Scripture and your sext to compleat the carier of your delusions Notwithstanding that the clâ—arest light both of Reason and Religion do exact a definite constant portion of time for a rest and this rest to be holy unto the Lord that the Law of God in recommending the celebration of the old Sabbath doth found it upon a perpetual determination of the seventh part of time grounded on Divine Authority and example and lastly that the Scripture in the antiquating of the service and observation of the Jewish Sabbath doth evidently translate the keeping of the perpetual holy rest unto the Lords day the first of the week Notwithstanding I say of these firme grounds your sext attempt darres to unfix this grand Ordinance the reverence or contempt whereof hath in all ages of the Church by experience been found of great moment and unquestionable influence either as to the promoving or decay of true Piety and Godlinesse how justly may it be said of you and your Compliâ—es who endeavour to make void the Divine institution of this day which your predecessours so grosly and wickedly profaned ye be witnesses there ore unto your selves that you are their Children fill ye up the measure of your Fathers But O â—ear lest you do not escape the damnation of Hell I will not take Notice of your own or your Non-conformist's meen reflection on these things That they may prove our Church was not perfâ—ct but will not justify you your answere to that which follows viz. do you mean to lay aside the Scripture 〈◊〉 rather to be considered wherein leaving the retortion of â—ouâ— objected insolence and big pretending to the impartiall examiner of what you have alledged and I replied â— come â—o your summe of the whole matter which you say is That the Scriptures were designed bâ— God for the purifying of the hearts and conversations of Men Most true And therefore it was not necessaire they should contain direct rules for the Church-policie which being a half Civill matter needs not Divine warrants a strange inference whereof almost every word is a ridle for first you grant that the Scripture doth contain Rules though not Direct rules for the Church-policie and yet you adde almost immediatly that it needs no divine warrant Then what mean you by Direct rules if you mean Particular as the subjoined Antithesis of Common doth give us to understand let these Scripture rules Common or not be observed and particular determinations thereto duely squared and it is all we contend for Search therefore the Scriptures and whatever latitude may be left therein as to the regulation of necessary and common circumstances according to decencie and order for Edification Yet I am confident that as to the substance and main of the Officers Discipline and Government of the Church the matters in controversie betuixt us both you shall be found thereby clearly condemned and we justified but if by denying the Scripture to contain direct rules for the Church-policie you understand that it only holdeth out indirect unstraight and ambiguous rules applicable to any forme as may best sute serve the interests and lusts of vain Men this indeed is agreeable to your scope but as far from Scripture as it is dissonant to the truth of God and Great ends of the Gospel 2. What do you understand by the Church policie its Officers Discipline and Government are the things which we contend for If you think these half Civil I would gladly learn what a Church as such can have more Ecclesiastick certainly if a distinct Head Jesus Christ a distinct Authority flowing from that all Power given to him a distinck manner nothing like but wholly opposite to the way of Civil rule distinct effects and ends as Holinesse and eternall perfection are from external justice and temporal peace and lastly a distinct subsistence of the Church and its Policie not only when disowned but mortally persecute by the Civil Powers may prove the Policie Ecclesiastick to differ from the Civil there can be nothing more clearly disterminat but if by Policie you only mean the externall protection and assistance which the Civil Magistrat may and ought to give to the Church it is not only half but wholly Civil as to its rise and cause and therefore the acknowledgement thereof we render under God heartily and entirely to the Powers which he setteth up I might further question what you call half Civil and how you come to deny that Divine warrant which at first you half grant but I shall content my self to declare the falshood of your inference understood of the Discipline and Government of Gods house the subject of our debate by shewing you that its plain contradictory is a Scripture truth viz. The Scriptures were designed by God for the Purifying of the hearts and conversations of men and therefore it was necessary they should they do contain direct rules for the Churches Policie wholly Ecclesiastick appointed by Jesus Christ The reason of the consequence is clear not only because the Church Policie viz. its Officers Discipline and Government are expresly and directly ordained by our Lord for our Sanctification Salvation as I have formerly shewen therefore their necessity such as cannot without the highest presumption be called in question but also because their usefulnesse in order to these ends is by diverse Scriptures undeniably held forth And he who as the Son was faithful over his own house gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. yea and all the Gifts Power Authority and Directions to be found in Scripture concerning them for the work of the Ministrie the Edifying of the body of Christ and perfecting of the Saints Is a truth so evident that I marvail how you could adventure on this Architectonick reasoning and offer to lay down the end and project of the Gospel and then frame and Modell its institutions and midses according to your own imagination and not rather humbly endeavour in the recognisance of his wonderfull love and fidelity to and care of his Church his own body with all sobriety to pursue the knowledge and practice of what things-soever he hath ordained for its edification I might further remember you that the rebuke and all the Censures of discipline are for Edification the Saving of the soul making sound in the faith and Causing others to fear and that we finde the exercise of the Churches Authority and Government in that Meeting and Decree made at Ierusalem attended with The consolation and establishment of the Churches But if your own concessions be but a little pressed they will easily exhibite the inconsistencie of your vanity you say then That the common rules are in Scripture 1. That there should be Church Officers and are not their Power Degrees and Ministerial Authority as certainly therein defined 2 That these should be separate for that function Ought not then the best among them give themselves continually and wholly to Prayer and to the
