Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	tradition_n	9,173	5	9.2350	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78447	The censures of the church revived. In the defence of a short paper published by the first classis within the province of Lancaster ... but since printed without their privity or consent, after it had been assaulted by some gentlemen and others within their bounds ... under the title of Ex-communicatio 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. ... 6. The presbyterian government vindicated from severall aspersions cast upon it, ... In three full answers ... 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.	Harrison, John, 1613?-1670.; Allen, Isaac, 17th cent.	1659 (1659)	Wing C1669; Thomason E980_22; ESTC R207784	289,546	380

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

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 Je●●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 th●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 ●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

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 ● 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. ●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

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 wi●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

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 prophe●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

may be attributed to some approved Authors may be spurious or corrupted when yet the Authors themselves are not branded And therefore this is but another of your wonted slanders and which through out your Paper are but too common with you But as to the thing it self who knowes not but in the Primitive times there were many spurious works put forth under the names even of the Apostles as appears from 2 Thes 2. 2. and blessed Martyrs that yet are generally rejected as none of theirs and of which sort were those many false Gospels that we read of as of Thomas Andrew Nicodemus and St Peter and St Markes Mass of this sort also are the Apostles constitutions held for Apocryphal as Mr. Perkins shewes in the Decretals and were condemned by the sixth Council of Constantinople The works also of Dionysius Areopagita are by many learned men absolutely denyed to be the works of that Dionysius mentioned Act. 17. for which they do in their Comments upon that Chapter and elsewhere give many reasons We might instance in many others as we shall come anon to speak touching the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius and unto which we had special reference in the passages we used that you here except against but yet without the least reflection upon so glorious a Confessor of the faith of Christ as he was And such as are equal judges and who know what were the practices of Impostors in the Primitive times in putting out their own corrupt writings under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs of those times that thereby they might gain belief to their errors will be farre from censuring us to be void of all modesty and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty as you here do because we said some of the workes that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times were spurious or corrupted considering what Rivet Cocus in his censur a patrum and Perkins in his preparatives to the demonstration of the probleme and other learned men do say touching this matter and we may here well say to you that you had shewed more judgement and honesty your selves if you had not censured us as persons destitute of both and also all modesty for that which all those that read the Fathers with any measure of judgement will readily acknowledge 2. Having vindicated our selves from what you aspersed us with we now come to examine what you cite for the antiquity of Episcopacy which is the Government you plead for And here we observe you take a very high jumpe to use your own expression over all that is to be found in the writings of the Fathers who lived in the three first Centuries of the Church and only pitch upon the Council of Nice that which you find there making as you apprehend most for your purpose and as you say shewing the practice of the Church in its forme of Church Government by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. Although you having a little before insisted upon the exposition and practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Fathers as well as general Councils as the rule to which you would bring Church Governement to be tried and in your first Paper and this also telling of the universal and constant practice of the Church should not so quickly have forgot your own rule and mentioned nothing at all before the Council of Nice out of the writings of the Fathers to evidence what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof touching Church Government especially considering that this was that which in our answer to your first Paper we had put you to prove But you think may be this you do sufficiently by citing the Council of Nice generall Councils shewing us as you say what the Churches practice was considering also that this Council did ratifie and confirme what had been anciently practised by the Church before the sixth Canon mentioning an ancient custome which by it is established Unto this and what further you do here urge for the proving from this Council that which you cite it for we have severall things to say 1. And first though we do most readily yeild all due reverence and esteem unto this Council that was and will be famous for the condemning of Arrius together with his damnable heresie yet we shall mind you of what Augustine quoted by Calvin and alleadged in our answer to your second Paper saith touching insisting on the testimony of this Council He in his Book against Maximinius when he would silence that Heretick contending with him touching the decrees of Synods saith that neither he would object to him the Synod of Nice nor he ought to object to him the Synod of Ariminum but would have them both to contend not by the authority of either of these Synods but by the authority of Scriptures It is also clear from Ecclesiastical story that Constantine did admonish this Council after they were assembled that in the determining and judging of heavenly Doctrine seeing they had in readiness the Evangelical Apostolical and Prophetical Bookes they should fetch from thence their formes of censure and so determine controversies of Religion from the Scriptures and according unto which religious and worthy counsel they proceeded disputing with Arrius from the Scriptures and by the testimonies thereof condemning his heresie 2. Seeing you will have it that the forme of Church Governement by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop Bishop c. was established by this Council and that this Council established nothing herein but what had been defined and asserted as you say afterward by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custome and that the customes which this Council speakes of were deduced down to those times from St Mark the Evangelist We do here enquire of you whether the Church Governement that you would prove from this Council be jure divino or by divine right If it be as we suppose you will and must say it is for which purpose you say it is defined and asserted by immemorial Apostolical tradition and deduced from Mark the Evangelist we do then again enquire of you whether the Governement of the Church by Patriarch Metropolitan Archbishop c. be to be found in Scripture If you say it be we desire you to prove it and make it to appear that it is there found If you say it is not to be found in Scripture it is in vain to urge the authority of the Council of Nice or any other Councils for to prove the divine right of that which is not to be found in Scripture Further you should consider that you alleadging for it immemorial Apostolical traditions and customes of which the Scripture is silent do again joyn hands with the Papists pleading for the authority of unwritten traditions and

