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
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
here urged but we judge these sufficient and so having dispatcht what we promised we shall now proceed 3. For you having not urged Arguments against the rule by us propounded for the determining controversies in matters of Religion but only vented against us the distemper of your spirit for that proposal do now further declare your selves touching what you would have to be the judge and rule for interpretation of the Scripture and do adde unto the universal â—ractice of the Church mentioned in your first Paper the Churches exposition meaning the exposition of Councils and unanimous consent of Fathers as you here declare your selves concerning which we shall 1. Propound the true state of the Question betwixt you and us 2. And then urge some Arguments against the rule by you here made 3. and lastly We shall answer what you have here to say for your opinion As touching the first we do here declare our selves that we do readily grant the Church may expound the Scripture though as we said in our answer which you here acknowledge it be tied to the rule of Gods word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law and so therefore the Churches exposition may and is to be made use of as a meanes appointed by God that we might understand the word where there is a doubt or difficulty but we must not allow what you further adde sc that we are bound up by the Churches exposition as we are according to what you say to those cases in the Law which are the judgement and exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same neither must we close with you when you say the Churches exposition and practice is our rule in such cases and the best rule too or that when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture we must necessarily make another judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture besides Scripture as you speak the Scripture it self being in such a case the only sure interpreter of it self the doubtfull and hard places thereof being to be expounded by the more plain Further we do here declare that we grant the Church is a judge touching matters of Religion in controversie or touching the interpretation of doubtfull or difficult places of Scripture but a ministerial Judge only and not the rule for its interpretation as you speak or such a judge from which there is no appeal no not to the Scriptureit self as you intimate Again the Church is such a judge to which all parties ought to submit in regard of her juridical authority to be censured by her in regard of opinions or practices but not such a judge to whose determination we must submit our faith or resolve it into her sentence In a word we grant unto the Church a Ministry but not a dominion over our faith nor make her interpretation of the Scripture where there is a doubt or difficulty the rule of faith or practice And if you had given to the Church no more nor had ascribed to the Scriptures in this case too little we should not have had this for a controversie that is now a great matter in difference betwixt you and us For whereas you reject the rule propounded by us in our answer touching the determining of controversies in Religion sc the word of God alone and notwithstanding our reasons there urged against your adding the universal and constant practice of the Church unto the word of God to make up the rule to judge by in matters of this nature yet do here professedly adhere to what you did but seem to insinuate in your first Paper and because we had propounded the Scripture only as the only sure rule to walk by you hereupon as hath been said rail upon us calling us Scripturists and scorn and scoff at us for making the word of God alone the rule of faith and manners we hereupon cannot but conceive you ascribe a deal more to the Church then a meer Ministery setting up her determination for the rule of interpreting Scripture and issuing of controversies and take away from the Scripture that which you should yeild unto it even to be the only sure rule for the interpreting it self for though you here acknowledge that the Church in expounding Scripture is tied to the rule of Gods word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law yet you say we were concluded and bound up by her exposition and therefore though she be tyed in her expounding of Scripture according to this concession yet by this assertion it will follow that we are bound to believe she hath rightly expounded the Scripture according to her duty for you say her exposition and practice is our rule and best rule too and that we necessarily make another judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture or else we prove nothing and that else we give way to private interpretation which is the Popish false gloss upon the Text pointed at in that expression and anon you tell of another judge and rule besides the Scripture that is to be submitted unto even such as the Papists themselves cannot exâ—… viz. the Primitive Churches practice and universal and â—…nimous consent of Fathers and general Councils and which though you would father upon Mr. Philpot and Calvin yet is that 〈◊〉 they together with all other sound Protestants in their wâ—…s against the Papists have unanimously disclaimed 〈…〉 as the Papists more anciently seeing if they muâ—… the determination of Scriptures they were cast â—…ly to Councils and the unanimous consent of Fathers as to the rule whereby they would be tryed so you with them betake your selves to these and refuse to be tryed by the Scriptures as the sole judg because thence it is manifest that that Episcopacy that you are for is quite cashiered the whole current of the Scripture of the New Testament making a Bishop and a Presbyter all one But the Question betwixt us being thus stated as we gave our reasons even now why the Scriptures were to be the only judge of controversies and rule of faith and life so we shall now give our reasons why the Churches exposition the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not to be the rule of its interpretation much less the best rule where there is a doubt or difficulty as you assert Argument 1. Because it is God only that is the author of Scripture all Scripture being given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. It is he only that is the chief Law-giver and Doctor of the Church Jam. 4. 