therefore left us to the worse Tyranny of mens pretended and corrupted power and deluded imagination God forbid but as the hath set us free for ever so he hath only laid on us his own easie â—â—oke and light burthen of Pure and Evangelick ordinances by which our Liberty is so far from being intringed that it is thereby both preserved and enlarged In the next place you say Since no Allegorie holds it is ridiculous to argue because offices in a Kingdom are named by the King therefor it must be so in the Church It 's answered 1. do you then think that our Lords Kingdom is only Allegorick Or because the symboles and badges usuall in Earthly Kingdoms are in a figure thereto transferred is it therefore wholly a figure but God hath set his King upon his holy Hill of Zion and Know you assuredly that God hath exalted him to be both Lord and Christ bâ—wisâ— therefore and be instructed Kiss the Son lest he be angrâ— and learn to acknowledge his Kingdom in all the parts and privileges thereof by him declared Next it is most evident that not only Christs Kingdom in and over his Church is reall and certain and that Officers truely such vested with his Authority and therefore depending on Christ as King are held forth by the Scripture and to be really found therein but seing he himself hath in the Gospel so expressly founded their mission upon that All power given unto him and Paul so plainly referres the giving of Apostles c unto his Ascension and exaltation are you not ashamed to alledge these things to be only by us concluded from the vain appearance of an Allegory And thus to make your self ridiculous in that scorne you intended for others But poor wretch you adde That we may as wel say that there must be coin stamped by Christ as Officers appointed by him in his Church for this is the runing of your words Lord deliver you from this profane Spirit thinkest thou that the Kingdom of Christ hath need of money as it hath indeed need of Officers Or because money is current and symony a frequent practice in your Church hes it therefore any place in Christs true Church Sir your profane scoffing at the Kingdome of Christ is one passage amongst many that give me Confidence to say arise O God plead thine own cause remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee dayly But I professe I am confounded in my self when I think of my own provocations and on the iniquitie of his Sons and Daughters for if the abuse of the Glorious Gospel shineing amongst us in so much puritie had not been great he would not have given up the dearly beloved of his Soul into the hand of such persecuting adversaries and such scoffers at him who justifie these malicious mockers in Cajaphas Hall with an over-plus of wickednesse O if he would returne he would quicklie emptie Pulpits and Chairs in Universities of such who bend their tongues for lies and make the world see because they have rejected knowledge he hath also rejected them that they shall be no Priests to him The next thing you subjoin is what King will think his prerogative lessened by constituting a Corporation to whom he shall leave a liberty to cast themselves into what mould they please providing they obey the General Laws and hold that liberty of him Thus you will alwayes aspire to enter into the Counsel of God if your vote had been here asked it is very like you would have bestowed large privileges upon that Church where you might have been a sharer But we bless him to whom the Church is committed and on whom the Government is laid who hath provided better and given unto his Church complete Officers perfect Ordinances true Laws and good Statutes and ordered his house in all things and therefore as we are not to enquire what the Lord might have done but humbly and thankfully to acknowledge what he hath done so in these things for men to disown his Authority and deny his bounty and usurp to themselves a power of altering what he hath established and fashioning the worship and Government of Gods house according to the device of their own heart is no doubt no lawful liberty but a licentious invasion of Christ's prerogative and a jealousie-provoking sin of Laese Majestie Divine That thus it stands betuixt you and us the preceeding passages do plainly witness and the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Son over his own house so expresly commended and preferred before the faithfulnesse of Moses is an argument which you will never dissolve You say his faithfulnesse consisted in his discharging the Commission given him by his Father Most certain but you ask who told us that it I suppose you mean the appointing the Officers Ordinances and Government of the house of God was in the Fathers Commission Herein is a marvellous thing You know that Jesus Christ whrist was sent by the Father to redeem gather feed guid and Govern his Church and you see that as the things in question are thereto necessarie so in discharge hereof he sends out Apostles and Ministers Ordains Officers vests them with power and Authority instructs them to a Ministerial and lowly administration and deportment defines Censures appoints his Ordinances and Laws liberats the Worship of God from the shadows and types of the Jewish Pedagogie and cleares its true and spiritual exercise and liberty and finally acquits himself faithfully in all his house do you then question if he did these things or doubt you that he did them by Commission it is a hard Dilemma which you will never evade but you adde that if we argue from Moses it will inferre that all particulars must be determined whereupon you urge that as Moses determines the dayes of Separation for a legal uncleannesse why doth not the Gospel the like for spirituall uncleannesse It 's answered if you had taken up the Argument aright and considered the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses not in order to the same but with relation to their respective Commissions You had not fallen into this mistake but the Scripture parallel is clear Moses as a servant did faithfully completely order Gods house therefore Our Lord much more as a Son hath thus ordered the Church his own house Whence as it doth no wayes follow that whatsoever things were institute by Moses ought to have been in like manner imitate by our Lord so this is most concludent that as Moses as a Servant did diligently and exactly execute his Commission in order to the Tabernacle its service Ministers and all its appurtinents so Christ both by reason of a command received and of his interest and power hath exceeded the faithfulnesse of Moses in the Ordering and appointment of things appertaining to his Church But for the better confirming our Reasoning and the removing of your Mistake I do only recommend to you this obvious truth viz. that the Commendation of our Lord held
