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
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
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
Scriptures and that the Word of God alone should determine this controversie c. Who can forbear laughter to see Scripturists under the Gospel as these under the Law Templum Domini Templum Domini crie Verbum Domini Verbum Domiui nothing but Scripture the Word of God being there the onely rule of faith and manners Take to your Bibles then and burn all other Books as the Anabaptists of old did who when they and their Bibles were left together what strange and Phantastical opinion soever came into their brain Their usual manner was to say The spirit taught it them as Mr Hooker in his preface to his Eccles Pol. The determination of Councils and Fathers and the Churches Universal practise for matters of Church Government must all be abandoned and then to that old Question of the Papists Where was your Church before Lutber or that of ours to you Where was your Church before Calvin Just like the Arguing of the Samaritanes with the Jeâ—â—s about the Antiquity of their Church on Mount Gerizim recorded by Joseplus per Saltum by a high Jump over all the Universal practise and successions of the Church you can make your Church and Church Government as ancient as you list by saying it is to be found in the Scriptures referring it to Christ and the Apostles nay higher yet if you please to the Jewish Sanhedrim 1500. years at least before Christ Mr Henderson will assist you much in thâ—s who in his dispute with his Majesty averring that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvins time replyeth Your Majesty knows the Cammon Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches Where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luthers time One part of the Common Answer is it is to be sound in the Scriptures the same I affirm of Presbyterian Government Thus he Make you such defence in behalf of your Church but thanks be to God the Protestant cause hath not doth not nor we hope will ever want far abler Disputants and Champions in her defence against her adversaries then he or you be For though we grant and shall ever pay that reverence to the sacred Scriptures that it is an unsallible unerring rule yet may we not crie up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men both to honour and obey We will indeavour therefore to give either their due according to Christs institution that the Scripture where it is plain should guide the Church and the Church where there 's doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop And you your selves may remember what you affirm of General Councils the Churches Representative nay more of your Provincial Assemblies even in your Answer to that you call the preface to our Paper That there is in them invested an Authoritative juridicall power to whose Authority you profess your selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit alledging 1 Cor. 14. 32. Matth. 18. and Acts 15. for proof hereof to Inquire into Trie Examine Censure and judge of Matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline And tax us as if we refused to submit in such matters to the Judgement of a General Council Though here you retract and eat your own words casting it out as unsound and Hetrodox what was before a Christians duty to practise You still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and discipline to the Judgement and determination of your Provincial Assemblies though you deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church That those should be our guide and rule and comment upon the Word of God to tell us what is his will revealed there touching Church Government and discipline Said we not truely that you seem to submit to your Provincial what you will hardly grant to a General Council But the Church as we have said where there 's doubt or difficulty may expound the Scripture though it be tied as you have said to the rule of Gods Words in such proceedings as Judges to the Law and we are concluded and bound up by that as we are to those cases in the Law which are the Judgement and Exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same The Churches exposition and practise is our rule in such cases and the best rule too As our late King affirmeth viz. Where the Scripture is not so clear and punctuall in precepts there the constant and Vniversal practise of the Church in things not contrary to reason faith good manners or any positive command is the best rule that Christians can follow So when there is a difference about â—nterpretation of Scripture that we may not seem to abound in our own sense or give way to private interpretation Dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others we are not to utter our own phansies or desires to be believed upon our bare word but to deliver that sense which hath been a foretime given by our fore-Fathers and fore-runners in the Christian saith and so we necessarily make another Judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture or else we prove nothing Thus have the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists out of the Word of God too but not according to their own but the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the primitive Church and Councils gave See Mr Philpot that glorious Martyr in Queen Maries dayes to the like Question propounded viz. How long hath your Church stood Answereth from the beginning from Christ from the Apostles and their Immediate Successors And for proof thereof desires no better rule then what the Papists many times bring in on their side to wit Antiquity Universality and Unity And Calvin acknowledgeth as in our last Paper we shewed you there can be no better nor surer remedy for Interpretation of Scripture then what the Fathers in the primitive Churches gave especially in the first four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon which contain nothing saith he but the pure and genuine Interpretation of Scripture and which he professeth to embrace and reverence as hallowed and inviolable So they rest not in private interpretation but willingly submit to a judg and rule besides the Scriptures even such as the Papists themselves cannot except against viz. the primitive Churches practise and Universal and unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils By these our Church is content to be tryed and to this rule we bring the Church Government to be tried thereby And on this score your Presbytery is quite our of doors being of examples and practise of the Church and Testimonies of the Fathers wholly destitute wherein as the King hath it the whole stream runs so for Episcopacy that that there 's not the least rivulet for any others Which you being sensible of have no way to evade this rule but una liturâ to blot out all records and monuments
Testament but also from the ould and which books proving the Presbyterian Government as from Christ and his Apostles so also from the Jewish judicatories to which some conceive Christ alludes Matth. 18. when he saith tell the Chutch which were appointed many hundred years before Christ and answering the opposers of this Government in all the materiall points that ever were objected against it by the greatest Champions for Episcopacy were never yet answered that we have seen to this day And for this assistance however you contemn it yet we bless God neither are we ashamed of Mr. Hendersons answer to his late Majesty telling him that the Presbyterian Government was to be found in the Scriptures as our Divines have answered the Papists sufficiently after the same manner touching other matters as we are not ashamed neither to make this defence on the behalf of our Church And though we thank God heartily for those farre abler disputants and Champions of the Protestant cause then we or any of us have ever pretended to be not thinking our selves worthy to be mentioned for any abilities amongst them yet we desire to know which of those Champions though they refused not to fight against the Papists with their own weapons sc the testimonies of Fathers and Councils did ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion as you do or did they not rather stoutly and irrefragably maintain and defend this main point of faith against the adversary 5. But now you come to tell us what reverence you pay to the sacred Scripture for you say you acknowledg it to be an infallible and unerring rule And will not a Papist say so too But let us enquire of you will you acknowledge the Scripture to be the sole supreme judge of controversies in matters of faith Except you come up to this you are as yet in regard of any reverence you pay to the Scriptures no further then a Papist nay you joyn hands with them for they say as you do we may not cry up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men to honour and obey and sano sensu in a right and sound sense we shall say so too But