Brethren of one and the same Church and Fellowship And we know not what other Church you mean but the Church of England some of you that are the Subscribers of this Paper not being Members of the particular Church at Manchester nor any of you acknowledging or owning our Presbyterian Classicall Church or Association And therefore you here take us to be of the same Church of England with your selves and confess that we are in fellowship with it notwithstanding Episcopacy be taken away and which is that which we our selves do constantly profess 2. That that Episcopacy that was submitted to by the Ministers of this Land of later times was burthensome and grievous It spoyled the Pastors of that power which of right did belong unto them and which they did not onely anciently exercise as Doctor Vsher shews in his Reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church Pag. 3 4 5. but which also by the order of the Church of England as the same Author out of the Book of Ordination shews did belong unto them For he there saith By the Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received and that they might better understand what the Lord hath commanded them the Exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy-ghost hath made you Overseers to rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood All which power the Pastors were deprived of during the prevalency of Episcopacy the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven being taken out of their hands they having neither power to cast out of the Church the vilest of Offenders that were often kept in against their minds nor any power to restore into the Churches Communion such as had been never so unjustly excommunicated though of the best of their Flock And so that Episcopacy that formerly was submitted unto was a plain and manifest usurpation upon the Pastors Office and Authority was very oppressive and grievous unto the Church and injurious to her Communion and whereupon it will follow that there is no breach of that Union which ought to be maintained in the Church by not admitting of it again but rather the Churches peace the power that of right belongs unto the Pastors and the Priviledges of the Members are all better secured in the absence then in the presence of it 3. That however both godly Conformists as well as Nonconformists did groan under the burthensomness of it yet in licitis honest is they submitted and yielded Obedience to it whilst it continued established by the Laws of the Land And that out of respect to the peace of the Church although they did not thereby take themselves obliged to forbeare the use of any lawfull means for their deliverance from that bondage as opportunity was offered And hereupon they petitioned the Parliament of late for an abolition of it as had been formerly desired in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James as when other Laws have been found to be inconvenient and mischievous it was never accounted any disturbance of the civil peace to remonstrate the grievousness of such Laws to the Parliament that they might be abolished 4. Let it also be further weighed that that Episcopacy to which you would perswade us by this Argument to return is now abolished and taken away by the Authority of Parliament as appears by the Acts and Ordinances for that purpose See them cited in our Animadversions on your next Paper Sect. 4. And therefore both the Bishops as such and that Superiority which they challenged and exercised over the Ministers in this Land are dead in Law and so there can be no guilt of Schisme lying on the Ministers in this Land for not returning to that Canonicall Obedience that is not hereupon any longer due or for not submitting themselves to that power and jurisdiction that is extinct There is the greater strength in this consideration if it be observed 1. That whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops did exercise over Presbyters they did obtain onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church 2. That the Parliament did lawfully take away that Jurisdiction from them and had therein the concurrence of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines The first of these Propositions is clear upon this consideration that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter all one This is clear from Titus 1. Ver. 5. compared with the seventh whence it appears that those whom the Apostle had called Elders or Presbyters Ver. 5. he calls Bishops Ver. 7. And indeed otherwise he had reasoned very inconsequently when laying down the qualifications of Elders Ver. 6. he saith Ver. 7. For a Bishop c. For a Bishop must be blameless Whereunto may be added that other known place Act. 20. 17. compared with Ver. 28. For the Apostle saith to those Elders that the Holy-ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers of the Church Besides what Office the Bishops had that the Elders had Both are charged to feed the Flock of Christ Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 12. and which is both by Doctrine and Government The Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven were committed to them Mat. 16. 19. both the Key of Doctrine and the Key of Discipline The former is not denyed and for the other it is proved from 1 Thes 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 7 17 24. where we see they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are over them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule And for power to Ordain we may see its plain from 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is charged not to neglect the Gift that was in him which was given him by Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This Text you your selves tell us in your next Paper Sect. 5. is understood by the Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also Of the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests But from these several Texts thus urged it is very manifest that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter both one or one and the same order of Ministry And hereupon it follows that whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops exercised over Presbyters they had it not by Divine Right but obtained it onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church And thus the first Proposition is clear We now come to make good the second And that the Parliament did lawfully take away the Jurisdiction and whole Office of Diocesan Bishops
