowes not but in the Primitive times there were many spurious works put forth under the names even of the Apostles as appears from 2 Thes 2. 2. and blessed Martyrs that yet are generally rejected as none of theirs and of which sort were those many false Gospels that we read of as of Thomas Andrew Nicodemus and St Peter and St Markes Mass of this sort also are the Apostles constitutions held for Apocryphal as Mr. Perkins shewes in the Decretals and were condemned by the sixth Council of Constantinople The works also of Dionysius Areopagita are by many learned men absolutely denyed to be the works of that Dionysius mentioned Act. 17. for which they do in their Comments upon that Chapter and elsewhere give many reasons We might instance in many others as we shall come anon to speak touching the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius and unto which we had special reference in the passages we used that you here except against but yet without the least reflection upon so glorious a Confessor of the faith of Christ as he was And such as are equal judges and who know what were the practices of Impostors in the Primitive times in putting out their own corrupt writings under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs of those times that thereby they might gain belief to their errors will be farre from censuring us to be void of all modesty and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty as you here do because we said some of the workes that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times were spurious or corrupted considering what Rivet Cocus in his censur a patrum and Perkins in his preparatives to the demonstration of the probleme and other learned men do say touching this matter and we may here well say to you that you had shewed more judgement and honesty your selves if you had not censured us as persons destitute of both and also all modesty for that which all those that read the Fathers with any measure of judgement will readily acknowledge 2. Having vindicated our selves from what you aspersed us with we now come to examine what you cite for the antiquity of Episcopacy which is the Government you plead for And here we observe you take a very high jumpe to use your own expression over all that is to be found in the writings of the Fathers who lived in the three first Centuries of the Church and only pitch upon the Council of Nice that which you find there making as you apprehend most for your purpose and as you say shewing the practice of the Church in its forme of Church Government by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. Although you having a little before insisted upon the exposition and practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Fathers as well as general Councils as the rule to which you would bring Church Governement to be tried and in your first Paper and this also telling of the universal and constant practice of the Church should not so quickly have forgot your own rule and mentioned nothing at all before the Council of Nice out of the writings of the Fathers to evidence what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof touching Church Government especially considering that this was that which in our answer to your first Paper we had put you to prove But you think may be this you do sufficiently by citing the Council of Nice generall Councils shewing us as you say what the Churches practice was considering also that this Council did ratifie and confirme what had been anciently practised by the Church before the sixth Canon mentioning an ancient custome which by it is established Unto this and what further you do here urge for the proving from this Council that which you cite it for we have severall things to say 1. And first though we do most readily yeild all due reverence and esteem unto this Council that was and will be famous for the condemning of Arrius together with his damnable heresie yet we shall mind you of what Augustine quoted by Calvin and alleadged in our answer to your second Paper saith touching insisting on the testimony of this Council He in his Book against Maximinius when he would silence that Heretick contending with him touching the decrees of Synods saith that neither he would object to him the Synod of Nice nor he ought to object to him the Synod of Ariminum but would have them both to contend not by the authority of either of these Synods but by the authority of Scriptures It is also clear from Ecclesiastical story that Constantine did admonish this Council after they were assembled that in the determining and judging of heavenly Doctrine seeing they had in readiness the Evangelical Apostolical and Prophetical Bookes they should fetch from thence their formes of censure and so determine controversies of Religion from the Scriptures and according unto which religious and worthy counsel they proceeded disputing with Arrius from the Scriptures and by the testimonies thereof condemning his heresie 2. Seeing you will have it that the forme of Church Governement by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. was established by this Council and that this Council established nothing herein but what had been defined and asserted as you say afterward by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custome and that the customes which this Council speakes of were deduced down to those times from St Mark the Evangelist We do here enquire of you whether the Church Governement that you would