you further declare your selves touching this matter and say that the Scripture where it is plain should guid the Church and the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop and you quote in your margent BP Laud's Preface that is not against Usher but Fisher * But here 1. You mistake the Question for it is not Whether to the Church belongeth not a Ministry for the expounding of the Scriptures This is readily granted to her by us as it is by our Protestant Divines and that the Texts you cite in the margent will prove 2. You plainly discover your opinion to be no other then what in this point is held by the Papists and is abundantly refuted by our Protestant Divines in their writings The matter is plainly thus and no otherwise for when you say where the Scripture is plain it must guid the Church but where there is a doubt or difficulty the Church is to expound the Scriptures you plainly insinuate that the Scriptute is not to be the sole and supreme judge touching controversies in Religion for there is no controversie in Religion but the Adversaries be they Antitrinitarians Arrians Papists or whomsoever may say as you here do in such and such points in controversie the Scripture is not plain here is a doubt and difficulty and we must stand to the Churches determination who is in such cases to expound the Scripture neither is the Scripture in such cases to be the onely sure infallible interpreter of it self to which all parties are to stand and in whose determination alone they are to rest and into which our faith must be resolved which yet is that which is maintained by our Protestant Divines against the Papists and of which we shall speak more fully anon Onely for the present we must mind you that this assertion is fetcht out of the dreggs of Popery and is such an opinion as all sound Protestants will disclaim neither do the Texts you cite in your margent prove any such a thing Not 1 Tim. 3. 15. that is usually urged by the Papists for that very opinion which you maintain but is sufficiently vindicated by our Divines shewing that the Church is there called the Pillar and ground of Truth in regard of her Ministry onely by her preaching publishing and defending the truth and thereby transmitting it to posterity but not to intimate that the Scripture in any point where there is doubt or difficulty did borrow authority from the Church no more then the Edicts of Princes do from the publishers of them or from the pillars and posts to which they are affixed that they might be the more generally known The other Text sc Cant. 1. 8. proves indeed that the Church hath a Ministry committed to her for the feeding of babes in Christ as well as stronger men which is not denied but if you will stretch it further its plain you wrest it 6. In the last place you urge us with what we our selves granted unto Synods and Councils acknowledging they were invested with an authoritative juridicall power to enquire into try examine censure and judge of matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline and to whose authority we professed our selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit urging Scripture for it c. nothing whereof we do here retract or eat our own words casting that out as unsound and hetrodox as you say we do which before we acknowledged was a Christians duty to practise For here you do not distinguish betwixt the submission of our faith to the determination of Synods and Councils and the submission of our persons to their censure in regard of any matter of Doctrine held forth by us or any practice This latter submission we still do readily yeeld unto them and that in regard of the juridicall authority they are invested with by the Ordinance of God and this submission was that we professed before to yeeld unto them and was that we argued for But as touching the submission of our faith to their determinations or so as to resolve it into any other principles then the Word of God alone or to build it on any other foundation was not that reverence we ever acknowledged was to be paid to Synods and Councils and is that which here we do professedly deny And therefore you do here again no less then slander us when you say we still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and Discipline to the judgment and determination of our Provinciall Assembly and yet deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church whom neither we ever denied to be a guide or their Expositions of Scripture to be an usefull
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
Pauli sensum ingredieris nisi Pauli spiritum imbiberis and again Nunquam Davidem intelliges donec ipsâ experientiâ Psalmorum affectus indueris and therefore the exposition of the Church the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not the best rule for the interpreting of the Scripture Argument 2. Because no men can be sufficient interpreters of the Scripture so as when there is a doubt or difficulty by the interposition of their authority they can remove it and determine the controversie about it because then they should have a dominion over the soul and over faith which the Apostle denies 2 Cor. 1. 24. yea then faith which standeth not in the wisdome of men but in the power of God 1 Cor. 2. 5. should be resolved into the sentence and judgement of men and their sentence be the matter of our faith or the thing that were to be believed and whereon our faith were to be built which were quite to overthrow it and to bring in an humane faith in the room of a divine But on the contrary when there is any controversie about any matter of Religion and so about the interpretation of any Text of Scripture the controversie is to be determined and the doubt and difficulty to be removed not by the authority of any men but by the authority of God and of the Scriptures Whence it was that the Fathers of the Nicene Council disputing with Arrius pressed him with the authority of Scriptures and condemned him by the testimonies thereof And therefore not the unanimous consent of the Fathers and of Councils is to be the rule for the interpreting of Scriptures Argument 3. The unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule for interpreting of the Scriptures because then this should alwayes have been the rule it being of the nature of that which is a rule that it be alwayes one and that sure firme and perpetual but that this was not alwayes a rule is manifest because there was once a time when there were no writings of the Fathers extant nor when there had been any general Councils the Council of Nice that was the first general Council of all other after the death of the Apostles not having been convened till above three hundred yeares after Christ and many of the Fathers having written nothings till four hundred yeares after Christ and some not till five hundred or six hundred yeares after him and so before that time the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils could not be the rule of interpreting Scriptures Besides after the Fathers had written yet there is not in all things an unanimous consent amongst them in their interpreting of Scripture as might be evidenced by several and sundry examples You your selves told us that the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of the word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latin Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselme and others taking this word Presbytery for the function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest as you express it The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and some others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters We shall adde only another example Origen Jerome Athanasius Ambrose do so interpret those words of the Apostle Rom. 7. where he saith I am carnal sold under sin c. as that they say Paul doth not there speak concerning himself but in the person of a man not regenerated whereas Augustine will have it to be understood as indeed it ought to be touching a man that is regenerated and so that Paul there speakes of himself as he most certainly doth Many more examples of this kind might be given but by these we may sufficiently conjecture of the rest Argument 4. Adde unto the former that the Fathers have sundry of them erred which is so manifest to him that is conversant in their writings that it will not be denyed as if any should be so impudent as to deny it it is easie to make it good in manifold instances yea some general Councils have erred as that Council held at Ariminum that established the Arrian heresie and the second Council of Ephesus that confirmed the Eutichian heresie and the second Council of Nice that established the worshipping of Images which is forbidden in the Law of God Whereupon the Fathers have acknowledged that the authority of Councils was only so far of force as their determinations are agreeable to Scriptures and that there lyes an appeal from all unto the Scripture Whence that of