do laugh at and which if ever ye returne to the right way ye will weep at And yet you proceed to oppone to us our Saviours Sermons Particularly that upon the mount I will not contend with your Mockeries I wish that both yours and ours may reflect on short-comings and endeavour amendment according to that pattern Next you say That the true hights of Spirituality were as little preached as the living in abstraction silence solitude and the still contemplations of God the becoming dead to all things and being much in Secret fastings Sir you are so much upon your hights that you see nothing about you Pray descend a little and consider that your own Ministers are as great strangers to these fine expressions of yours and you and they to the things signified to say no worse as ours are and much more And in effect seeing that you only measure your self by your self you are not wise and this affected noveltie of words doth argue litle sincerity But if Communion with God fellowship with the Father and with his Son Iesus Christ a heart and conversation in heaven Christ our Life dying dayly victorie over the World and the like may relish with you in this if Courser yet Scriptural style our Ministers I am sure were not unfrequent in pressing of them and secret prayers and fastings also and I am confident their Ministrie hath a seal yet abiding which may witness that it hath not been unfruitfull I cannot follow you in your again repeated accusation as if our Ministers had only preached a Pharisaick observance of Ordinances and a bare relyance on Christ without obedience to his Gospel These are only your allegeances destitute of truth Your next charge is that our Ministers handled nice subtilties which they called Cases of Conscience But Sir as you grant that some devout people may be under doubtings and fears so in reason you must allow not only a privat application for their remedy but also Publick Doctrine both necessaire for prevention and conducible for cure that in this there was an excesse I believe few would have imagined unless you had said it Yet when I call to minde what men of Conscience the generalitie of your Partie are and how in effect unacquainted with nay declared Enemies to all tendernesse thereof if you had termed Conscience it self Melancholy Imagination as well as Cases of Conscience nice subtilities it had added but little to my wonder As for what you adde That it is unsufferable to hear people who led but common lives talke of such things It is a truth which I have often heard our Ministers assert as also that the best way of silencing all doubts is as you speak to act Faith renew Repentance study Holinesse Humility and the other great practises of Christianity Why then are you so Divisive as to object things to us wherein we do not differ But alas the reason is too evident the designe to render us Odious must be observed and pursued by all Arts And therefore when you cannot contradict the Power that appeared in and the fruit of Conversion and Edification which accompanyed our Ministers preaching Yet your eye being evil by carping hints at Methods and by unnecessary cautions you suggest the things which you have not the confidence to object Thus you bid your N. C. See that by Power he do not mean a Tone in the voice A Grimace in the face c. and by Conversion a change in Opinion or outward behaviour influenced by Interest But Sir as both in Power and the fruit of Conversion our Ministers have been througly made manifest amongst us so I must add for their Voice and Gesture that although some of them might have been rude in speach yet not in knowledge And if your better breeding and sight of the Scene have modelled your Tone and action above the rate as you phansie of both yours and ours you but the more marre its ridiculous gracefulnesse by undervaluing others And as for the Conversions attending our preachings many of them are tryed and cannot be blasted by your mocking I Grant some were proselyted in whom the Evil Spirit having by Apostacie re-entered with seven more they are become more the Children of the Devil then they were before but seeing they are now yours make them not our reproach Your next challenge is that wee termed our Preachings the word of God and you tell us that to call them so and yet to confesse that Ministers may be mistaken in them is a Contradiction But why do you not rather accuse us plainly for terming our Ministers the Ministers and Embassadours of Christ If their Preachings be not his message no doubt they are not his Embassadours and if they be his Embassadours how can you deny their preachings in his Name to be his Message These things have such an evident and convertible coherence that I am in a suspence whether to impute this passage to your mistake or not rather to a designe to subvert the Ministerie And as many of your way would have it to turne all Christs Preaches unto Royal Orators As for your Contradiction it doth no more impugne Preachings then Preachers for to call Preachers the Lords Embassadours And their Embassie the Word of God have the same appearance of inconsistencie with the infirmity of Mistaking wherein you phansie your repugnancie to lye the truth is then first that Ministers are the Lords Messengers Next that their Preachings in his Name and conforme to the Warrant of his Word have not only that derived Authority which the Scripture equally imparts to all Rational and sound deductions made from it but also a particular superadded obligation from the Lords Commission wherewith the Preacher is Ministerially cloathed whence it clearly follows that as all true Ministers their Preachings are in his Name and ought to be agreeable to his Truth so the Preachers their admixed mistakes are of no more force either to deprive Preaching of the name or these things therein that are sound and true of the special Authority of the Word of God then the accidental miscariage of an Embassadour to make void his mission in other things consonant to his instructions How unsound then is your insinuation that The text indeed is the Word of God but Ministers Glosses by which terme you mockingly understand all Preaching or Expounding the words only of fallible men as if a Ministers sound interpretation and application did pertake of Nothing speciall from the Character which he sustains whereas you know that not only his Mission doth impresse his words with his Masters Authority but hath also many and great Promises of a suitable assistance Having thus cleared the Common Cause of the Ministrie and that their Preachings when sound are from a special ground the Word of God That which you subjoin of Ministers their usurping this name to their Preachings by Way of Artifice that thereby they might procure the credite of the Infallible and Inspired