prove from this Council be jure divino or by divine right If it be as we suppose you will and must say it is for which purpose you say it is defined and asserted by immemorial Apostolical tradition and deduced from Mark the Evangelist we do then again enquire of you whether the Governement of the Church by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop c. be to be found in Scripture If you say it be we desire you to prove it and make it to appear that it is there found If you say it is not to be found in Scripture it is in vain to urge the authority of the Council of Nice or any other Councils for to prove the divine right of that which is not to be found in Scripture Further you should consider that you alleadging for it immemorial Apostolical traditions and customes of which the Scripture is silent do again joyn hands with the Papists pleading for the authority of unwritten traditions and
would not they had not any such a will purpose or intention he doth not say as you say that they did not frame a forme of Church Government differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his Word He had intimated in the first Section that many of the Canons that were made in those times sc of the ancient Church did seem to express more then was to be found in sacred Scripture and though in regard of that good measure of purity of Governement and Discipline that did remain in those times he doth seem to extenuate what deviation there was from the word of God yet he doth not allow of every thing that was then appointed In the second Section he comes to shew how Bishop came up at the first sc that for the prevention of Schisme the Presbyters chose out of their number in every City one to whom they gave the title of Bishop and that upon this reason lest dissentions should arise from equality But withall there shewes that the Bishop thus superiour to the rest of the Presbyters in honour and dignity had not any dominion over the Presbyters whom he calls his Colleagues but only had that office as the Consul in the Senate and as indeed the Moderatour hath in our Assemblies as from that which he there instaneeth in that did at the first belong to him is clear and manifest And then he addes and saith even this it self the Ancients themselves confess was at the first brought in Pro temporum necessitate in regard of the necessity of the times and humano consensu by the consent and agreement of men as he proves out of Hierome And in the fourth Section which you chiefly here referre to he saith whereas every Province had amongst the Bishops one Archbishop and whereas also in the Synod of Nice there were constituted Patriarchs who were above the Archbishops in regard of dignity that did belong as he there saith to the conservation of the discipline But yet addes Quanquam in hâe disputatione praeteriri non potest quod â—arissimi â—rat usus i e. although in this disputation it may not be omitted that it was of most seldome or rare use And then he shews that the use of the Archbishop was for the calling a Provincial Synod as there might be occasion when the matter requiring it could not be determined by fewer and so by a lesser Assembly and in case the cause was more weighty or difficult that then the Patriarch was to call a more general Synod from which there was to be no appeal but to a general Council And thus Calvin shewes what was the reason of the first institution of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs but from that account given by him of this their first appointment it is manifest that their superiority above their fellow Brethren was not from the beginning it being but an humane constitution only and that at the first yea even in the time of the Nicene Council it was nothing like to what it grew to be afterward And that that power even of the Patriarchs and Metropolitans that was appointed or confirmed by the Nicene Council was nothing like unto that power that was exercised by the Bishops and Archbishops in this Land whilest Episcopacy stood their power at that time being chiefly if not only for the calling of Synods sc Provinciall or of a larger circuit as there might be need and they having therein only a presidency or moderatorship and not exercising any dominion over their Colleagues according to that representation of the matter of fact that Calvin truely makes And because the appointment of them was done out of a good intent without any will or purpose to appoint any forme of Government in the Church differing from that which God had appointed in his word and as an Ecclesiastical constitution only which the godly Fathers in those times thought might be of use though afterward as we have before shewed it proved otherwise and considering what a good measure of the ancient discipline remained entire in those times Calvin did therefore speak moderately of what they did though he did not as is manifest approve of all they did But thus the Reader may discerne that you have not dealt any more fairly with Calvin here whom in this place you would make to be a justifier and patron of Prelacy then you have dealt with him elsewhere though by what we have said we hope he is sufficiently vindicated and the contrary to what you alleadge him for fully evidenced And this that hath been said concerning Calvin will likewise shew how Beza is to be understood if he any where say what the ancient Fathers appointed touching the Hierarchy was done optimo zelâ— out of a very good zeal For by that expression he only