Athanasius speaking concerning the Arrians of old urging Councils Fruâ—â—ra inquit circumcursitantes praeteâ—unt ob fidem concilia se postulare Divina enim Scriptura perfectior est sufficientior omnibus Conciliis We see he acknowledged the divine Scriptures to be more perfect and sufficient then all Councils But hence it is clear that if both Fathers and Councils have erred the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule much less the best rule as you speak of interpretinâ— Scriptures Argument 5. Besides sundry of the Fathers and of the writings that go under the names of the most approved Fathers are doubtfull others suppositious and spurious and others corrupted This is clear because there have been many writers heretofore that have been publikely adorned with the title of the Fathers that are now rejected as heterodox and unworthy to be called by the names they go under and whereof if you doubt learned Voetius doth afford you a catalogue That there are also many suppositious and spurious works attributed to the genuine and true Fathers and published with their works which some receive others reject others do doubt concerning is so cleare and manifest that it will not be questioned by any that ever saluted the Fathers writings and had either sound judgement of his own or would believe the censures of the Learned concerning them as of Rivet Erasmus Perkins and others and which is so clear that the Papists themselves as Bellarmine Cajetan and others will not deny it and as if it were to our purpose might be particularly proved by instancing in the suppositious writings attributed to Ignatius Cyprian Basil Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Augustine and others of the most approved Fathers and from all which it will follow that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be a rule for the interpreting of Scripture it being that which will be disputed concerning some whether they be not meer feigned Fathers and concerning sundry of the works that are attributed to the genuine Fathers and in which such Scriptures may be interpreted where there is doubt and difficulty whether they be not suppositious Argument 6. To say nothing of the difficulties or obscurities in the genuine Fathers and their genuine writings by reason of phrases now grown out of use Idiotisms Histories and Antiquities that make them the more hard to us of these
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
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
there hath been occasion But here we must further acquaint the Reader that the errours and depravations of this Paper which we found in it as it had been by them Printed we have rectified as we well might according to the Originall and now exhibit it to the Readers view as it was when it passed from us We have Printed their first Paper as we found it Printed by themselves only we have added the rest of the Names that were subscribed to it when it was presented unto us that so those that were represented to us as the subscribers of it may own it or disown it as they see cause We have divided our Answer to their first Paper into eleaven Sections as also the last Paper of theirs on which we Animadvert into the like number that so by comparing all together it may be the better discerned how they have dealt with us what they reply to and what they omit and we leave the whole together with our Animadversions on the severall Sections of theirs to be judged of by the Reader We have also Printed their two last Papers as we found them Printed by themselves and have noted in the Margents of them both the variations which yet are not great from the Copies that were presented unto us and whereof the letters Cl. and Cop. prefixed to those variations and intimating how it was in those Copies that were exhibited to the Class are an indicium or the sign We confess our Answers to their two last Papers are now grown to a greater bulke then we first intended or then what some perhaps may judge necessary but we wish it might be considered that if some things that fall into debate betwixt them and us be not of generall concernement yet the discussion of them being of use for our vindication and the discovering unto them their errours and faults we conceive that in those respects it was requisite although the Reader may find severall things spoken to that be of common use and whereof we give him some account at the end of this Epistle as also where they may be found that such as have not either leisure or will to peruse the whole may take a view more speedily of what they may chiefly desire to read When we were to give our reasons why we could not consent to admit of Episcopacy moderated we considered that the point touching Episcopacy having been so fully discussed by farre abler Pens we thought it might be the fittest for us to insist chiefly upon the inconveniency and dangerousnesse of that Government and what we in this Land and the Neighbour Nation had experienced in those respects In another place we urge some Arguments to prove a Bishop and a Presbyter to be in a Scripture sense of those words all one What is spoken touching the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office was occasioned from the Texts we had urged though it was but by the way in our Answer to their first Paper and their excepting in their second against our alledging those Texts for that purpose But we do here professe that we do not discusse that point our selves we only transcribe what is solidly and fully done concerning it to our hands by other Reverend and Learned Brethren and therefore when in our Title we mention the clearing up of the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office the Reader is so to understand that branch of it as when we come to speak of that point particularly we there give him our reasons of that transcription We have now no more to acquaint the Reader with and therefore shall leave the whole to his perusall not much mattering the censures of loose and prophane spirits though we hope with such as are unprejudiced and zealous for reformation our endeavours shall find some acceptance And having the Testimonie of our consciences that in the uprightness of our hearts we have aimed at the Glory of God and the good of his Church in what we now send abroad into the world we do not question but that God who is the trier of the hearts and reines and the God of truth will not only own that good old cause of his in the defence whereof so many of his faithfull Servants have suffered in former times but us also the meanest and unworthiest of his Servants in this our standing up for it and so bless our labours herein that they may be of some use for the publique good The Father of Lights and God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace give unto us all and to all His the spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of his Will guide our feet in the waies of Peace and after our manifold and great shakings settle the Affairs both of Church and State upon some sure foundations to the Glory of his own great Name and the everlasting Comfort Peace and Wellfare of all his People Amen AN ACCOUNT Of some of the principall things in the ensuing Discourses 1. THe dangerousness of admitting moderate Episcopacy shewed pag. 85. 2. The Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office is cleared pag. 103. 3. The nature of Schisme opened and the imputation thereof taken off those that disown Episcopacy pag. 121. 4. The being of a Church and lawfully Ordained Ministery secured in the want of Episcopacy pag. 130. 5. The imputation of Perjury taken off from such as do not again admit of Episcopacy pag. 204. 6. The claim of the Presbyterian Government to the civill Sanction made good in the fourth Section of our Answer to the Gentlemens first Paper and further in our Animadversions on their last pag. 219. 7. The Scriptures proved to be the sole supreme Judg in all matters of Religion pag. 255. 8. Councils and the unanimous consent of Fathers not to the rule of the interpretation of the Scriptures pag. 260. 9. Civill penalties not freeing from Ecclesiasticall censures cleared pag. 290. The Title of the Papers as they were Printed by the Gentlemen together with their PREFACE Excommunicatio Excommunicata OR A CENSURE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CENSURES And proceedings of the Classis at Manchester Wherein is modestly examined what Ecclesiasticall or Civill Sanction they pretend for their new usurped power In a discourse betwixt the Ministers of that Classis and some dissenting Christians THE PREFACE IN such an age as this when the heat of vaine and unprofitable controversies has bred more Scriblers than a hot Summer in the Comedians simile does Flies it might seem more rationall according to Solomons rule for prudent men to keep silence then to vex themselves and disquiet others with such empty discourses as rather enlarge then compose the differences of Gods People It was a sad age that of Domitian of which the Historian affirmeth that then Inertia pro sapientiâ erat Ignorance was the best knowledge laziness and servility was the best diligence and we could wish this age did not too much resemble that But when we see