a Gentleman why may not the temporall honour of a Lord be as well put upon a Bishop Sir if you were as innocent of the vanity as you seem to be ignorant of the Nature of these titles Our controversie were at an end a Faithfull Minister truely minding his work values not himself upon points of Herauldriâ— to acquit himself as becometh an Embassadour for the Glory of Christ is all his ambition and truly honourable beyond the accession of all temporall dignity If it were not so I could further inform you that a Gentleman and Nobleman do not only gradually differ but are prorsus disparata wholly different The King wee say can make the one but cannot make the other I grant the privileges of a Gentleman are commonly supposed to belong to Ministers and decent civility may respect them as of that ranck but really there appears to me such a disparity betwixt these things and a Bishops receiving let be the usurping of the temporall and more eminent honour or Lord specially as above his Brethren that if a Minister as such should but tenaciously lay claime to the title of a Gentleman I would think it not only very misbecoming his Profession but a plain forfeiture of the pretended privilege But your N. C. urges to better purpose that Bishops should not Lord it over Gods heritage And you for Answere tell us That by Lording is meant a tyrannicall domination and not a tittle Next That Gods Heritage applyed by us to the Clergie is not in the Text bearing only not Lording over their Lots or Divisions to which you adde That Whatever argument we use to put down Bishops from being as Noble-men will also prove Ministers not born such not to be Gentlemen Sir to put this foolish trifling about titles first by hand Bishops neither are Noblemen nor ought to be esteemed quasi Noblemen because 1. The thing is altogether incompetent and the title without the thing is a vanity 2. Either title or thing as it exalts them above their Brethren is sinful and the very reverse of our Lords Command Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your Servant not your Lord. He that is chief let him be as he that Serveth not as a Nobleman How then can ye acclaime either thing or title 3. The title of Lord in its Ecclesiastick usurpation hath been and is so grossly abused by Church-men above all that our Lord reprehends in the pride of the Pharisees not only to the pretending to the uppermost roomes at feasts and the chiefe seats in the Synagogues but the chief places in States and the first banches in Parliaments not only to Greetings in the Mercaâ—s and to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi but to ride next to the Honours and be called Grace Grace that seriously I marveil how you or any Christian regarding our Lords express words can justify it That these reasons do not militate against the civil and ordinary respect commonly payed to all Ministers and men of any fashion without either a vain usurpation in the receivers or any other thing then that courteous mutuaâ—l preference commended by the Apostle in the givers which without falling into the ravings of the Quakers their austerity you cannot from our Lords words redargue I think it needlesse to resume Now you say that by Lording prohibite to Church-men a Tyrannical domination is only meant why do you thus offer to impose contraire both to the import of the word and tenour of the Scripture the word used by Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the very same used by our Lord Math. 20. Whence Peter himself learned the Prohibition that it signifies not to Tyrannize buâ— simply authoritative Dominari to rule with Authoritie all Lexica attest Neither doth the proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import more of force then what doth more expressively denote and distinguish the dominion of Empire and Authority from that of propriety As for the tenour of Scripture that it repugnes to your exposition is manifest 1. Because that where Math. in this passage useth the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke doth indifferently use the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as of the same import to the present purpose by which your gloss of a tyrannicall domination is deprived of all shadow of ground 2. Because our Lord by both words doth only prohibite such a domination and authority amongst his Disciples as was exercised amongst the Gentiles by their Princes and which they who were called their Benefactors did use over them but certain it is that neither was the dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles allowedly or commonly tyrannick nor is it our Lords purpose in this place to brand them with such a character 3. The positive Command plainly set down and enforced by our Lords own example is too evident to leave any man hesitant as to the Prohibition But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among youâ— truely great in virtue and reward let him be your Minister Let him exercise the Ministery committed to him by way of humble and painfull service denyed to all worldly advantages and neither affect nor assume the Grandour and Authority of Civil Governours Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to Ministere and to give his life c. and made himself of no reputation contemning his Gentility and not valuing his Nobilitie but took upon him the form of a Servant Sir do we indeed beleeve that this is commanded and proposed for a pattern to Gospel Ministers And yet it is not only most certainly so but also undeniable that if there were in Ministers and Church-men that same Spirit of Obedience to God and love to Souls which was in him who accounted it his meat and drink to do the will of him that sent him and to finish his work and if they had the same eye and regard to the joy set before them which he had who is the Author and â—inisher of our Faith it could not be other wayes For my part I think a serious reflection on these things is not only enough to confound for ever the ease vanity and pomp of aspiring Prelats but to make the best of Ministers ashamed to appear so much above their Master even in their indulged honesties and conveniencies But 4. Because the place that you touch is taken from Peter see how it also agrees with that of Math. Feed the flock of God c. Not as being Lords or Lording over Gods heritage but as being Ensamples where it is evident that the adversative doth not only reject your Gloss of a tyrannick domination But by commanding rather to lead and instruct by example then to rule by Authority hold furth the same humble and simple Ministerie to be enjoined here which by our Lord was before recommended The next thing you answere is that Gods heritage applied by us to the