12. Mat. 22. 10. and therefore he only speaking in the Scripture and in the hearts of his people by his Spirit is the supream and infallible interpreter of Scripture every one being the best interpreter of his own words and the Law-giver best understanding the meaning of the Law he makes and being the Scriptures cannot be interpreted and understood but by that same Spirit whereby they are written whence that of Bernard Nunquam
times and so their interpretations of Scriptures often more difficult to be understood then the Scriptures that they interpret this also is very considerable that it will be out of the compass and reach of the most persons of ordinary rank to procure all the writings of the Fathers and Councils that are yet extant as we do not beleeve that any of you are so well stored as that you have such a Library wherein all the Fathers or most of them might be consulted which yet were necessary to be procured if their unanimous consent must be the rule for interpretation of Scripture when there is a doubt or difficulty And if some persons might be found of that ability as to procure the Works of all the Fathers yet it is not easie to imagin how even the Learned though Divines much less the simple and ignorant could ever be able to reade over all their Works compare all the Fathers together and their interpretations that so they might when there was a doubt or difficulty gather what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers touching the interpretation of a Text the sense whereof we questioned And hereupon it will follow that what you propound as the rule yea and the best rule too for interpreting of Scripture is so farre from being such that it is a very unfit and unmeet rule being such as few or none if any at all are able in all cases or the most to make use of But by this time we doubt not notwithstanding your great confidence touching the sureness of your rule that it is manifest from the reasons we have given unto which we might add many more if there were need that your rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures participates not of the nature of what is to be a rule and therefore however the exposition of the Church Fathers and Councils is not to be despised yet it is not to be made a rule but that the onely sure rule for the interpreting of the Scriptures is the Scripture it self But because you alledge something for your assertion we shall now in the last place examine it of what nature and strength it is And â— You quote the late King in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although his assertion is more limited then yours as from the words you cite is clear and manifest And as touching that which his words are alledged for we must say that such a Church Government as is not found instituted in Scripture in regard of the substantials of it is therefore contrary to the commands of Scripture because not found instituted there and this we affirm touching that Episcopall Government that you plead for that superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter in regard of order and jurisdiction being a meer device of man without and against Scripturall warrant as it was that that was unknown to the primitive Church in the more ancient and purer times and of which afterward 2. But you further add and say that except your rule for interpreting of Scripture be admitted of we shall seem to abound in our own sense and to utter our own fancies or desires to be believed on our bare word and so to give way to private interpretation whereas we should deliver that sense which hath been aforetime given by our forefathers and forerunners in the Christian faith unto which we say that whether it be the interpretation that we ourselves shall give of Scripture or it be the interpretation of others however Fathers or Councils and forerunners in the Christian faith yet if it be an interpretation inferred or brought to the Scripture and not found in the Scripture the uttering of that interpretation is the uttering our own or other mens fancies and so is that private interpretation of Scripture which the Apostle Peter 2d Epist ch 1. ver 20. condemns and to whose words there you do here point it being the Holy Ghost the author of Scripture whose interpretation is that publike interpretation that the whole Church and every member thereof is to give heed to and is that which is opposed to the private interpretation mentioned as the Apostle shews ver 21. in the words following But seeing you do here urge the very popish argument and that text which they quote touching the rule they make for interpretation of Scripture in direct opposition to our Protestant Divines it is hence very clear that your opinion touching the rule of interpreting of the Scriptures and judg of controversies in matters of Religion which you make to be the Churches exposition and consent of Fathers and Councils is the very same with