of our Presbyterian discipline c. Unto which we say That we have constantly professed against those of the separation That the several Assemblies or Congregations within this Land that make a profession of the true Christian and Apostolique Faith are true Churches of Jesus Christ That the several members of these Congregations are by their birth members as those that were born in the Jewish Church are said to be by the Apostle Jewes by nature Gal. 2. That this their membership was sealed to them in their Baptism that did solemnly admit them as into the universal Church so into the particular wherein they were born We have also constantly maintained against the afore-mentioned Persons That the Ministers of these Churches are true Ministers notwithstanding that exception of theirs against them that they were ordained by Bishops who also themselves were true Ministers in our Judgement though we cannot acknowledge that by divine right they were superiour to their fellow brethren either in regard of order or jurisdiction And that therefore the Word and Sacraments the most essential marks of a true visible Church according to the professed Judgement of our Divines against the Papists on the one hand and those of the separation on the other dispensed by these Vinisters were and are the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ And that hereupon our work was not when the Presbyterian Government was appointed to constitute Churches but to reform them onely And that therefore none within our bounds except they shall renounce Christianity and their Baptisme can be deemed by us to be without in the Apostles sense and so therefore not within the compass and verge of our Presbyterian Government Neither is it their not associating with us in regard of Government that doth exempt them from censure by it if they should be such offenders as by the rules thereof were justly censurable It not being a matter arbitrary for private Persons at their own will and pleasure to exempt themselves from under that Ecclesiastical Government that is settled by Authority And as you know it would not have been allowed of under the former Government 2 And therefore whether you and all others within our bounds be not comprehended within our Government according to the rules laid down in the Ordinance of Parliament above mentioned appointing the form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland and therein ordaining as hath been recited before in the first page thereof and to which we referre you Especially considering that all within the bounds of our several Parishes that are no other now then formerly even Papists and Anabaptists and other Sectaries were under the late Prelatical Government we leave it to you to judge Onely if so we wish you to consider that then you are brought under the Government of Presbytery not so much by us as by the Parliament appointing this Government And then we think you who warn us not to contemn civil power might well out of respect to the Authority ordaining it but especially considering the word Presbytery is a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4 and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been declared before have used a more civil expression then to have called it a common fold into which it should seem your complains it that you should be driven Although Presbytery layes restraint on none but such as being scandalous in their lives and so contemning the Laws of God are therefore truly and indeed the lawless Persons that we speak of But whereas as you suppose This is our chief design in this as in other transactions of ours to subject all to our Government We doe refer our selves to our course of life past and hope it will witnesse with us to all that will judge impartially what our designes have been in our other transactions And as touching our design in the Paper published whether it hath been ought but the information of the ignorant and reformation of the scandalous to the Glory of God and their salvation we leave it to be judged by those that will judge of mens intentions by what is expressed in their words and actions We know very well we are charged by some that we affect Dominion to Lord it over the People and to have all sorts of Persons of what rank soever to stoop to us But we do openly professe that the Government of the Church that is committed unto men is not Despotical but Ministerial That it is no Dominion but a Ministery onely And that the Officers that are intrusted with it are themselves to be subject both in regard of their bodies and estates to the Civil power That by the Ordinance of God they are appointed to be under and that in their Government they have nothing to do with the bodies and estates of any Persons but with their Souls onely Although here we desire to enquire of you whether if you be indeed for the settling of any Government at all in the Church as you professe to be you do not think that all should be subject to it We cannot judge you to be so irrational as to be for a Government and that yet subiection to it must be denyed And if the late Government of the Prelacy was not blamed by you because it required subjection to it we wish you to consider whether upon this account you have reason to censure us But further whereas you tell us That we garnish over our Government with the specious title of Christs Government Throne and Scepter We wish you to consider what in your Answer to an objection that you frame out of our Paper your selves doe say You there tell us You pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is consonant to the will of God and universal practice of primitive Churches that Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the World The expressions you here use are as high touching that Government you would have established as any have been that ever we have used of ours For your prayer is That Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the world The Government then that you are for must be with you Christs Government Throne and Scepter And why do you then condemn us if we have used such expressions concerning our Government till you have convinced us that it is not such When yet you take to your selves the liberty to use the like language concerning the Government you pray may be established But where as you say Presbytery is the main thing driven at here and that however she comes ushered in with a Godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and the ignorance of the times and the duty incumbent upon us
the Sacraments as Hierome doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech he is onely called a Bishop which is in the Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. However it is not reasonable that we should be obliged to own every expression here used by this reverend Author who is produced by you as an Adversary to us in the matter in Controversie yet here we desire that it might be observed 1. That he onely saith for Order and seemly Government there was alwaies one Principall to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applyed By which words he seems clearly to intimate that that superiority which a Bishop had above the rest of the Clergy or Presbyters was but an Ecclesiasticall Constitution onely in that he ascribes it to Order and Decency 2. He makes a Bishop and an Elder in Scripture to be but of one Order and Autority in preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments as he saith Hierom doth often confess all which you leaving out do obscure Doctor Fulk's meaning For he asserting a Bishop and an Elder in Scripture to be but of one Order and Authority in preaching the Word and attributing the difference that is betwixt them in regard of Government to the ancient use of Speech sc That he onely is called a Bishop which is in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. citing the Texts above mentioned doth intimate a quite different sense to what you alledge him for For he doth not say that the Scripture in these Texts called the Bishop onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which purpose you alledge him but that by ancient use of Speech which might be different from the use of Scripture and as in this particular it was he is called a Bishop which is in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By which we doubt not it is clear to the judicious Reader that Doctor Fulk is not in the number of those many that you say apply these Texts to the Bishops onely taking the word Bishops as you take them We have now done with that you have produced here to satisfie us touching Lay-Elders as you call them that they are not meant nor mentioned in those Texts by us alledged which you