lawfull authority there can be no perjury in such Presbyters as now disown it and joyn with other of their Brethren in the ordination of Presbyters without the concurrence of any Diocesan Bishop and which is the case here spoken to 2 But every intelligent Reader will readily discern how the Parliament is also wounded through our sides for if we be guilty of perjury for disowning Prelacy it is easie for to gather what apprehensions you must needs hereupon have of the Parliament that by their authority took it away But we think we have said that which is sufficient to rowl away the reproach that is cast either on them or our selves in this respect and therefore shall forbear to add any more We therefore now come to the second thing you here charge us with which is pertinacy but why should we be charged with this For no other reason that we can imagine but because we cannot force our consciences to admit of Episcopacy again which the Parliament upon many weighry and sound considerations hath removed and of the necessity whereof you never went about to convince us either from Scripture or sound reason But we do not question but all sober Readers will here see cause to censure you for great uncharitableness laying such heavy things to our charge for which you have not the least shew of proof as we we do also believe that what you count pertinacy they will judg to be constancy in us in sticking close to our sound and good principles that we must not forgoe on so easie termes as you would have us And however you would here make Dr. Usher to patronize you because he confesseth the ordination by Presbyters to be valid where Bishops can not be had so in case of necessity yet he hath not a word touching the imputation either of perjury or obstinacy to such Presbyters as have severed themselves from the Bishops as he was of a farre other spirit then to have been so censorious 8. As touching Ae rius of whom you say that he was most justly condemned for heresie for holding a parity amongst Church-officers we well know that this is commonly said by some Episcopal men from whom we judge you received it but we also know that it hath been as often answered by such as were Antiprelatical Mr. Banes in his Diocesans triall hath spoken to it satisfactorily Dr. Whitaker saith in answer to Campians tenth reason pag. 241. of the second Edition in Octavo Cum Aërio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensiâ— illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit i. e. With Aërius Hierome did conceive altogether the same thing concerning Presbyters for he determined that by divine right they were equall unto Bishops And because Hierome is here said by Dr. Whitaker to be of the same opinion in this point with Ae rius we shall give you and the Reader an account thereof from Hierome himself His words in his Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus making the same inference from the words of the Apostle Chap. 1. Ver. 5 6 7. that in our answer to your second Paper we have done are these Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequamdiaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur And then a little after he saith Putet aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse relegat Apostoli ad Phillippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timotheus servi Jesu Christi omnibus sancâ—is in Christo Jesu qui sunt Phillippis cum Episcopis Diaconis gratia vobis pax reliqua Phillipi una est urbs Macedoniae certe in uâ—â civitate plures ut nuncupantur Episcopi esse non poterant Sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore quos Prebyteros appellabant propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est loquutus Whence its clear that he did not only hold Bishops and Presbyters to be all one but proves this from the Scriptures and then after addes other Texts to prove the same thing expounding those Texts he quotes in the same manner as we have done in our answer to your second Paper More might be urged out of Hierome to shew that he was of the same opinion with Aërius as touching the parity of a Bishop and a Presbyter and therefore if this opinion was an heresie in Aërius Hierome according to your assertion should have been also most justly condemned for heresie But if you would but take the pains to peruse David Blondellus he might perhaps satisfie you that Hierome was not to be accused of heresie for this opinion he apologizing for him herein and proving at large from the concurrent testimony of the Fathers that he held not in this any singular opinion but what was generally received amongst the ancients His Treatise is a large Quarto and the main subject of it is to apologize for Hierome in this respect as the title of his Book doth also shew But it is well observed by the Provincial Assembly of London that Ae rius was never condemned by any Council of heresie for holding the identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter but that on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovieo pio Imperatore 10. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scriptures that Bishops and Presbyters are equals bringing the same Texts that Ae rius doth They also well observe that he is called an Heretique by Epiphanius and Auguâ—tine but this was especially if not only because he was an Arrian and that the same Authours condemne Aërius as much for reprehending and censuring prâ—ying and offering for the dead and the performing good works for the benefit of the dead as for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one and which opinion as it is commonly thought they condemned in Ae rius But will you say that Ae rius was most justly condemned for heresie for those opinions also But this for Ae rius his opinion touching a parity amongst Church-Officers may be sufficient 9. Concerning your submission to the judgement of Councils you have indeed declared your selves before and we have shewed you have submitted therein too farre as you will further declare your selves to this purpose hereafter But as touching our selves you shall not find that we vary from what we have professed to be our judgement touching this matter either in our first answer or in what we have said in answer to the second Section of this Paper and whereunto we referre the Reader that by comparing of what we say there and what you charge us with here or hereafter touching our not holding to what we have professed he may the better judge how groundlesly you herein do accuse us 10. But you will still have our Provincial Assembly at Preston a
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
the Sacraments as Hierome doth often confess yet in Government by ancient use of Speech he is onely called a Bishop which is in the Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. However it is not reasonable that we should be obliged to own every expression here used by this reverend Author who is produced by you as an Adversary to us in the matter in Controversie yet here we desire that it might be observed 1. That he onely saith for Order and seemly Government there was alwaies one Principall to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applyed By which words he seems clearly to intimate that that superiority which a Bishop had above the rest of the Clergy or Presbyters was but an Ecclesiasticall Constitution onely in that he ascribes it to Order and Decency 2. He makes a Bishop and an Elder in Scripture to be but of one Order and Autority in preaching the Word and Administration of the Sacraments as he saith Hierom doth often confess all which you leaving out do obscure Doctor Fulk's meaning For he asserting a Bishop and an Elder in Scripture to be but of one Order and Authority in preaching the Word and attributing the difference that is betwixt them in regard of Government to the ancient use of Speech sc That he onely is called a Bishop which is in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. citing the Texts above mentioned doth intimate a quite different sense to what you alledge him for For he doth not say that the Scripture in these Texts called the Bishop onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which purpose you alledge him but that by ancient use of Speech which might be different from the use of Scripture and as in this particular it was he is called a Bishop which is in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By which we doubt not it is clear to the judicious Reader that Doctor Fulk is not in the number of those many that you say apply these Texts to the Bishops onely taking the word Bishops as you take them We have now done with that you have produced here to satisfie us touching Lay-Elders as you call them that they are not meant nor mentioned in those Texts by us alledged which you undertook with some confidence but have as unsatisfactorily performed as we think ever any did that did attempt a matter of this nature Yet you now proceed hereupon to make your inference That therefore it can be no betraying the truth of Christ to part with the ruling Elders if we will seriously weigh it in the Ballance of impartiall and unprejudicate reason which yet you have not produced that might with any shew be sufficient to satisfie the Conscience either of us or any other men and to take in the other i. e. the Bishops which you say would be but a strengthning and a backing of it though we see not how And now you fall upon exhorting and beseeching us in the name of God which we hope is dear unto us and in the tender Bowels of Jesus Christ for whom we are willing to suffer the loss of all things and to whom we profess to owe our selves and whatever we are or can do as unto the Lord that bought us and to whom we must be faithfull as being his Stewards not to stand upon circumstantials though the ruling Elder whom you exhort us to part with is not a meer circumstantiall matter he being a Member of Christs Organicall Body and an Officer appointed by him in his Church as hath been already shewed or private interests which we see not how is any way advanced by our pleading for the ruling Elder but to apply our selves to the way of conjuncture and reconcilement of many poor Christian Soules whose Welfare we have reason to tender as we hope we do propounded by you and called by you happy though as we have shewed apprehended by us to be both dangerous and indeed destructive unto Union and asserted by you to be a way of reconcilement of them in truth love and peace and which if we could discern we should upon that account embrace with all our hearts we having already professed enough for peace and whether our Professions and Hearts do not go together is known to the Searcher of the Hearts and Reins as our earnest contending for the truth is that which hinders some men from being at peace with us But after you have propounded the tearms of reconciliation which you beseech and beg of us againe and againe to accept of though we should not need to be so earnestly intreated if they were safely to be admitted of you come to urge some Fruits that would ensue upon our hearkning to your motion And here we shall not deny but the blessing that might redound to all parties in a just way of reconciliation would be unconceivable as it is that we shall be ready to lay out our selves to our utmost for as we see there is any hope or probability to attain it We do also confess that the lives and manners of dissolute persons and how many there are amongst your selves of that sort you say you are but to too conscious as we do earnestly pray that both you and we may be so sensible thereof as that we may more truly and deeply lay it to heart may by a true loving accord which yet is