theirs and wherein you approve not your selves to be either sound Protestants or to own the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Papists in this particular 3. Yet you go on and urge another argument for when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture not to admit for a rule the exposition of the Church consent of Fathers and Councils you say that is dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others but we say as we have shewed before that to impose a necessity of admitting the interpretation given by the Church Fathers Councils when it is not evident from the Text so expounded either the words of it scope or other circumstances of it the things going before or following after or from some other Texts with which it is compared this is certainly dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of Gods people and which Paul though so great an Apostle and immediately and infallibly inspired would not presume to do 2 Cor. 1. â—4 The Church having onely a Ministery committed to her which is onely to propound that sense of Scripture which the Scripture it self gives and no more 4. But thus say you the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists though out of the word of God too giving the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the Primitive Church and Councils gave But this is not the question whether our Divines defended the Protestant Religion against the Papists not onely out of the Word of God but from the testimonie also of Fathers and Councils but whether they did ever make the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Councils the judg of controversies or rule for interpreting of Scripture He that shall hold the affirmative here doth plainly shew he is a stranger to the writings of the best and ablest defenders of the Protestant Religion We shall readily grant that our Divines do ex super abundanti defend the truth against the Papists from the testimony of Fathers and Councils but did never assert that the defence of it from the Scriptures alone was not sufficient as they would never have quarrelled with the Papists touching the judg of controversies and the rule for interpretation of Scripture if they would have been contented to have stood to its determination It s true Mr. Philpot that glorious
Government continued such during the time of the late Prelacy which yet was taken away in other reformed Churches that the Pastors were deprived of that power of rule that our Church acknowledgeth did belong to them of right and which did anciently belong to them however the exercise thereof did after grow into a long disuse as hath been shewed before And therefore when we consider on the one hand that the superiority which the Bishop obtained at the first above the Presbyter in the ancient Church and which was rather obtained consueâ—udine Ecclesiae then by Divine right did at the length grow to that height that the Pastors were spoiled of all power of rule so we cannot much wonder on the other hand that the ruling Elder was quite turned out of doors For the proof of the being and exercise of whose office in the purer times there are notwithstanding produced testimonies of the ancients by Divines both at home and abroad that have written about that subject and to which we do therein refer you As there doe remain some footsteps and shadow of their office in the Church-wardens and Sides-men even to this day And so upon the whole the premisses considered and that we are commanded not to follow a multitude to do evil though it were of the best of men and that therefore the examples and practises though it were of whole Churches are to be no further a rule for us then they follow Christ and as their examples be approved of in the Word of Christ notwithstanding the univerfality and long continuednesse of such practises Whereas you say that you pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is consonant to the will of God and universal practise of primitive Churches we believe you might cut the matter a great deal shorter and say That you are for the establishing of that Government that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in the Scriptures and that the Word of God alone and on which onely Faith must be built and into which at last be resolved when other records of Antiquity that yet are not so ancient as it is have been searcht into never so much shall determine what that is and so those wearisome and endlesse disputes about what is the universal and constant practise of primitive Churches and which if it could be found out in any good measure of probability for the first 300. years after Christ could never yet be so farre issued as to be a sure bottom whereon our faith may safely rest may be cut off It being a most certain rule and especially in matters of faith that the Factum is not to prescribe against the Jus The Practice against the Right or what ought to be done And it being out of all question the safest course for all to bring all doctrines and practices to the sure and infallible Standard and Touchstone the Word of God alone And after you have more seriously weighed the matter and remember how you professe that in the matters you propose in your Pâ—per You rest not in the Judgement or determination of any general Council of the Eastern or Western Churches determining contrary to what you are perswaded is so fully warranted by the Word of God as well as by the constant practice of the Catholick Church although what that was were more likely to be resolved by a general Council then by your selves the proposal of having the Word of God alone to be the Judge of the Controversie about Church Government