approves of their pious and good intent in what they did but not of all that was done and when you call him that earnest patron of Presbyterian discipline you should not by stretching his words beyond their scope have represented him to have approved of that which the Presbyterian discipline doth not own 8. And thus having answered fully to what you have said for that Government which you are for and pray might be established in this Nation we must still mind you that whatever you here again say to the contrary as yet you have not proved this Church Government to be agreeable either to the will of God which was not as yet attempted to be made out by you or to the universal practice of Primitive Churches your proof for this falling far short and that however now you would mince the matter speaking of the rule whereby we are to judge touching Church Government or other matters of Religion in saying you put both together not the word of God alone nor the Churches practice alone but both together and which is not to be disallowed of when it is clear that the Churches practice is agreeable to the word of God yet by what you have discovered to be your opinion in this Section and of which we have fully spoken it is manifest you have given that to the Church Councils and Fathers and their exposition which is proper to the Scripture sc to be the only sure interpreter of it self and judge in all controversies of Religion and which is that which we have asserted and defended against you in this answer and by giving of which unto the Scripture we have detracted nothing from the credit that is due unto the Church or her lawfull and laudable customes which we are so farre from any wayes invalidating that we do assert and defend the same as also her authority against all heretical and schismatical persons that seek her overthrow although we see no reason to count those heretical and schismatical persons that seek to overthrow the Church that cannot either believe that the Church is the only iudge of coutroversies in matters of Religion or her exposition the best and surest rule
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
this be either sincere or ingenuous dealing we leave it to the Reader to judge 3. But as touching Calvin's being in his judgement for the Presbyterian Government as that which Christ hath in particular prescribed in his Word though here again you would make him a patronizer of the Government by Patriareh Archbishop Bishop c. in our answer we said was manifest from his works to the whole Christian world And is not this clear to any that will but consult what he hath written touching this matter Consult his Expositions and Commentaries Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and you will find him there to be downright for the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office Consult his Institutions you will there find Lib. 4. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. expresly that he takes Bishops Presbyters and Pastors for one and the same and that according to the use of Scripture as he there speakes and argues for that purpose Tit. 1. 5. Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. and having reckoned up the preaching Officers he then comes in the very same Section and mentions the ruling Elders shewing that they are mentioned by Paul Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. We will but cite only one passage that he here hath concerning his quoting these Texts Guhernatores fuisse existimo seniores de plebe electos qui censurae morum exercendae disciplinae unà cum Episcopis praeessent Neque enim secus interpretari queas quod dicit qui praeejt id faciat in solicitudine Habuit igitur ab initio unaquaeque Ecclesia suum Senatum conscriptum ex viris piis gravibus sanctis penes quem er at illa de quâ posteà loquemur jurisdictio in corrigendis vitiis Porro eâ—usmodi ordinem non unius saeculi fuisse experientia ipsa declarat Est igitur hoc gubernationis munus saecuâ—is omnibus necessarium Whence it is very clear that Calvin's judgement is so full for the Office of the ruling Elders that otherwise he saith we shall not be able to interpret that of the Apostle He that ruleth let him do it with diligence And hence he concludes that every Church had from the beginning its Senate or Consistory that consisted of men that were godly grave and holy to whom did belong the jurisdiction in correcting of vices of which after he saith he will speak Further he saith that experience it self declares that this was not an order of one age and thence inferres that therefore the ruling Elders Office whom he undestands by the Office of Government is necessary for all ages Is it possible for any man to declare himself more fully and plainly for the Presbyterian Government then Calvin here doth We forbear to cite any other parts of his works we doubt not but the Reader by this will be sufficiently satisfied and will presently hereupon conclude that you but gather out of Calvin what you think makes for your purpose and when we cite him for that which he is so full for matter not much how you misrepresent him to the world that so you might make him to appear otherwise But we wish you to consider that it is not safe for any to make lies their refuge But you have notwithstanding all this the boldness to alleadge Calvin as a Patronizer of Episcopal Government as you did before And because you come over again with the same thing we shall be forced for his vindication to make some repetition of what we have in part already said That in Calvin which you here referre us to is the place in his Institutions which was before quoted sc Lib. 