undertook with some confidence but have as unsatisfactorily performed as we think ever any did that did attempt a matter of this nature Yet you now proceed hereupon to make your inference That therefore it can be no betraying the truth of Christ to part with the ruling Elders if we will seriously weigh it in the Ballance of impartiall and unprejudicate reason which yet you have not produced that might with any shew be sufficient to satisfie the Conscience either of us or any other men and to take in the other i. e. the Bishops which you say would be but a strengthning and a backing of it though we see not how And now you fall upon exhorting and beseeching us in the name of God which we hope is dear unto us and in the tender Bowels of Jesus Christ for whom we are willing to suffer the loss of all things and to whom we profess to owe our selves and whatever we are or can do as unto the Lord that bought us and to whom we must be faithfull as being his Stewards not to stand upon circumstantials though the ruling Elder whom you exhort us to part with is not a meer circumstantiall matter he being a Member of Christs Organicall Body and an Officer appointed by him in his Church as hath been already shewed or private interests which we see not how is any way advanced by our pleading for the ruling Elder but to apply our selves to the way of conjuncture and reconcilement of many poor Christian Soules whose Welfare we have reason to tender as we hope we do propounded by you and called by you happy though as we have shewed apprehended by us to be both dangerous and indeed destructive unto Union and asserted by you to be a way of reconcilement of them in truth love and peace and which if we could discern we should upon that account embrace with all our hearts we having already professed enough for peace and whether our Professions and Hearts do not go together is known to the Searcher of the Hearts and Reins as our earnest contending for the truth is that which hinders some men from being at peace with us But after you have propounded the tearms of reconciliation which you beseech and beg of us againe and againe to accept of though we should not need to be so earnestly intreated if they were safely to be admitted of you come to urge some Fruits that would ensue upon our hearkning to your motion And here we shall not deny but the blessing that might redound to all parties in a just way of reconciliation would be unconceivable as it is that we shall be ready to lay out our selves to our utmost for as we see there is any hope or probability to attain it We do also confess that the lives and manners of dissolute persons and how many there are amongst your selves of that sort you say you are but to too conscious as we do earnestly pray that both you and we may be so sensible thereof as that we may more truly and deeply lay it to heart may by a true loving accord which yet is to be in the way of truth with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed and in which way their reformation is most desirable or by due censures corrected and amended we not being willing that such sharp Physick should be applyed for any other end But here we cannot but express our feares least there be some amongst us and we heartily wish that you be not found in the number that are of that temper that whatever might be the fruit of brotherly admonition and Church censures and of reconciliation and union amongst all Parties and hereof you profess to be desirous they are resolved to be reconciled in no other way then upon admittance of Episcopacy and casting out of the ruling Elder But with those that are of this stamp we have no hopes of any cordiall Union till God alter their Judgments and change their hearts But whereas to perswade us to accept of the tearms of Union by you propounded you now do further add and say That amongst our selves also many who returning to their Canonical Obedience which they have sworn to may blot out the charge of Schisme that lies upon them and the Church of God be continued amongst us from age to age to the end of the world in a succession of a lawfully ordained Ministry We are far from being convinced by these Argument and must take the liberty to speak to them particularly and fully that so we may wipe off the Aspersions that thereby
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
setling a Government in the Church we did not judg you to be so irrationall as to be for a Government and yet deny subjection to it whence also it was clear that that was not to be condemned in us which you would justifie in your selves yet about this also in this your Reply there is deep silence But thus we have shewed how you are pleased to severall things in our Answer to say nothing as it will be evident to the Reader you say as good as nothing in sundry places where you would seem to say something and yet you would be thought to say what might be sufficient to give us satisfaction For in your second Paper speaking to one head of our Answer sc that about ruleing Elders you said you would proceed to shew us that lay-Elders as you call them are not meant in the Texts by us alledged briefly thus but more largely hereafter if what is comprehended in this Paper be not judged satisfactory and yet when you should come in this Reply in the next Section to make this appear more fully you say nothing to the Texts we urged but only that they are too generall to prove our ruling Presbytery out of and tell us of wresting the Scriptures with such like expressions suitable to your way of replying all along and which we doubt not but the wise Reader will of himself observe onely we thought it requisite upon the occasion you here give us to mind him of it that he might the better observe you through your whole Reply But we shall now examine whether we had not just cause to be offended at you for your calling Presbytery a common fould One of the reasons which we gâ—ve you mention and that indeed which was the chief yet there was another given in that parenthesis which you touch not on sc That out of respect to the authority ordaining it you might have used a more civil expression But this it seems you had no minde to meddle with the authority of that Parliament that setled the Presbyterian Government being of little esteem with those of you that were either actually engaged with or friends unto the party that fought against it and whereupon it is no great wonder that you omit this reason of our offence But the other you speak to and that with some more freedom then doth become you as we shall shew anon This other reason was this Considering the word Presbytery is a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been declared before you might have used a more civil expression In answer unto this 1. You tell us the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of this word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. And we must tell you that of what low and cheap abilities soever we may be accounted with you yet this different interpretation of this place whereof you would seem to inform us out of the Fathers we have been long since acquainted with onely when you alledg the Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilacâ— Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also taking the word Presbytery for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hand on the new made Bishops or Priests you must hereupon 1. Acknowledg that these Fathers held Bishops and Presbyters to be all one else how could they understand by Presbyters the Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests you do here represent them to explain the word Presbyters by Bishops and the word Bishops by Priests which word is the same in sense with Presbyters which is manifestly to make Bishops and Presbyters all one This we desire to be took notice of because when you may come hereafter to be pressed with it we fear you that are so ready to charge us therewith will your selveâ— run back and eat your own words 2. You confess that they expound this word touching the company of Presbyters which is enough for our vindication when we said that 1 Tim 4 was interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do 3. And whereas you say they take it for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops and again the word Bishops by Priests that is a quipollent to the word Presbyters you must hence be forced to confess that these Fathers acknowledged the Ordination by Presbyters only to be valid they by their explication of themselves by you alleadged making Bishops and Presbyters who without controversie laid on hands all one And therefore if you here be of the mind of these Fathers by your selves produced you must retract your opinion formerly declared with much confidence against the Ordination by Presbyters only There is no place for you here to evade except you shall say that the Fathers by you alleadged and explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops or you expounding them so by Bishops understand such Bishops as were superiour to Presbyters either in Order and Jurisdiction or at least in degree and whom you will have to concurre at the least and preside in the Ordination or it is null and void but this is to say that the Fathers expounding the Scripture do make it a nose of wax and in effect to assert that quidlibet may be drawn ex quolibet For if by Presbyters that are expresly mentioned not Presbyters themselves but another and distinct sort of persons are to be understood never called in Scripture by that name may we not by this rule of exposition make the Scripture speak what we please according to our own fancies and contrary to the express words of the Text To say nothing that this evasion if admitted would not help the matter at all feeing you do here represent the Fathers not only explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops but again explaining the word Bâ—shops by Priests the same word in sense with Presbyters and so making them every way one because they make these words Bishops and Presbyters mutually to explain one another 2. We have done with the different interpretation of the Fathers upon the Text 1 Tim. 4. and now we come to Calvin whom you bring in here as contrary to himself in that Exposition that he gives upon it But we see you have a mind to asperse him though he be so farre above you in regard of that deserved praise that he hath throughout the Churches that it is not your biting at him that can detract any thing from him else you would not have said that in his Comment upon this place he is as farre opposite to his judgement delivered in his institutions as high noon is to midnight For however in his Comment upon this place he first saith Presbyterium qui hic collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum recté sentiunt meo judicio yet he addes Tametsi omnibus
or tendered his judgment as an umpire and composer of differences betwixt us as you here say although we reverence him as a man that was learned and godly and of a farre different spirit from the generality of those that dote upon Episcopacy but for what purpose we quoted him and how farre we accord with him we have as in answer to this occasionally so fully declared our sâ—lves before in our answer to your second Paper And therefore you should not have been thus rash as to impute such things to us for which there is not the least shew of truth as there is not any in what you further adde saying that you would have closed with us on our own termes unto which we have spoken sufficiently in the beginning of this answer to this Paper shewing how much you forgot your selves when you said so before And we must further tell you that however you may conceive of us yet we can still profess with a good conscience that we can cordially our selves joyn in Dr. Bernards wish and heartily recommend it to all sober spirited and godly persons that are sound in the main points of Religion though of different opinions in some things touching Church Government that they would close therein there be nothing more that we long after then an happy healing of breaches amongst those that are the children of peace 4. We having thus vindicated our selves do now come to what followes where you say that Presbytery in the Fathers and Scripture expressions you reverence but ours you still term a common fold and thâ—se godly pretences of ours as you call them as so many waste Papers wherein our Presbytery you say is wrapped to make it look more handsomely and pass more currantly But if you had reverenced Scripture expressions as it had been meet you should you would have abstained from terming our Presbytery a common fold that Presbytery which you acknowledge to be the Scripture expression according to the interpretation of the Fathers by you alleadged being thereby reproached that being Presbytery still and part of that that by you is so ignominiously spoken of as seeing it is disputed betwixt you and us whether ruling Elders be not comprehended under the latitude of the word Presbytery when speech is touching the Ecclesiastical judicatory due reverence unto Scriptural institutions would have withheld you from coming near to the vilifying that which you are not certain but may be of God especially considering how the reformed Churches abroad the late reverend pious and learned Assembly of Divines at home the Provincial Assembly of London and the Ministers of the Provincial Assembly of this County to which you owe respect do all conceive the ruling Elders to be Officers of the Church appointed therein by Christ and so consequently may be comprehended under the latitude of the word Presbytery But the truth is we have cause to fear that you or most of you are so much devoted to Episcopacy that Presbytery in any sense is not any further in esteem with you as any Government of the Church to be owned by you but as you apprehend in this juncture of affairs it being admitted for the present with Prelacy moderated might be a step to erect again in time Episcopacy in its full height and which we judge to be that cause which in your Preface to these Papers you have printed you profess to love as we do also conceive we may further say without transgression of any rules of charity that if the late King had not been too much bent for the upholding of that kind of Episcopacy that was on foot in his time that spoiled the Pastors of the Churches of that rule which our Church acknowledged did of right belong to them and had not been therein backed with the concurrence of some of you and sundry others throughout the Land that were therein fully of his mind the proposals of Dr. Usher touching the reduction of Episcopacy to the forme of Synodical Government had been more readily complied with then they were to the prevention in likelihood in a good measure of those troubles that afterward did arise about Church Government But however there was no reason why either he or you should have called Presbytery a common fold or why you should though you had been backed with the authority of the greatest Prince on earth have called it the anguis in herbâ whereof you had need to beware and to which you here say nothing though you used that expression concerning it in your first Paper And whereas you had also there said referring to the Paper we published in our several Congregations that she came ushered in with godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and ignorance of the times and the duty incumbent on us to exercise the power that Christ had committed to us for edification and not destruction and then said that these were but so many wast Papers wherein Presbytery was wrapped up to make it look more handsomely and pass more currently yet that is no purgation of you from your uncharitable censuring of us and usurping that which belonged not to you in making your selves judges of that which fell not under your cognizance and which was that which we had charged you with in our answer but from which you do not here acquit yourselves But as touching our selves we are not conscious that we have so farre transgressed the rules of charity in passing hard censures either upon him you or any others but that we may approve our selves here to God touching our innocency herein and the sincerity of our hearts and hereafter stand with boldness before the Tribunal of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ at the great day and we do heartily wish that neither any of you or any others throughout these Nations who adhered to the late King in that war he levyed against the Parliament had given the occasion justly to be complained of at that day as therein his greatest enemies The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VI. And now we come you say to frame an Objection out of your Paper and return our Answer profeising that we pray for the establishment of such a Church Government throughout his Highness Dominions as is consonant to the will of God and Universal practise of primitive Churches By which two viz. the will of God and Uinversal practise of Churches we seem to make up the rule as you say for deciding of Controversies of this Nature or of any other in matters of Religion In which you profess to differ greatly from us as not sound and orthodox For the Word of God is the onely rule to judg of matters of this Nature or of any other matters of Religion and therefore away with the constant and Universal practise of the Church We might have cut the matter a great deal shorter and said That we are for the establishment of that Government that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in
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