to be in the way of truth with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed and in which way their reformation is most desirable or by due censures corrected and amended we not being willing that such sharp Physick should be applyed for any other end But here we cannot but express our feares least there be some amongst us and we heartily wish that you be not found in the number that are of that temper that whatever might be the fruit of brotherly admonition and Church censures and of reconciliation and union amongst all Parties and hereof you profess to be desirous they are resolved to be reconciled in no other way then upon admittance of Episcopacy and casting out of the ruling Elder But with those that are of this stamp we have no hopes of any cordiall Union till God alter their Judgments and change their hearts But whereas to perswade us to accept of the tearms of Union by you propounded you now do further add and say That amongst our selves also many who returning to their Canonical Obedience which they have sworn to may blot out the charge of Schisme that lies upon them and the Church of God be continued amongst us from age to age to the end of the world in a succession of a lawfully ordained Ministry We are far from being convinced by these Argument and must take the liberty to speak to them particularly and fully that so we may wipe off the Aspersions that thereby
end of the World in a succession of a lawfull ordained Ministry And in your next Paper you falling foule upon us and charging us with a rent indeed a Schisme in the highest you add which is not satisfied but with the utter overthrow of the Church from whom they rent Here you lay a great stress upon Episcopacy and such an one as none of our true Protestant Divines that defend the truth of our own and other reformed Churches against the Papists would ever have layd upon it But here two things are hinted which we shall severally examine 1. You intimate that by the taking away of Episcopacy the Church is overthrowne it cannot be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the end of the World except Episcopacy be restored 2. But yet there is a further Implication sc That there cannot be a Succession of a lawfull ordained Ministry which Succession yet you intimate to be necessary to the being of the Church if we have not Bishops againe that may Ordain 1. Unto the first of these we shall answer after we have premised a distinction touching the word Church For either the Church of God amongst us which you here speak of is taken essentially for that part of the Catholick visible Church which in regard of the place of its abode in this Land is called the Church of England as the severall parts of the Sea which yet is but one receive their Denomination from the Shoares they wash Or else you take the word Church for a Ministeriall Church or for the Church represensative as it is taken Matth. 18. 27. This premised we answer If you take the word Church in the former sense your Position is very gross no other then this that for want of Bishops the whole Church of England is at present overthrowne and that there is no way of recovery of it but by the restoring of them and so in the mean season it is no Church with whom we may safely hold Communion which layes a Foundation for separation from it and of Apostasie unto Rome where Bishops may be had We shall therefore to this say no more but onely mind you of what is well observed by Mr. Baxter out of B. Jewell in the defence of the Agreement of the Worcestershire Ministers Page 58. where he hath these words B. Jewell in his defence of the Apology Authorised to be kept in all Churches Part 2. Page 131. Neither doth the Church of England depend on them whom you so often call Apostates as if our Church were no Church without them They are no Apostates Mr. H c. Notwithstanding if there were not one neither of them nor of us left alive yet would not the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine Tertullian saith Nonne Laici sacerdotes sumus Scriptum est regnum quoque sâ—cerdotes Deo patri suo nos fecit differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae authoritas honos per ordinis concessum sanctificatus a Deo Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est concessus offert tingit sacerdos qui est ibi solus Sed ubi tres sunt Ecclesia est licet Laici But if you take the word Church for a Ministeriall or Organized Church we oppose your Position with these following Arguments 1. That which we have already proved sc That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture acceptation will necessarily inferre that the being of a Ministeriall or Organized Church doth not depend on the continuance or restauration of Bishops taking them for such as are superiour to Presbyters either in regard of Order or Jurisdiction For though these be never restored yet Presbyters being continued that yet are Bishops in Scripture sense the Organized and Ministeriall Church of Christ is fufficiently secured against the danger of perishing 2. But by the Tenent you here hold forth you do very uncharitably unchurch the best reformed Churches throughout the World The Protestant Churches of France Scotland the Low countries and Geneva must all be pâ—t out of the number of free Organized and Ministeriall Churches and their Ministers must because they admit not the Bishops that you are for be accounted no lawfull Ministers Yea you here againe very undutifully unchurch your Mother the Church of England if she restore not Episcopacy and herein gratifie the Papists no little that vilifie her and other reformed Churches as no true Churches and â—ry out against their Ministers as no lawfull Ministers But blessed be God both the Church of England and other reformed Churches and their Ministers have had and still have better Advocates and more dutifull Sonnes then you herein approve your selves to be to plead their Cause 3. By this Tenent also it will follow That all the Ordinances that are dispensed in these Churches are null and void Their Baptisme is no Baptisme