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. But in the Chapter immediately going before we have even now shewed that he declares himself fully for the Presbyterian Government but this you wholly conceal in which you deal not honestly with him Nay in the very first words of this Section which you cite he tells you he had been hitherto speaking of that order of governing the Church as it is delivered to us out of the pure word of God and concerning the Ministeryes as they were instituted of Christ And then he addes now that all these things might appear more clearly and familiarly it will be profitable in those things to take a view of the forme of the ancient Church which as he there saith will represent unto us a certain image of divine institution which are part of the words that you cite But hence it is clear that seeing it is Calvin's scope in this Chapter to compare the forme of Government in the ancient Church with that forme of Government that he had held forth in the Chapter going before from the Scriptures he judged whatever construction you put upon him to the contrary that that very Government in the substance of it which he had before proved was held forth in the Scriptures and which as we have already shewed from what we have cited out of him out of the third Chapter goin gbefore was the Presbyterian was to be found in the ancient Church in the purer times of it But in the next place he comes to prevent an Objection in these words Tametsi enim multos Canones ediderunt illorum temporum Episcopi quibusplus viderentur exprimere quam sacris literis expressum esset eâ tamen cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt ad unicom illom verbi Dei normami ut facile videas nihil fere hâc parte habuisse à verbo Dei alienum Hence it is yet further plain that however he confess that the Bishops of those times did seem to express in many of their Canons something more then was expressed in Scripture yet that he saith they did compose their whole Oeconomy unto the only rule of Gods word that one might easily see they had in this particular nothing almost differing from the word he hereby declares his judgement yet further that for the substance the Government of these times was the same with the Government he had held forth from the Scriptures in the former Chapter But hence it is also clear that as we observed before he did not approve of every thing in those Canons as also he presently after confesseth there was something deficient and wanting in them For however he excuse them in regard they endeavoured to keep the institution of God with a sincere endeavour yet he acknowledges that in something they erred although he saith not much as is clear from his own words which are as followes Verumetiam si quid posset in ipsorum institutis desiderari quia tamen sincero studio conati sunt Dei institutionem conservare ab ea non multum aberraverunt plurimum conducet hic breviter colligere qualem observationem habuerint And then he shewes what the Ministers of the ancient Church were Thus we have given a full and particular account of what Calvin hath in this Section and that in the very order which he himself observes
Presbytery was set up what they would amount to had we lived the age of Episcopacy 1â—00 yeares and upwards though the raign of Episcopacy is as we have shewed of a farre younger date and especially Episcopacy in the height of it hereby intimating that they would have farre exceeded in number all the Canons that ever were made during the whole space of time wherein Episcopacy hath been on foot For answer unto this we shall here only mind you of what you who are well acquainted with the Book of Common Prayer may find therein after the Preface of it entreating of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained where you have these words Some speaking of Ceremonies are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so encreased in these latter dayes that the burden of them was intollerable whereof St. Augustine in his time complained that they were grown to such a number that the state of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter then were the Jewes And he counselled that such yoke and burden should be taken away as time would serve quietly to do it But what would St. Augustine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies of late dayes used amongst us whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark that they did more confound and darken then declare and set forth Christs benefits to us And yet all this that is here spoken of your selves will say must needs have been during the standing of Episcopacy When you can bring forth such a testimony as this complaining touching the number and burdensomeness of Canons and Ceremonies whilest Presbytery hath been on foot any where by either the friends or enemies to it if they will but speak the truth there may be then some reason to give credit to what you would here suggest but on this we shall give you leave to breath And in the mean season we cannot but take notice that such is the charity that you have towards us that you compare us with the Papists for the burdensomenesse of Rites and Ceremonies imposed by us on the Church though your first Paper wherein you cried out Quare oneramini Ritibus referred only to those few orders mentioned in that