stated degree of Superiority and Dignity among Ministers in the point of Government or to separate and exalt Government from and above the office of Preaching to which it is subservient and to appropriate it to certain Ministri-prelati above others can hardly be determined I need not here caution concerning ruling Elders seeing the more full description of Ecclesiastick Government is here given in order to Ministers in which these Elders being only partiall sharers it is not more agreeable to their warrant then suitable to this position 5. As the grounds of the equality and parity of Ministers by us asserted are by these truths plainly held out so that superiority of Power though still Ministerial competent to the meetings of the Brethren as well over the severall constituent members as over the Church according to their warrant hereafter declared is thereto very consistent and thereby mostly established whether these things all evident in the Doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles do not fairely exhibite the principles and platform of a Presbyterian Ministerie and its Ministerial parity Let men judge Really Sir when I consider Preaching to be the main office even our Lords own commission great erand into the world Discipline to be dependent upon it and wholly referable to its end and a simple Ministerial Government only allowed for the regulation and advancement of both and when I do remember that neither the glorious excellencie of the Lord Jesus hindered him to be amongst his Disciples as he who served nor did the many advantages of the Apostles and others extraordinarily gifted and accordingly imployed and sent out as their assistents requisite in the Churches infancie make them assume to themselves or endeavour to settle in the Church any superior Order above the degree of preaching Elders and Overseers whom they allwayes respected as their equals in the work of the Gospel And thirdly when I call to minde that wherever a Church came to be gathered the Apostles did either by themselves as at Lystra Iconium and Antioch or by their fellow labourers as Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete there left and appointed by Paul for the work and charged to leave the place when called therein ordain Elders without any imparity or higher order and that Paul after having testified that he had keep back nothing profitable nor shuned to declare all the Counsel of God but shewed them all things did commit to the Elders of Ephesus the full charge and oversight of the Church of God without appointing any Angel Prelat over them And lastly when I reflect how that in the beginnings of the Gospel at Ierusalem all things almost were acted by Common counsel that where and when the Christian name did first take place there and at the same time we finde a Presbyterie of Prophets and teachers assembled and acting jointly and by the Command of the Holy Ghost sending out even the greatest of the Apostles as subject to them that Paul imposeth hands with the Presbyterie termeth it their deed Peter exhorts Elders as his fellows their Compresbyter when I say I ponder these thingsâ— they do make me assuredly conclude the Ministrie Government of the Church in the way of Presbyterie to be as much Iuris Divini as it is opposite to and removed from your Hierarchie Having thus discovered the foundation and traced the undeniable lineaments of Presbyterie in the Word of God I may not insiâ—t upon the inconsonant deformities of Prelacie only this I must say that though Prelacie were not attended with many and great corruptions and in its exaltation mark it lest you think me injurious to good men had not been alwayes enemy to Religion and Godliness Yet a superiour Order of Church-men usurping from the Pastors of the flock of God the Ministerial Power of Iurisdiction and the only right of Ordination and acclaiming to themselves the sole management of Government as their proper work with dignity and authority over their Brethren hath neither warrant nor vestige in the Scripture of the New Testament but is so palpably the invention of man that it is not a greater wonder that the Devil should have improved it to all that pride avarice wickednesse and villany which it hath produced then it is a mysterie how the world should have been thereby imposed upon and have endured all its rapine sacrilege and usurpation under the pretext of Religion to which it is so repugnant I come now to try how you impugne the jus divinum which we assert for Lay elders and other matters condescendâ—d up on by you and therefore hitherto by me not touched You say Lay-Elders are founded on no Scripture as the most judicious amongst us acknowledge And you wonder that when we urge from the Apostles giving rules only for Bishops and Deacons that Diocesans must be shuâ—fled out how we do not also see that ruling Elders are not there Who these most judicious amongst us in Scotland may be who deny Lay or rather Ruling Elders to have any Scripture warrant seeing your own N. C. is none of the Number I cannot apprehend but for your wonder I think it may be easily satisfied if you will but consider that it is not from the simple omission of Diocesans in this Text that we exclude them from the Church but since it is manifest from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that the true Apostolick Bishop was no other either in name or office then a Presbyter Nay that by the rules to him set down your Diocesans is plainly cast and rejected like as both in Acts Chap. 20. and Titus the names of Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously used is it not clearly concludent that your Diocesan hath no Scripture warrant whereas the ruling Elder as he is not in these places confounded and made the same with the preaching Elder but may justly enough share both in the general names of Elder and Over-seer and also in their rules without any incosistence so his liquid warrant as a distinct officer is elswhere obviously extant In the next place you add that the Brethren in the Council at Ierusalem prove too much viz. That our Elders are judges oâ— Doctrineâ— but if their concurrence both in the meâ—ting and in the decree may be fairly understood of an assisting and approving suffâ—age without attributing to all unanimous assenters the same power and Authority of deciding as is very casible in any other heterogeneous Assembly whether our argument conclude from the Brethren as distinguished from the Apostles and preaching Elders and therefore to be taken for ruling Elders or from the Elders there mentioned as including both the preaching and ruling Elders your abâ—uâ—dity doth not follow and our argument is nothing convelled But you say it is absurd to think that that was a Church judicature Pray Sir not so fast you would say that that meeting was not a General Synod for that it was a Church judicature its decree doth evince As