cannot we think in reason be deny'd by you And we with you shall heartily pray That that Church-Government which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures might be established in these Lands Although we must also professe that we believe that that Government which is established by Authority and which we exercise is for the substantials of it this Government and which we judge also to be most consonant to the practice of the primitive Churches in the purest times And therefore as there was some entrance made by the late Parliament in regard of establishing this Government by ordinances as the Church Government of these Nations And as to the putting those Ordinances in execution there hath been some beginning in the Province of London the Province of this County and in some other places throughout the Land So when there shall be the opportunity offered we shall not be wanting by petitioning or otherwayes to use our best endeavours that it may be fully settled throughout these Lands that so we may not as to Government in the Church any longer continue as a City without wals and a Vineyard without an hedge and so to the undoing of our posterity endanger Religion to be quite lost And upon which consideration we do earnestly desire that all conscientious and moderate spirited men throughout the Land though of different principles whether of the Episcopal or Congregational way would bend themselves so far as possibly they can to accommodate with us in point of practice In which there was so good a progresse made by the late Assembly as to those that were for the Congregational way And as we think also all those that were for the lawfulnesse of submission to the Government of the late Prelacy as it was then exercised and that are of the Judgement of the late Primate of Ireland in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government mentioned before might doe if they would come up towards us so far as we judge their principles would allow them As we do also professe that however we cannot consent to part with the Ruling Elder unlesse we should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. as we judge and dare not give any like consent to admit of a moderate Episcopacy for fear of encroachments upon the Pastors right and whereof late sad experience lessons us to beware as we judge also that the superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter in degree which some maintain is no Apostolical institution and so have the greater reason in that respect to caution against it Yet we do here professe we should so farre as will consist with our principles and the peace of our own consciences be ready to abate or tolerate much for peace sake That so at the length all parties throughout the Land that have any soundness in them in matters of faith and that are sober and godly though of different judgements in lesser matters being weary of their divisions might fall in the necks one of another with mutual embraces and kisses and so at last through the tender mercy of our God there might be an happy closure of breaches and restoring of peace and union in this poor unsettled rent and distracted Church to the glory of God throughout all the Churches SECT VII BUt now as to you and what follows in your Paper and in the mean season till this can be accomplished and
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
answered to that Objection which you made out of our Paper wherein as you cut it short so you do manifestly deprave our words for though speaking of that which was to be the rule of deciding controversies touching Ghurch Government or of any other matters of Religion we said That the Word of God alone and then added which you here wholly leave out and the approved practice of the Church recorded there whether it was the universal and constant practice of the Church or no is to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religon yet we never said away therefore with the constant and universal practice of the hCurch this being an addition of your own and which when you profess to represent what we said was no more fair then your former substraction especially when such additions or substractions belonged to the true stating of the Question betwixt you and us although if the universall and constant practice of the Church must be added to the will and Word of God or it is not a sufficient and perfect rule whereby to guide us we may well then say away with the constant and Universal practice of the Church in this sense And yet in our Answer you might have taken notice that we said we did much honour and reverence the Primitive Churches although we professed we owed greater reverence to the Scriptures then to them and whereby we did not judg they were any whit disparaged as they themselves would never have thought upon such an expression But in our Answer after we had propounded the rule which you seemed to us to make for deciding of the controversie touching Church Government and other matters of Religion sc the Word or will of God and the constant and Universal practice of the Church as if the Word of God alone except confirmed or explained by the constant and Universal practice of the Church when there were any doubt about any matter as here you speak were not of it self sufficient to determine it and which is that rule which here you own we first supposing it were admitted of put you upon it to prove what was the Universal prctice of Primitive Churches in the matter of Church Government intimating to you that we thought it would be hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any Records of Antiquity what thaâ— was for the whole space of three