of ours that was published in our Congregations some whereof your selves acknowledge there to be the orders of Christ and censure us as Dr. Andrews doth Bellarmine in behalf of our English Church Nobis non tam articulosa fides c. Though if Dr. Andrews had been now alive he would have been ashamed of those that should have made use of his words with such an application of them as you do here make The Gentlemens Paper Sect. XI And now we are come to our last charge as you call it which as it is high so you judg it hath little reason in it for the bearing it up But how take you it off Why first you observe That we omit to mention the first part of this Order and unto which that which follows in the two next Orders doth refer We grant it doth but we say not that onely but to the latter branch of that Order also touching the Catechized Persons and therefore we say if they refuse to present themselves before the Eldership by this your Order the Minister must exhort and admonish them But that is wholly of our adding you say and say it again Is wholly our own and none of yours Why will you thus boldly averr so manifest an untruth Is not the Order express That the Minister when he Catechiseth the severall families shall exhort such persons in them as he finds to be of competent knowledge and are blameless of life that they present themselves to the Eldership c And do not your selves confesse that you said the Minister was to exhort and that was all But we adde and say He shall exhort and admonish How can these words then be wholly our own and none of yours Because we adde the word Admonish therefore must the rest be none of yours but wholly ours But oh the learned Criticks of our age To exhort and to admonish are two different things which we confound together taking them for one and the same which is in us a radicall and grand mistake What every admonition a kind of Church censure or in order as you call it thereto no exhortation so We confess our ignorance of such a distinction not having as yet learned it either from Scripture Fathers Councils School-men or any known approved Author find it us in Scripture you that are for the word of God alone But in the the mean time we must tell you if our Translators erre not they are promiscuously used in Scripture Read Acts 20. 32. I ceased not to admonish every one of you with tears Is this more then to exhort Was it in order to Church censure Again Rom. 15. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. able to admonish one another say some Translations able to exhort one another say others is this a radical and grand mistake in them Again Col. 3. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. admonishing your own selves Is this in order to Church-censure Is it more then exhorting Again Titus 3. 1. Admone illos saith Hierom Admone illos saith Calvin upon the place Our English Bibles some render it Admonish others Warne them to be subject c. Is this in order to Church censure is it more then an Exhortation Again Titus 2. 14. These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority Is to exhort Cum omni imperio with all Rule and Authority less then to admonish Nay more Is private admonition a part of or in order to Church censure according to Christ's rule Mat. 18. or St Pauls Titus 2. 10. Post unam alteram admonitionem Is that private admonition we say mentioned in the first part of your 4th Order against onely the scandalous and forsakers of publique Assemblies and not the exhortation of the Minister to such as are of competent knowledge and blameless of life that they present themselves before the Eldership in order to Church censure Apage Calvin is clear against you upon that text of Titus 3. 10. saying Admonitionem Intelligit nempe Paulus non quamlibet vel privati Hominis sed quae fit à Ministro public â Ecclesiae authoritate So not every private admonition is in order to excommunication in Calvins judgement then what more then an exhortation thus have not Scripture nor Calvin noted this difference 'twixt an exhortation and admonition nor can you we believe produce Fathers or Schoolmen those Criticks speaking for you nor hath Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra noted such a difference nor any we have read of and yet it is in us a radical and grand mistake Yes and the Relative They is as grand a mistake and errour in
order to excommunication in Calvins judgement And this was necessarily implied in the words we used in our Answer when we opposed an admonition in order to further censure unto that which is but an exhortation only intimating plainly enough thereby that there was besides an admonition in order to further censure a meer charitative admonition which was not to be followed with any Church censure in case it prevailed not This is that likewise which our forementioned Reverend Brethren of Essex in their Agreement do also speak of having given their sense upon Mat. 18. 15. they further say in their Agreement pag. 15. n. 6. Besides this Ecclesiasticall admonition we yeeld there may be other charitative admonitions which must not preceed to Ecclesiasticall censure But from all that hath been thus far spoken touching admonition it s very clear that admonition taken strictly and properly is a reprehension in regard of some evill or fault done Though we do not deny but there may be an admonition by way of caution warning to take heed of some sin that one may be in danger to commit We shall now proceed to shew what exhortation is taken in a strict acceptation To exhort strictly is to excite or perswade and stir up unto that which is good and is distinguished from admonition taken properly as is manifest from the Text before quoted 1 Thes 5. 