The Sacrament of the Lords Supper Administred amongst them is no Sacrament and the like must be said of all the Ordinances that are dispensed in our Church by such as were not ordained by Bishops and so it makes them as to outward Church-Priviledges no better then meer Heathens and hereupon it ministers occasion of endless Doubts and Scruples unto the Members of those Churches of questioning the validity of their Baptisme and whether they ought not to be rebaptized which doubts also by your Tenent are occasioned also to all those among your selves that were baptized by such Ministers as were not Ordained by Bishops Thus you see how you lay the Foundation of Anabaptisme which yet you would seem to be zealous Opposers of 4. Add hereunto that hence it will unavoidably follow That you must not hold any Communion with these Churches nor such Congregations in the Church of England where these Ordinances are dispensed by such as were not Ordained by Bishops their Ministers according to your Doctrine being not lawfull Ministers and for the Ordinance dispensed by them null and void And here is a Rent indeed a rent in the highest to use your owne expressions from which our old Episcopall Divines that were sound Protestants would never have excused you no nor Doctor Vsher with whom in some things you profess to close For however he is represented by Doctor Bernard to have held that a Bishop had Superiority in degree above a Presbyter by Apostolicall Institution and had expressed himselfe sharply enough in his Letter to Doctor Bernard Touching the Ordination made by such Presbyters as had severed themselves from Bishops yet a little after speaking of the Churches of the Low-Countries * he sayth For the testifying his Communion with these Churches which he professeth to love and honour as true Members of the Church Universall he should with like affection receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers if he were in Holland as he should at the hands of the French Ministers if he were in Charenton By which you may perceive however he held those Churches
defective in Government for want of Bishops yet he neither upon this account doth unchurch them nor would have refused Communion with them as you by what you do here hold forth must needs do 5. Nay lastly hence it will follow that when all the Bishops in these Lands and those that were Ordained by them shall be dead if there be no Bishops to be found in any other reformed Churches nor Ministers that were Ordained by them a retreat back againe to Rome must be sounded that so we might have a lawfull Ordained Ministry and a Church which yet cannot be but by owning the Pope as the Head of the Church and renouncing the Protestant Religion as in the mean season great advantage is given to the Popish Emissaries to ensnare the weak by such a dangerous Insinuation as this is sc That for want of Bishops or that when all the Bishops are dead and those that were Ordained by them we have amongst us neither Church nor Ministery nor Ordinances and thus must continue to the end of the World except we returne to Rome and which they will not be wanting to tell them But if you had consulted Bishop Jewell Bishop Downame Doctor Feild Bishop Davenant Mr. Mason and other Orthodox Episcopall Divines in this Point and weighed their Defences of the reformed Churches and Ministry against the Papists you would have found they would never have owned such a dangerous and unsound Position as the Argument you here urge us with to admit againe of Episcopacy doth imply Neither do we believe that they if they were now alive would judge that you had here argued well for your Mother the Church of England that hath her selfe also ever since the Reformation even during the time of Episcopacy acknowledged the reformed Churches of France Scotland Low-countries Geneva to be true Churches of Christ and hath given them the right hand of Fellowship as Sister Churches and owned their Ministers Ordained without Bishops by Presbyters onely to be true Ministers 2. We now come to the second thing implyed in this your second Argument with which you would perswade us to admit of Episcopacy which is as we have sayd before that if it be not restored there cannot be a succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry Which succession yet you seem to judge to be necessary unto the continuance of the Church of God amongst us Here two things are implyed 1. The first whereof is that a Succession is necessary to the very being of the Church and of a lawfully Ordained Ministry And so 1. You do hereby strengthen the hands of the Papists who make the Succession of Bishops and Pastors without any interruption from the Apostles to be a Mark of the true Church although they are therein opposed generally by our Protestant Divines The Condition of the Church being many times such that the Succession of publick Teachers and Pastors is interrupted Doctor Sutlive saith well In externa successione quam haeretici saepe habent Orthodoxi non habent nihil est momenti 2. You do also hereby Minister occasion of such scruples unto private Christians as you will never be able satisfactorily to resolve For suppose one on this ground questions the truth of his Baptisme sc Because he doth not know whether he was baptized by one that was Ordained by a Bishop who himselfe also was Ordained by a former true Bishop and he by a former untill the Succession be carried on as high as that we are brought to such a Bishop that was ordained by one of the Apostles How will you be able making this Succession necessary to the continuing of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry to resolve the scruples of such an one What Church-Story shall be able to resolve the doubts that may be moved on this occasion Or on what grounds holding the necessity of this Succession for the continuance of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry will you be able to satisfie the Conscience of such as may be stumbled 3. Nay will not this Assertion give occasion to sundry to question all Churches Ministry