customes not to be found mentioned or awarranted by the Scriptures making with them the Scriptures imperfect and that their imperfection must be supplyed by these unwritten traditions but wherein they are opposed by our Protestant Divines to whom we send you touching this matter 3. But that we may come to speak to the Canons themselves that you cite out of this Council particularly 1. First We do not find in that sixth Canon that you do chiefly insist on any of the words Patriarch Primate or Archbishop at all there used only it is decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria he is not called the Patriarch as you call him have power over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis We confess the word Metropolitane is used in this Canon but not any of the other above-mentioned the like whereunto is to be observed touching the seventh Canon by you cited And yet we lay no great stress on this that these words are not there found but hint only thus much to you by the way who take advantage at us in regard of words though without reason but shall grant unto you that the things understood by those words may be there found As touching the thirteenth which you here quote that speakes nothing at all touching the business but wholly concernes the lapsed Catechumeni And whereas you cite the twenty fifth twenty sixth and twenty seventh Canons of this Council you do therein both wrong this Council and your selves in fathering upon them supposititious Canons there being not above twenty Canons that are genuine Indeed it is well observed by Lucas Osiander after he had recited in his Epitome of Ecclesiastical History Centur. 4. lib. 2. Chap. 10. the twenty Canons of this Council and which only he judged to be genuine that there are other besides these that are read in some supposititious writings of the Fathers under the names of Athanasius and Ambrose but he judges them and that rightly to be falsly ascribed to the Synod of Nice Perhaps you judged us to be so little conversant in the Fathers and Councils as that we should have let all these things pass for currant if otherwise we see you are so addicted to the Episcopall cause that you matter not so you can make it out though it be out of supposititious writings 2. As to the main thing you cite this Council for and that which indeed is chiefly to be here insisted on sc the ancient custome that the sixth Canon speakes of touching the power and dignity of the Metropolitanes which yet was not such as you imagine at the first appointing them and of which more anon Let it be granted as you would have it that this Council did not constitute and create those Metropolitans but confirme them and what power and dignity they had before according to an ancient custome yet we say that ancient custome is to be limited in in regard of its Antiquity And 1. It cannot referre so high as to the times of the Apostles there being then no Metropolitan Bishops they being never at all mentioned in the New Testament either by that name or the thing thereby signified 2. Neither can it referre to the age next unto the Apostles because in that age and a good while after a Bishop and Presbyter were all one We shall for the proof of this first mention a very observable passage in a Letter written by the Lord Digby unto Sir Kenelmne Digby and which for the observableness of it is cited by others and with good reason considering how much he was for that kind of Episcopacy that you contend for His words are these He that will reduce the Church now to the forme of Government in the most Primitive times should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of Government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a forme not chosen for the best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forced the Church from what it wisht to what it might not suffering the dignity and State Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it and which soon afterward upon the least lucida intervâlla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy c. You see this Gentleman who was firme for Monarchical Episcopacy doth yet acknowledge that in the most Primitive times and first age of the Church that kind of Episcopacy had no footing and that the Presbyterian Government as it is in Scotland and so consequently as it is in other reformed Churches and with us is nearer to the Primitive patterne of the Church then that Episcopal Governement which you would prove from the Council of Nice And therefore in those times there was no such superiority of a Bishop over a Presbyter no Archbishops and Metropolitans or Primates and Patriarehs as you speak of and for which you quote this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice But if you would peruse Blondellus his Apologia pro sententiâ Hieronymi de Episcopis Presbyteris he would give you a particular and large account touching this matter he undertaking to prove as he is a man of vast reading that untill the year 140. or thereabout there was not any Bishop over Presbyters And in the dayes of Polycarpe we find in his Epistle to the Philippians but two orders of Ministery mentioned sc Bishops and Deacons according to what Paul in his Epistle to the Church had signified more anciently Hear his own words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. therefore you ought to abstain from all these things being subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as unto God and Christ And therefore this ancient custome mentioned in this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which you quote must hereupon be limited and restrained in regard of ancientness and is not to be understood so as to referre to the whole space of 327. years after Christ or thereabout before its assembling although the custome of appointing Metropolitans before might be called ancient comparatively with those customes which were but sprung up more lately or were very new And though we shall not undertake to shew what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for either the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof though it concerned you who are so confident that the whole stream of testimonies to be produced shewing the unanimous consent of Fathers and the universal and constant practice of the Church even up to the Apostles dayes runs so for Episcopacy that there is not the least rivulet for any others to have made this out yet this we may say that Episcopacy did not grow up to that height that it was in at that