14. Now we exhort you brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 warne them that are unruly c. The Thessalonians are here exhorted only or stird up to perform their duty towards the unruly c. and are not at all blamed by the Apostle but the unruly that were to be warned or admonished were to be reproved and blamed by the Thessalonians for their unruliness And there is place frequently for an exhortation when there is not to be any reprehension or admonition given in regard of any thing amiss But to make this matter yet more plain we may here distinguish of exhortation as before of admonition For exhortation also is either charitative or of private Christians and of which Heb. 3. 13. Exhort one another daily while it is called to day and Heb. 10. 25. Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another c. or authoritative and of the Minister and which may be either publick or private and of which there is often speech in the new Testament As 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort therefore that first of all supplications and prayers c. be made for all men 2 Cor. 9. 5. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren 1 Tim. 6. 21. These things teach and exhort So in one of the Texts alleadged by you Titus 2. 15. These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority Where exhortation may well be distinguished from rebuke though both be authoritative and are to be joyned with Doctrine such applications of Doctrine being very usefull and necessary So 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder By these Texts it is clear that as an exhortation properly is an excitation or perswasion unto something that is good so it is distinguished from admonition taken strictly and which is a reprehension for something amiss and that in many cases it may be usefull when there is not the least intimation of any neglect or sin committed for which the parties so exhorted are reproved Unto which we may further adde Acts 27. 22. where Paul saish to those in the ship with him And now I exhort you to be of good chear This exhortation was not doubtless in order to any Church censure and therefore must needs be distinguished from such an admonition So when it is said of Barnabas that when he had seen the grace of God he was glad and exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave to the Lord Acts 11. 23. This cannot be with any colour understood of any admonition in order to Church censure The best of men that walk never so blamelesly may be exhorted when yet there is no reason why they should be admonished in order to Church censure except men must be admonished and censured for such common infirmities from which no men on earth are wholly free But by this that we have said it is sufficiently evidenced that in Scripture language an exhortation taken strictly and properly is notwithstanding your scoff a different thing from an admonition in order to further censure if it prevail not And we think however you may account of us you had shewed your selves to have been more learned if you had not so causelesly quarrelled with that which is so manifest to any that are versed either in Scripture or any other approved Authors But we shall not examin what you oppose to what we had herein asserted 1. And first you begin with us sharply and say What every admonition a kind of Church censure or in order as we call it thereuntâ— not exhortation so You confess your ignorance of such a distinction not having as yet learned â—t either from Scripture Fathers c. But here you charge us with what we never said c. That every admonition is a kind of Church censure or in order to it and no exhortation so Our distinction intimated that besides the admonition that was in order to Church Censure there might be a charitative admonition as there may be a charitative exhortation yea an authoritative by the Minister when yet there is no place for censure in case the exhortation be successeless This we have shewed you from Scripture though you twit us again with being for the word of God alone for which we are not ashamed to profess our selves to be And thus you have very learnedly in the first place opposed us by imputing to us what we never said 2. But it may be your next is of greater strength and therefore we shall hearken to what you have to tell us sc That the words admonish and exhort are promiscuously used And who ever denied this Here therefore you have put your selves upon the pains to prove what we never gainsayed nay you prove by could not be the catechized persons mentioned immediately before who were to be exhorted only But these only in the beginning of the fourth Order that were to be privately admonished according to the Order prescribed Mat. 18. once or twice to see if they would reforme But this reason because you could not answer you do warily passe it over and never meddle with it 2. But notwithstanding this reason rendred you hope to bfnde us to your absurd and uncharitable construction you had put upon us But when we examine with what Arguments you do it you again discover therein your wonted deficiency And therefore 1. In your reply as it was presented unto us for want of reason wherewith to oppose us the first thing that we meet with in answer to our assertion and