subordination of the parts unto the whole in matters pertaining and relating to the body and concerning its end are the inseparable propriâ—ties and privilege of a Society is evident aâ—ove exception which argument is the more confirmed that in the acts of the Apostles we finde the Church assembling and by Common Counsel managing its affaires and determining differences not by any speciall and expresse warrant or command but meerly in the exercise of this intrinsick power competâ—nt to the Church as gathered and erected in one Society This right then and power of meetings being undeniable to the whole by the same reason precedent they are confirmed to the parts the Subordination whereof to the whole cannot be drawn in doubt Thus you see how your own grant affirmeth what you dâ—ny but your N. C. answeres further That they at Antioch send up to them at Jerusalem And are not the Spirits of the Prophets subject to the Prophets To these Scriptures you reply beginning with the last That it is clear that in that place the Apostle is speaking of Pâ—râ—chial Churches which subjection none deny But Sir is not that which you call in question the Subordination of Sessions to Presbyteries Now if the Apostle tell us That the Spirit of the Prophets who in the dayes oâ— the Apostles had many of them charge pro indiviso jointly over the same Church but now a dayes have their distinct charges over Parochial Churches are subject to the Prophets gathered in one assembly may not the Subordination questioned be sufficiently thence concluded especially seing I can hardly suppose you so Anti-episcopal as to be Independant and still to doubt after the many irrefragable demonstrations given by the Presbyterians whether this Church of Corinth was a Presbyterial and not a meer Congregational or Parochial Church As for what else may be in your return I confesse I reach it not seeing that at the time of the Apostles writing we finde no divided Parishes and to fancie that the subjection spoken of waâ— of the Prophets in one Parochial Church such as at that time there was properly none and not rather of the many Prophets having the charge pro indiviso jointly over the whole company of the Beleevers in that Citie in which many parishes were virtually included is groundless and absurd To the first instance you say It is ridiculous to urge it seing they of Antioch sent not up to Jerusalem either as to a Church superior or as to an Oecumenick Councel but to men there who were immediatly inspired That they sent not up as to an Oecumenick Councel I cannot dissent from you seing I finde in the Text no suitable concurse for or vestige of such an Assembly but that they sent not up as to a Church superior is by you ill asserted and worse proved seing 1. The phrases in the letter sent from that meeting that certain which went out from us and it seemed good c. to lay upon you and that the same letter is termed a Decree do clearly prove a superior Authority in the writers 2. Because the example which ye adduce from the jews their high Priest for confirming your Gloss doth plainly redargue you in as much as the Jews consulted not the high Priest his Urim and Thummim without regard to his Authority but consulted him as the high Priest and the Person to whom God had therefore committed them Deut. 17. v. 10. 11. 12. putting them in the breast-plate termed of judgement and not of Responses But you may say supposing the matter was thus carried what makes it for your Assemblies I Answere yes very much for it sheweth 1. That if the Apostles who all of them severally were immediatly inspired and so might have determined this controversie did notwithstanding join with other ordinary Elders or Churchâ—officers and by common counsel give out their Decrees that common Councels their authority in the Church are juris Divini 2. That as the Church of Antioch in which the Apostle Paul Barnabas and several other Prophets wereâ— and the other Churches in Asia received and submitted to the decrees so it evidently intimats a subordination of these making as it were one Provincial Church to that great Assembly of the Apostles Elders conveened at Ierusalem You subjoin in this place That if that meeting at Jerusalem was a Councel then all Councels may speak in their stile it seems good to the Holy Ghost c. It 's answered 1. The connexion oâ— your proposition containeth an obvious non sequitur in as much as it is not from their being a Councel but from the certainty of these Scripture evidences whereupon their determination proceeds that their prefacing of the minde and sentencâ— of the holy Ghost doth flow 2. That that meeting was a Councel of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem a conveened in one to Consulte Reason and exercise Authority which severally was not so satisfying â—or the very Apostles to do notwithstanding of their immediâ—â—e assistance is plain from the Text especially Pauls deference to them 3. If you imagine that Ecclesiastick Councels cannot be of Divine right unlesse they have the Spirits absolute and infallible assistance you erre as grossly as he who for want of this infallibility should deny to the Church a standing Minâ—strie by Divine institution 4. Though the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost given to the Apostles aâ—d being to them in stead of the rule was indeed singular and extraordinary Yet as the Lord to all his Ordinances hath annexed the promise of an agreeable presence which doth not fail the sincere and faithfull improvers so Church Assemblies in matters of Faith to them committed and following the rule thereto prescribed are also thereby countenanced and in sound beleeving and upright walking may both attain to and profess their assurance of the Holy Ghosts assistance 5â— Seing that all Councel-acts and Canons anent matters of Faith ought to be guided by the Spirit and conform to the word of God and enacted and emitted in this persuasion these Meetings that truly keeping the rule and sincerely laying hold on the promise do proceed in their determinations may therein warrantably use the Apostles words and such as do otherwayes are only culpable in the presumptuous usurpation because they have not rightly followed and in effect attained unto the rule of the Word and the conduct of the Spirit which ought indeed to be their warrant 6. Having on these clear grounds declared the Authority of Ecclesiastick Meetings in Matters of Faith I freely grant that in other things which may be incident to their cognition and are not of Faith nor defined in Scripture they have neither the like warrant nor may they use the like expressions and therefore as in this case they cannot found upon the Lords Commandments so they are only to be respected as such who are intrusted to give their judgement and have obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull 7. The