and Ordinances and so to turn Seekers the Grounds you lay down giving them occasion to question the truth of our Churches Ministry and Ordinances 4. Neither shall the best and ablest Ministers that are already entred into that Calling or such as are to enter into it be able on your Principles in this particular either to satisfie their owne Consciences touching the lawfulness of their calling or be able to justifie and defend it against those that shall call it in question But our Protestant Divines have more sure Grounds on which to justifie our Churches Ministry and Ordinances and to satisfie their own and their peoples Consciences concerning them then what you insinuate 2. The second thing that is further implyed in this Argument is that the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry to the end of the World doth depend upon Episcopacy which is not true There was a time when Bishops had no Superiority above Presbyters a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture sense being all one as hath been proved before And though this Superiority should never be restored unto them yet the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry might be by the means of Presbyters Ordaining Presbyters And thus we say it was continued not onely in the dayes of Episcopacy though not without the mixture of some corruption cleaving to the Ordination then in use the Bishops notwithstanding their usurped Superiority above their fellow Brethren being themselves also Presbyters and so their Ordination valid in that respect and which we have constantly maintained against those of the separation but also in the darkest times of Popery and that our Ministry descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome as our reverend Brethren of the Province of London do well express it in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici where they do solidly and learnedly prove That the Ministry which is an Institution of Christ passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church And concerning which if any one do doubt we referre him unto the Book for his satisfaction Part 2. cap. 3. where as they well say this great truth so necessary to be knowne in these dayes is fully discussed and made out We have now at length done with both those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly with which you urged us to accept of the Proposall touching the taking in the Bishops wherein we have been the longer though perhaps this Discourse may by you be accounted tedious that so we might wipe off the foule aspersion of Schisme that we are therein charged with and likewise shew that the Church of God and a lawfully Ordained
truely qualified with a just power of conferring Orders Now these according to what you have declared in your former Paper are the Bishops without whom you there insinuate the Church of God cannot be continued amongst us in a succession of a lawfully ordained Ministry and so at once cashier out of the numbet of law-full Pastors all such Ministers either of our own or other reformed Churches that are ordained by Presbyters onely and to whom you allow not the power of Ordination as you here also do plainly declare your selves But we have in our answer to that clause quoted out of your former Paper sufficiently as we hope the Reader will judg declared the absurdity of this your opinion And you your selves as all men may see may hereby perceive how vain a thing it is for you and us to labour in any way of accommodation whilst you retain these principles they being destructive to union and your communion in severall of our Churches either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper For how can you have communion in those Ordinances dispensed by such Ministers amongst us as being ordained by Presbyters onely you on this ground will conclude to be no lawfully ordained Ministers And therefore if you be cordiall for union we wish you to revise what you have as touching this matter asserted and weigh what in our former Paper we have opposed unto it But as touching the power of ordaining Presbyters by Presbyters onely you will have it to be our opinion onely and that in this we are singular for you say we and you believe it is none but we presume one Presbyter may confer orders upon another And here indeed 1. If we held that one Presbyter might ordain another Presbyter you had reason to accuse us of singularity but we are professedly against all solitary power in ordination as well as in jurisdiction by whomsoever this power is or hath been exercised 2. But if your meaning be that it is we onely that hold Presbyters alone without any Bishops may ordain Presbyters 1. You might have known that this was and is the judgment of the reformed Churches abroad as well as ours 2. And further you may remember we alleadged out of Dr. Bernard the testimony of severall Episcopall men as well as of Dr. Usher asserting and proving that in places where Bishops cannot be had the ordination of Presbyters standeth valid which speciall restriction we mentioned in our Answer as the Reader will finde and which though added would not have hindred if you had been of the same opinion with them but you might have acknowledged that such as are with us ordained by Presbyters onely are notwithstanding lawfull Pastors Bishops being now taken away by the power of the civil Magistrate and excluded from having any liberty to ordain by those acts where Prelacy is exempted from that indulgence that is granted to some others If also that Catalogue of Divines Schoolmen and Fathers that we cited out of Dr. Bernard who are cited by him also out of others be consulted they will be found to affirm as we said in our Answer though you take no notice of it that Episcopacy non est ordo praecisè distinctus a Sacerdotio simplici Bishop Davenant as he is alleadged by Dr. Bernard for this purpose producing the principall of the Schoolmen Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson Durand c. for this opinion Whence also it is evident that they are not by us frustraneously