hundred years after Christ or the greatest part thereof excepting so much as was left upon record in the Scriptures of the new Testament for which we gave you our reasons unto which you say something after you had first vented your distemper against us for not admitting your rule but how satisfactory will come afterward to be examined In the next place we came to oppose the rule it self and for this also we gave you our reasons none of which you do either recite in your representation of what we had here said or return any answer to afterward and which is such a kind of replying to our Answer as we believe all ingenuous rationall men would have been ashamed of who would have conceived they were obliged either to have returned some answer to our arguments or to have never replyed at at all but been silent But seeing you mention them not we shall give the Reader a short account what they were and referre him to the answer it self where he may see them more fully The reasons we gave why we could not admit of the rule you laid down were three although we did not in our answer number them and which perhaps might be the reason why you might think if you took no notice of them such an escape might the more easily pass The first reason we urged against your rule was because thereby the Scriptures were accused as imperfect or as not having light enough in themselves for the resolving all doubts touching matters of faith and practice except it were first known what was the universal practice of Primitive Churches 2. The second was because admitting the constant and universal practice of Primitive Churches to be that which must assure us what is the will of God concerning Church Government our faith is hereupon resolved into a most uncertain ground and so made fallible and turned into opinion there being no monuments of antiquity besides the Scriptures that could infallibly assure us touching the matters of fact therein contained 3. Our third reason was because if we could be assured what was the universal and constant practice of the Primitive Churches yet that could not be a rule to us what is most consonant to the will of God considering that in such matters as are not absolutely necessary to salvation we did not see but the universal practice of the Churches might in some things be dissonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures We here shewed there were corruptions and so failings in practice in the best of men instancing in the hot contention betwixt Paul and Bâ—rnabas Peters dissimulation Gal. 2. and not only in these Apostolical men but also in Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Galatia Asia and then shewed how afterward corruptions grew in the Church in Doctrine and Government as the Reader will see more fully upon perusall of our answer and where he will finde all these reasons though you here were pleased to take no notice of any of them But we hereupon inferred that whereas you say that you pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is most consonant to the will of God and universal practice of Primitive Churches we did believe you might cut the matter a great deal shorter which you eagerly catch at in the representation you make and say that you are for the establishing of that Government that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in the Scriptures and that the word of God alone and on which only faith must be built and into which at last be resolved when other records of antiquity that yet are not so ancient as it is have been searched into never so much shall determine what that is and so those wearisome and endless disputes about what is the universall and constant practice of Primitive Churches and which if it could not be found out in any good measure of probability for the first three hundred yeares after Christ could never yet be so far issued as to be a sure bottome whereon our faith may safely rest may be cut off it being a most certain rule and especially in matters of faith that the factum is not to prescribe against the jus the practice against the right or what ought to be done We have been the larger in making this representation of what we had answered because yours is here so short and also because you come not at all afterward to answer any of our reasons but fall upon us with foule language as if that were sufficient to answer an argument
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
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
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
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
go under the Names of the most approved Authors of the Primitive times referring therein after a more especiall manner to the Epistles of Ignatius are neither spurious nor corrupted But hence it will follow that what is alleadged by you out of Ignatius for the support of the Episcopall cause is not of that waight as to prove what was the practice of the Church in the time of the true Ignatius much less to prove what was the universall practice of the Primitive Church long before the assembling of the Council of Nice or to evidence that that Council in the 6th Canon had any reference to the words of Ignatius which you cite and which might as well be foysted into his works afterwards as other things and so nothing thence to be concluded either with the shew of any certainty or of any good measure of probability 5. Now whereas you will have these ancient customes touching the power and priviledges of the Metrapolitans and Patriarchs to be deduced from St. Marke the Evangelist who you say was not onely Bishop of Alexandria but of the Churches of Egipt Lybia and Pentapolis