the Count of Tholouse was a Peer of France and by Hugo Capetus constitution Peers were rather Vassals then Subjects It is answered ne ultra crepidam if Peers be Vassals as they are indeed being such Peers among themselves only and not with the King that therefore they are of all the most strictly oblidged subjects is notour to all that know the fidelity and gratitude which Vassallage doth import so that whatever priviledge their Peerage may give them over their inferiours yet that in order to their Soveraign and Liedge Lord they are in every respect subjects is uncontroverted But why should I spend time on your triflings Admitting that the Waldenses in this war had not so directly and immediatly resisted the King their Soveraign as not being their direct and immediate Persecutor have we therefore no advantage from this passage And are there not many other precedents in the History of that people which do fully and exactly infer our conclusion And as to the first do we not at least finde even in your own concession the Waldenses persecute for Religion standing to their own defence Now if once you allow to Religion the common priviledge of a defensive resistance the main strength of your arguments founded upon a pretended singularity in the cause of Religion as disowning forsooth all resistance and in a special manner astricted to suffering both by Gospell precept and primitive practice is thereby dissolved and removed I may not here insist on this subject But once for all let me demand you may not Religion be defended aswell as other rights and interests If you say it may but neither that nor any other against the invasion and persecution of the King and soveraign Power This is indeed a consequent but so destitute of all reason that as there is scarce a man in the world so stupid or debauched by flattery that will not in some suppositions grant the lawfulness of resistance so the most precious import of Religion and the atrocity of the injuries whereby it useth to be persecute can not but render it the first and most favourable of all excepted cases But if you say it may not then whether is it your meaning that it may not at all be defended either against Superior equall or inferior And certainly the Scripture and also many of the primitive instances abused to prostrate Religion unto tyranny do seem to run in this latitude without insinuating any distinction so that this generality being manifestly absurd doth of necessity evince them to have an other meaning and to be nothing conclusive to your purpose Or do you understand that in this the cause of Religion is singular that though against persecuting inferiors or equals Religion aswell as other rights doth permit defence yet against the Powers over us it is subject to a special restraint Assigne me for this speciality but any colourable pretext cris mihi magnus Apollo That the Gospel precepts Resist not evill Turn your cheek to the smiter Love your enemies c. Have their holy and Christian use of patience and godliness for all manner of injuries from whatsoâ—ever hand And that these other commands of subjection non-resistance honour and obedience to Kings and all in Authority have also their righteous influence of determining in every occasion our due compliance and submission without the least vestige either in all or any of the places of injoining a singular subjection to Powers persecuting for Religion is obviously evident What speciality you will gather from primitive practices the general mistakes that we find in their opinions as we may understand from Ambrose and Augustine condemning private defence even against Robbers ne dum salutem defendit pietatem contaminet may give us a satisfying conjecture From all which we may assuredly conclude that seing Religion doth lay no speciall prohibition of resistanceâ— in order to Superiors upon Subjects by them persecuted and that the above-written passage of the Waldenses doth at least evince that in other cases it hath the common priviledge your inferring of specâ—al consequences in favours of the Powers from abused generalls is but a politick improving of your lies unto base and selfish flattery Now as to other examples that may be found among the Waldenses Pray Sir was this the only passage in all that History which you conceived did favour our cause or was you loth to follow them over the Alpes unto the valleys of Piemont to meet with instances which indeed you have reason to think can only be best answered by concealing them in the obscurities of the places where acted And really this omission is so grosly supine that you must pardon me to think it designed However the History that I referre you to for a full and particular account aswell of the faith stedfastness and simplicicy of these Waldenses in Piemont as of their many and great persecutions by their own Rulers and Princes and their just and frequent oppositions made against them particularly from the year 1540 to the year 1561. And how in the year 1571 they entered into a League of mutual assistance and from that year did undergo many vicissitudes sometimes of peace and quiet then of cruell and barbarous persecutions wherein they testified great constancy and patience and sometimes of necessary defensive resistances wherein they witnessed no less uprightnesse and courage even until the year 1658 wherein the narration terminates is that of the Evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont very faithfully and acuratly collected and written by Mr Morland Where I am confident every ingenuous person will finde the case of defence for the cause of Religion against persecuting Rulers so justly stated so tenderly and submissively proceeded into and lastly so singly and moderatly prosecuted and that not only once or twice but often that as he will be thereby greatly confirmed in the righteousness of this practice so he can not but observe the inexcusable omission of your silence The next instance which you undertake to vindicate is that of the Bohemians under Zisca their fighting and resisting when the chalice was denyed them And for answere to this you bid us consider that the Crown of Boheme is elective in which case certainly the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the Soveraign power But 1. You hereby plainly acknowledge that Religion is not indefendible except by meer subjects against their Soveraign So that again we see it is not from the cause of Religion but from the quality of the persons that you foolishly go about to exclude Religion from defence which yet notwithstanding in several excepted cases all inferior to that of persecution is to subjects against their oppressing Princes by all almost allowed 2. That the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the soveraign Power in an elective then in a successive Kingdom hath no proper dependence upon the way of election but is thereto meerly accidental the Dictators in free Rome were elected and