cited though it be an easie matter for you to assert the same without any reason or ever answering to what they were alleadged for to affirm We shall not here deny but Dr. Usher saith that the ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworn canicall obedience could not possibly by him be excused from being schismaticall But yet he doth not say that the ordination by them is null and void although in his judgment there was thereby a schisme made There may be schismes in the Church yea some particular Churches may be schismaticall and yet for the substance of them continue true Churches of Jesus Christ as if it were to our purpose might be cleared both from Scriptures and also Fathers But as touching the aspersion of schisme that is cast on such Presbyters that have severed themselves from the Bishops we hope it is sufficiently wiped off by what we have already spoken in our answer to your second Paper 7. However it seems that charge was not high enough and therefore in this you proceed further charging us with perjury and obstinacy for you having mentioned that speciall restriction of Dr. Ushers of not invalidating the ordination by Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had add and say but this we must desire you to consider is ex necessitate non ex perjurio pertinacia and however you would smooth up the matter by bidding us examine our selves in this particular and saying you shall not judge any man yet it is plain enough to any discerning Reader who they are that are charged by such expressions But as touching the thing it self we shall now examine the justness of the charge And first we shall begin with that of perjury unto which we shall need to say the less considering that the grounds layd in our Answer to your second Paper proving that such Presbyters as since the Parliaments abolishing Prelacy have severed themselves from the Bishops or cast off Episcopacy are not justly to be charged with schisme do here also take place to acquit such Ministers that did swear Canonicall obedience to the Bishops from the guilt of perjury We shall here onely minde you and the Reader of two things 1. That seeing the superiority which the Bishops chalenged and exercised above Presbyters in this Nation did belong unto them onely by the Law of the Land we having proved in our Answer to your second Paper that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture sense are both one and was taken away from them by the Legislative power of this Nation as they might lawfully take it away that power which they exercised not being due to them by Divine right nay being an usurpation upon the Pastors office as hath been also shewd and so their whole Office as Diocesans together with their jurisdiction as sundry also of their Persons are all extinct and as is manifest in particular touching him that was the Bishop of this Dioces we wonder much and we think every Reader will here wonder with us that your great heat for Prelacy should thus farre have transported you as to charge us with perjury for which there is not the least colour Consult Dr. Sanderson de juramenti promissorii obligatione consult all other Casuists and you shall finde that the best and soundest of them do determine with one consent that when the matter of an Oath ceaseth the obligation by vertue of that Oath ceaseth also and therefore Prelacy being taken away by
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
time when the Council of Nice assembled all at once but by steps and degrees and that it was then nothing like to what it grew up to afterward and further that however those godly Fathers that did first set it up and afterwards upheld it did so out of a good intention yet that therein they were but subservient to what afterward was effected in the Bishop of Rome to lift up Antichrist into his seat and which is not much to be wondred at whenas the Apostle tells us that in his dayes the mystery of iniquity did then already work and that good men may be instrumental though unwittingly to promote and advance a very ill and bad designe God therein leaving them to themselves and he thereby in his secret and unsearchable providence though just holy and wise bringing that about which he had before appointed in his eternal counsel And yet for all this we do averre that however as Hierome doth well observe at the first a Bishop and a Presbyter were the same and that before by the instinct of the Devil there were contentions in Religion and it was said amongst the people I am of Paul I of Apollo I of Cephas the Churches were governed by the common counsell of the Presbyters but that after every one thought that those were his which he did baptize not Christs it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be chosen and set over the rest unto whom all the care of the Church should belong and the seeds of schismes taken away Yet not only in that age but long afterward as also long before the assembling of the Council of Nice that speakes of Metropolitans and confirming their power a Bishop and Presbyter were acknowledged to be one order of Ministery as they did also joyn with the Bishops after their setting up in the Governement of the Church as is acknowledged and proved by Dr. Usher in his reduction of Episcopacy to the forme of Synodical Governement in the ancient Church and which indeed is that which is acknowledged by your selves For you confessed before that Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and others of the Greek Fathers with some of the Latines also did take the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests as you express it making Bishops and Presbyters mutually to expound each other as hath been already observed And herein you are not alone as hath been partly shewed before and is abundantly shewed by others and particularly by our reverend Brethren of the Province of London who in their Jus divinum Ministerij Evangelici prove not only from the Scriptures that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one but do urge also sundry other testimonies for