were not within the bounds of the Class To which the Committee returned Answer they might then take Mr Allen and Mr Pollet that were two Ministers that had subscribed the first Paper and the Class would appoint two Ministers only on their behalf to meet these and some Elders to meet with the like number of Gentlemen to be by them nominated But this not being accepted of and the Committee not being authorized by the Classe to appoint a meeting with those that were out of their bounds it was concluded by the Committee that they would make report to the Class what was desired by Mr Mosely on the behalf of the Gentlemen that so the Class might take that proposall of theirs into their consideration And Mr Mosely said that he would desire Mr Allen and some others to be at the next Classicall meeting to receive the Answer of the Class touching the same And thus the matter betwixt Mr Mosely and the Committee was issued l Classicall Records Mr Allen Nicholas Mosely Esq and other Gentlemen came again to the Class the matter of accommodation was proposed between them and the Class they desired liberty to choose some persons for their part that were not within the Class which was consented unto by the Class the persons nominated by them were Mr Allen Mr Clayton Mr Lightfoot Ministers Mr Nicholas Mosely Mr Francis Mosely and Mr Nathaneell Robinson Gentlemen By the Class were nominated Mr Heyrick Mr Angier Mr Harrison Ministers Mr Hide Captain Ashton Mr Wickins Ruling Elders and the time and place of meeting was by mutuall consent to be agreed on when Mr Heyrich should by the providence of God be returned from London m Classicall Records July 13. 1658. This Class having notice that the Papers which have passed between this Class and Mr Allen and others were Printed with a Preface unto them it was agreed that Mr Heyricke Mr Angier Senior Mr Harrison Mr Newcome Mr Constantine Mr Leigh Mr Jones Mr Walker Ministers Mr Robert Hyde Esq Captain Ashton Mr Strangways Mr Wickins Mr Meare Mr Buxtons Mr Byrome Ruling Elders they or any five of them three being Ministers be a Committee to take this matter into consideration and to meet as they judg fit and see occasion to proceed in this business and to make report of their proceedings the next Class n Classicall Records Aug. 10. 1658. The Committee appointed by the last Class to take into consideration the business of the Papers lately Printed as beforesaid gave an account to this present Class of their proceedings viz. That upon their meeting they agreed to write a Letter to Mr Allen which was in these words directed o Classicall Records To his Reverend Brother Mr Allen at Prestwich These Sir At our Classicall meeting in May last your self and others with you did agree with us upon a meeting in order to an accommodation The time for it was referred by mutuall consent till Mr Heyricks return from London your selves promising upon his return the first Class after to appoint some to attend the Class for the appointing the time and place for the said meeting you were some of you according to the said Agreement expected this day but instead of that we meet with all the Papers Printed and a Preface annexed to them This is to desire you that you would be pleased in the behalf of your self and the rest to certifie us under your hands whether your self and the rest do own the Printing of the Papers with the Preface This I was commanded by the Class to send to you and to desire your speedy Answer Your respective Brother W. Leigh MODERATOR Be pleased to direct your Answer to Mr Heyricke This Letter was the next day delivered to Mr Allen he promised to attend in person on Mr Heyricke the next day after which he accordingly did the account of which their further Answer to the Letter is thus given in under Mr Heyrickes hand Mr Allen came to Mr Heyricke Mr Mosely of the Ancoats accompanying him he said concerning the Printing of the Papers and the Preface he knew nothing of them and therefore he brought Mr Mosely who could give the account Mr Heyricke desired the Answer in writing they both promised they would speak with the rest of the Subscribers and they would within a Fortnight give their Answer in writing within the time prefixed Mr Allen came to Mr Heyricke and told him he had met with them that had Subscribed the Paper and they denied that he should give any Answer in writing saying the Class would but take advantage by it and that now he must own both the Papers and the Preface that there might be no breach amongst themselves RICHARD HEYRICKE 2 Cor. 12. 13. Dr Goffe Dr Vane Dr Bayly c. See Legenda lignea Dr. Hamm. See pag. 144. of his last Book Even as a General Council it self is subject to errour Gal. 2. * The Assemblies Propâ—sitions about Church Government The Jus Divinum by London Ministers The Provincial Synod of London their vindication of the Presbyterian Government Rutherfords due right of Presbyteries Aarons Rod by Gillaspie * Cl. Cop. Full of civility toward us though not of brevity * Cl. Cop. another Cl. Cop. taken away are those any Minister Cl. Cop. Instit lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 8. c 15. Dr. And. Serm. upon worshipping imaginations See Sect. 5. Reasons against moderate Episcopacy 1. Reason Sect. 10. * Wren excommunicated suspended or deprived silenced fifty godly painfull Ministers in two years in Norwiâ—h Diocess for not reading the Book for Sports on the Lords-day for using conceived Prayer before and after Sermon for not reading the Service at the Altar and such like expelled three thousand persons with their Families into other Lands by such dealings Bishop Pierce his practises in the like kind are not forgotten He put down Ministers and Preaching till he thanked God that he had not a Lecture in his Diocess He suspended Ministers for preaching on Market-dayes yea put the Minister to Penance that did but explain the Church Catechisme c. See Mr. Baxter on these things in his defence of the Worcestershire Agreement Pag. 51. 2 Reason * Resutat libel de Regim Eccles Scotorum in pag. 89. 3. Reason 4 Reason 5. Reason * Vide pag. 13. Of the Essex Agreement The Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office Pag. 42 43. Esthius in Rom. 1â— Aliis placet etiam hac parte speciale quoddam charisma sive officium significari misereri dicaâ—â—â— iis qui ab ecclesia curandis miseris postissimum aegrotis praefectus est i. isque praebet obsequia velut etiam hodie fit in nosocomiis qui sensus handquaquam improbabilâ—s est * Vide pag. 38 39 40. 41 42. Calvin in locum Chrysost upon 1 Cor. 12. 28. Estius upon 1 Cor. 12. 28. Vide pag. 45 46 47. 48. * See the Propositions of the Assembly touching Church-government bound up with the Confession of Faith Catechisme pag. 9 10. The imputtion of Schtaken off * See Sect. 9 of their third Paper * Vide loc theol tom 5. cap. 11. Sect. 156. Page 1. * Ibid. ex Acts 20. 27 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken Mat. 2. 6. Rev. 12. 5. and 19. 15. The being of the Church a lawfully Ordained Ministry secured in the want of Episcopacy * Vide pa. 128. of Dr. Bernards late Book * Vide pa. 126. Lib. de Ecclesia cap. 18. fo 123. Cl. cop We have already returned our thanks for your Answer full of civility as to us though not of brevity * See the first Section of it towards the close Cl. cop The Scribe * This is manifest from the advice of the Assembly to the Parliament touching Church Government Cl. cop Say now Cl. cop Several Associations a See forme of Church-government pag. 30. * See Sr Francis Bacon Matth. 28. ver 18. Col. 4. 17. 2 Chr. 26. 18. Vide pag. 130. of their last Book published by Dr Bernard The imputation of perjury taken off a See their jus divinum Ministerij evangelici part 2. pag. 143 144. 2d part Institut fol. 157 158. ‖ See Sect. 9. toward the end The claim for the Presbyterian Government to the civil Sanction made good Cl. cop censurable Cl. cop For this all parties hisse you and laugh you to scorn having as full c. Object Answ Lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 16. in fine Cl. cop wandering Cl. cop He was a Person of known Eminency in his dayes Cl. cop the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 15. Cant. 1. 8. Bishop Lauds preface against Usher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 17. â— Cl. cop cap. 9. 20. cap. 19. Sect. 5. Cl. cop this mannâ— wresting The Jesuite The Scriptures the sole supreme judge of all matters in Religion Councils and Fathers not the rule of the Scriptures interpretation ‖ See the Provincial Assembly of London in their Jus divinum Ministerij Evangelici part 2. pag. 107. See also Mr. Baxter in his desence of the Worcesteshire agreement pag. 61 62. ‖ See his Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus * part 2. cap 4. * See quest 2. p. 29. Cl. cop cap 2. Civil penalties do not free from Ecclesiastical censure See the â—ction Statutâ— Fardin Pulton See Câ— on of tâ— tutes â—â— dinanaton Cl. cop is See Sâ— towardâ— te rend◠‖ The of Irela Bishop colne th of Carli * Censure to which only the Relative They in the 5th Order is limited Apage Cl. cop Cl. cop * Ha ha hae a The same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Nineveh not Calah is a great City where the Relative c. * See part 1. page 51 52.