Kingdome But can you or any man thence conclude that therefore he acted from an ordinary power and facultie a priviledge proper to his office Why then should men be so absurdly unequal as from the like extraordinary interpositions of Princes in Church perturbations to attribute to them a proper inherent right and perpetual prerogative Next you say That the Emperours also judged in matters of Schisme But seing that any judgement given by them was consequent to the Churches determination though perhapes with a little attemperation for conveniency whereof determinations in these matters do very naturally allow the instance is no more favourable then the rest you have adduced But the Code Basilicks Capitulers of Charles the great shew that they never thought it without their sphere to make laws in Ecclesiastick matters 'T is answ This objection shewes that either you are little acquainted with what is in these Books or little advertent to the conclusion you have in hand The laws you mention are either imperial confirmations of the truth owned by the Church or for condemning and punishing of declared hereticks or for authorizing and ordering a slender umbrage of jurisdiction called episcopalis audientia granted to Church-men in charitable and favourable cases or for restraining and correcting their dissolute manners or lastly anent the regulating of Hospitals Alms-houses other things pertaining to the outward policy of the Church Pray Sir what make these for your Supremacie Or was ever this part of his Majesties power by us questioned But where wil you finde in all approven antiquity that ever a Prince by vertue of a pretended inherent right in his Crown or any acclaimed prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastick took upon him with one blow summarily to overturne the established Ministery of a Church by himselfe formerly by solemn Oath confirmed introduce new Office-bearers set up a new frame of Church-government declaring himselfe to be the sole head and fountain thereof to whom all others as subordinat must be accountable for their admistrations In what antient record did you ever read of a Commission granted by a King for Ecclesiastick affaires impowering Secular persons to appoint Ministers to be censured by suspension and deposition and Church-men to punish by fining confining incarcerating and other corporal paints What Emperour or Prince did ever assume to himselfe in the right of his royal power at once to impose upon a whole Church a new liturgie and form of service never before heard of among them Or did it ever enter in the heart of a Christian Potentat to declare for a Law that what ever he should please to enact anent Church-meetings and matters should upon the publication be by all obeyed and observed and in suite of it to statute that if either Minister or other person not allowed by his or his Bishops authority do preach expone Scripture or pray except in his own house and to these only of his own family it shall be judged a Coventicle and liable to pains of Law These are a part of the native fruits of your Supremacie If you look back to confirme it by antient precedents pray give us but one parallel I grant that Iustinian in some of his Constitutions after having declared and confirmed the truth received by the Church and dâ—termined by her Councils not only condemnes but anathematizes the contrary heresies But seing his using of that phrase peculiar to the Church and properly importing a power acknowledged not to be competent to secular Athority doth only express his more enixe detestation of these errours and approbation of the Church her censures against them it cannot with any colour of reason be made use of for your purpose But you proceed to tell us that the Bishops not excepting the Bishope of Rome were named at least their elections approven by the Emperours And what then For my part if the Emperour and all Christian Princes should agree at once to reduce them aswell as they advanced them it should not be accounted an invasion of the Churches power or priviledge But because it is like that these Emperours you speak of did indeed regard them as true Church-officers nevertheless medled as is mentioned in their elections I answer further that the true cause of Princes their first medling in the elections of Bishops was either the diffidence of the Bishops as to that office and title wherein not being satisfied from Scripture-warrant they were inclined to apply to the Emperour for the supplement of his confirmation or els their solicitous ambition which in thesearly contests that they had for precedency did prompt them among other artifices to fortify their pretensions by the Emperour's favour and suffrage However this is very certain that whether the Emperour 's medling was first procured by the Bishops address or did flow from their own proper motive had these Church-men contained themselves within the rules and limits set to them by our Lord they had never judged the Emperours confirmation requisite to the validity of their office and title and therefore seing the true account of this matter is that the aspiring of Ecclesiasticks did give the first rise unto this secular medling whether we take it to be no usurpation as being conversant about that which to say the truth is not Christian let be Ecclesiastick or to be a partaking in the Church-men their usurpation either of the two doâ—h equally make void your argument After the reasons which we have heard you conclude That Kings their medling in Ecclesiastick affaires was never controverted till the Romane Church swelled to the hight of tyranny and since the reformation it hath been still stated as one of the differences betwixt us and them It is answered If Princes had at first exceeded and intruded too far in Church-matters and then the Pope acted by a worse spirit and no less aspiring had risen up against his Masters and thrust himselfe into their rooms what would this make for your advantage Or doth it to either of them conclude a right Suppose a Papist debating this question should argue thus that the Pope his headship in Ecclesiastick affaires in England was never controverted till Henry the Eight impatient through lust did arrogate to himself the Supremacy and since that time it hath still been stated as one of the controverted differences would you think this reasoning pungent Why then is not your discerning equall to your judgement But the clear truth in this matter is that although the Emperours of old did at no time lay claime to this Supremacy questioned yet they and the succeeding Princes having too much connived at and countenanced the Antichristian ambition working in Prelacy toward the Papacy it was from the righteous judgement of God that upon its exaltation they were blinded and involved in these contentions and justly plagued by the transcendent insolence of an evill which they had too much fomented And therefore your dating the period of these contests