and will have the subordination of all inferiour Officers in the Church to the Bishop in every Diocess of the Bishop in every Province to the Metropolitan of the Metropolitan in every region to the Patriarch or Primate these standing Powers as you call them and subjection to be defined and asserted by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemoriall Apostolicall tradition and custome you must either prove that the customes standing Powers and subjection that you speak of are warranted defined and asserted by the Canon of Scripture which you will never be able to do or else you do hereby intimate that you would have it to be believed that there are some customes and traditions that are Apostolicall and to be received as such that are not found written in the Canon of the Scripture But by this assertion you gratifie the Papists and open a door to let into the Church the many unwritten traditions they would obtrude upon it under the specious name and title of Apostolicall traditions though you might have known they are abundantly therein consuted by our Divines that yet were never answered by them or any other patrons of unwritten traditions And upon this account we hope we shall be sufficiently excused though we forbear to either examin or say any thing particularly to the Councils and Dr. Hammond that you cite for this purpose But as touching Marke the Evangelist whom you will have to be not onely Bishop of Alexandria but also of Egypt Lybia and Pent apolis also you do herein assert things inconsistent sc that he was an Evangelist and yet an ordinary Bishop For Evangelists properly were extraordinary Officers extraordinarily employd in Preaching of the Gospel without any setled residence upon any one charge were companions of the Apostles and under the Apostles had the care of all Churches and in which sense Mark was an Evangelist as well as in regard of the Gospel which he wrote But Bishops were Officers that were ordinary and fixed to one particular charge neither did they ordinarily travell with the Apostles from place to place as the Evangelists did Neither could Evangelists be any more called Bishops properly then the Apostles could be so called who were not such formally but onely eminently and virtually But as touching Eusebius whom you cite Scaliger saith concerning him that he read ancient Histories parum attentè But further you are to consider that the Apostles themselves were called Bishops in those times and yet they could not be so called properly as is proved by Mr. Banes in his Diocesan Triall who there gives reasons why Apostles neither were nor might be both Apostles and Bishops properly We shall onely urge one of the reasons there mentioned which also doth strongly prove that Mark the Evangelist neither was nor could be an ordinary Bishop for then he is made liable to errour as all ordinary Bishops were and are and then in writing of his Gospel as well as in his teaching he might erre and hereupon occasion is given to call that part of Canonical Scripture in question as the asserting the Apostles to be Bishops properly gives the like occasion to call all their writings in question which is dangerous and no wayes to be admitted of And hence it will follow in what sense soever you call Mark an Evangelist yet he could not be a Bishop properly although it should be granted he had an inspection under the Apostles of all those parts you mention 6. But thus farre we hope it is manifest unto the Reader that as yet you are to shew what the practice of the Church was in point of Church-Government for the space of the first three hundred years after Christ that which you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice not manifesting it either for the whole space or the greatest part thereof as appears by what we have said touching this matter Neither must we allow what again you here further assert sc that General Councils are the best enterpreters of the mind and wiâ—l of God in Scripture touching Church Government the Scripture it self being a farre more sure and safe interpreter of Gods will and minde therein revealed in the plain places thereof when there is a doubt and difficulty arising from the darkness of some other places and as hath been fully shewed as also considering that there was some swerving in point of Church Government from Scripture rule before the first general Council met or assembled when yet there was more purity as to that matter then there was afterward 7. Neither must we suffer that to pass for currant which you here say of Calvin sc that though he disliked the name Hierarchy yet he allowed the thing The place you here chiefly referre to is as we judge that place in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 1 2 3. but especially what we find Sect. 4. where we grant having mentioned Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs and having given the reason of the first institution of them in that fourth Section he hath these words Gubernationem sic constitutam nonnulli Hierarchiam vocarunt nomine ut mihi videtur improprie certè Scripturis inusitato c. Verum si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit i. e. the Governement of the Church so constituted some called the Hierarchie by an improper name as it seems unto me certainly by a name not used in the Scriptures c. But if omitting the Word we look upon the thing we shall find that the ancient Bishops would not frame another forme of governing the Church from that which God hath prescribed in his Word He speaks then here of what was in their intention not as approving every thing they did He saith they
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.