shall be severall of them found to allow of the thing it self and give testimony to the being of these Officers in the Church in their time We shall here mention onely some of those that may be alledged touching this particular And first Ambrose his words on 1 Tim. 5. 1. are full and plain to our purpose Vnde synagoga postea Ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum sibi volunt aliquid videri i. e. Whence both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Elders without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church Which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not unless perhaps through the Teachers sloathfulness or rather haughtiness while they alone would be thought somewhat In the next place observe what Optatus saith lib. 1. Adversus Parmen Eram Ecclesie ex auro argento quam plurima â—rnamenta quae nec defodere terra nec secum poâ—tare poterat quare fidelbus Ecclesiae senioribus commendavit i. i. e. The Church had many Ornaments of Gold and Silver which she could neither hide in the Earth nor carry away with her which she committed to the Elders The Provinciall Assembly of London do observe that Albaspinaeus that learned Antiquary upon the place acknowledgeth that besides the Clergy there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the Affaires of the Church of whom this place is to be understood To these we may add That Austine gives frequent intimations of the ruling Elder in his time We shall here onely mention some places In his 137. Epistle to those of his owne Church he thus directs it Dilectissimis fratribus Clero Senioribus universae plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis i. e. To the most beloved Brethren the Clergy Elders and all the people of the Church at Hippo. Where we see Elders are mentioned distinctly and are interposed between the Clergy and the people as distinct from both Again De verb. Dom. Serm. 19. Cum ob errorem aliquem asâ—nioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui de illis cur ebrius fuerit c. When they are reprehended for any errour by the Elders and its imputed to any of them why was he drunk c. So againe Lib. 3. contra Cresconium cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Musticanae regionis Peregrine the Presbyter and the Elders of the Mustican Region And long before him Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. hath this passage Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi caelu interdicant c i. e. There are some Rulers appointed who may enquire concerning the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted that they may debar from the common Assembly such as commit filthiness This place of Origen is clear for ruling Elders whose work it is to enquire into the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted to communicate with the Congregation at the Lords Table and is so understood by others as well as our selves We might alledge more Testimonies of the Fathers for the proof of what we are in hand with but that we judge these sufficient Even those that do oppose the ruling Elders Office with too much vehemency are forced to confess that besides Pastors and Doctors and besides Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to be found in Antiquity Seniores ecclesiastici Ecclesiasticall Elders also But they will have them to be onely as our Church-wardens or rather as our Vestry-men as one of them speaks See the Author of Episcopacy by divine right pag. 146. whereas the Testimonies alledged shew they were Rulers and Judges in Causes Ecclesiasticall and did assist the Ministers of the Word in the ruling and governing of the Church which being very clear from the above mentioned Testimonies and others of the like kind another zealous enough against them would have them to be some or other in chief Rank amongst the rest of the people taken in occasionally for advice and present assistance and so an extraordinary kind of Church-Guardians without any peculiar and setled Jurisdiction Which is but gratis dictum sayd without all proof See Velitatienes polemicae by I. D. pag. 96 But at last this Author as not satisfied with former Answers given and granting that the Fathers in truth do make for them as indeed they do yet he would not have their Testimonies amount to so much as to the clearing up of Divine Right so strongly stood upon by divers as he speaks But the matter of Fact then is granted that there were such Ecclesiastical Officers which the Fathers owned and allowed of And being the Divine Right of their Office was not then questioned it is as easie for us to affirm that as those Fathers did not deny it so they owned it as it is for that Author to say That they were but admitted as an expedient and behoovefull Order in the Church or on prudentiall grounds To use his own expressions quoted before Vide Pag. 96. Sect. 30. Although this being granted will be sufficient to vindicate this Office of the ruling Elder from all suspition of novelty and to shew That it was no new fangled device of Calvin at Gevena as some tauntingly have sayd And for your admittance of the ruling Elder this might be sufficient for your satisfaction as we think according to your Principles But now to return to the Texts alledged by us to prove the Divine Right of the ruling Elders Office After you had sent us to the Fathers to consult them you tell us Many there are that apply them to the Bishops and amongst these you instance Doctor Fulk applying these Texts to the Bishops onely whom you say you quote in regard of the moderate Judgment he was supposed to be of in point of Church-government c. But you having not dealt so fairely with Calvin as had been meet you must pardon us if we cannot take the matter you quote him for upon trust and from your representation of him You do not here cite the place but for what reason your selves best know as we leave it to the Reader for to judge But the words that you alledge out of him though mangled by you we find in him in his Answer to the Rhemists on Titus 1. 5. And we shall give them the Reader intirely and at full length and they are these Amongst whom speaking of the Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was alwaies one Principall to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applyed Which Room Titus exercised at Crete Timothy in Ephesus and others in other places Therefore although in Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in preaching the Word and administration of
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