the proof thereof not only out of Hierome and Augustine but likewise do alleadg Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles shewing the same thing out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustine Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophilact and do further urge that Michael Medina affirmes lib. 1. de Sacris originibus that not only Hierome but also that Ambrose Augustine Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact were of the same judgement with Ae rius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture besides other testimonies which they do there urge But David Blondellus in his Apologia pro sententiâ Hieronymi doth clear this up so fully in that his large Treatise penned on purpose to shew what concurrence of Antiquity there is for this opinion of Hierome that we believe those that are unprejudiced that will but take the paines to read and weigh what he there presents will readily grant that long before the Council of Nice and long after it was acknowledged that a Bishop and Presbyter are one order of Ministery We have thus said that which we judge sufficient unto the Canons themselves that you cite out of the Council of Nice and particularly to the sixth Canon of that Council on which you lay the greatest weight and shall now proceed to examine what follows 4. For you will have the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we used in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice to be the very words which Ignatius useth to express the Apostolicall traditions Antiqui mores obtineant in Egypto Lybia Pentapoli c. i. e. Let the ancient customes of Egypt Lybia and Pentapoli continue that the Patriarch of Alexandria should have power over all these But concerning the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius you might know there are different opinions of the Learned about them Salmasius conceives they were written by a pseudo-Ignatius to bring into credit that Episcopall Government that deviated from the primitive institution and that they were written at that very time when that was set up Others that conceive any of them to be genuine yet do not receive them all Mr. Perkins in his Preparatives to the demonstration of the Probleme observes that seaven Epistles of his Hierome and Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 35 36. reckon for true but now they are increased unto twelve five whereof he judges to be counterfeit and these to be 1. ad Mariam 2. ad Tarsenses 3. ad Hieron 4. ad Antiochenos 5. ad Philippenses Dr. Usher that Reverend and Learned Antiquary acknowledgeth onely six of these Epistles to be genuine and saith the other six are spurious and of those six that he acknowledgeth he saith they are depraved and corrupted Nay Mr. Perkins observes that Bellarmine himself confesseth of these Epistles that the Greek copies are corrupted And to evidence this we wish you to consider two passages onely that we shall instance in In his Epistle to the Trallians he boasteth of his knowledg for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am able to understand heavenly things the orders of Angels the differences of Archangels and of the heavenly Hoast the differences between powers and dominations the distances of thrones and powers yea as followes a little after the Kingdom of the Lord and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God Almighty These expressions savour not of that humility that was in that faithfull servant of Christ the true Ignatius And in his Epistle ad Smyrnenses he takes upon him to correct if not to contradict Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He saith my son honour God and the King but I say honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests c. and after him it behoveth you to honour the King More here might be urged but these and other passages that might be instanced in do shew plainly that these Epistles are either counterfeit or corrupted And this was the reason of those expressions we used in our Answer when we said it would not be easie to assure us that some Works 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
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
in the form of our Church Government As also the times propounded there for their meetings the power of these Assemblies c. and are the same in substance as with us And all these were propounded as the way of Government in the Ancient Church and as an Expedient c. as abovesad And therefore for so you conclude in the Judgement of this learned and Reverend Antiquary our Provincial Assembly at Preston where the Pastors of the Church are members as he acknowledgeth of right they ought to be in such Assemblies would not have been accounted a new Termed Provincial Assembly Touching all which we shall close and joyn issue with you we willingly submit our selves to that order aud rule therein Expressed which being that which was received in the Ancient Church In the Judgement of that Reverend and learned Antiquary Dr. Vsher who was so acknowledged by all that knew him or are acquainted with his works And also the Assemblies there expressed holding proportion with yours set down in the form of your Church Government and being the same with yours in substance and being proposed as an Expedient for prevention of further troubles c. We fully expect you should also submit your selves unto for Peace and Unities sake and so we close and meet together as in the middle And this the rather in regard of those full and free expressions of yours to that purpose saying We reverence Dr. Bernard for his moderation and profession of his desires for peace wishing That such as do consent in Substantials for matter of Doctrine would consider of some Conjunction in point of Discipline That private Interests and Circumstantials might not keep themselves so far asunder In which wish as we do cordially joyn our selves so we heartily desire that all godly and moderate spirited men throughout the Land would also close And in another place you say However we dare not admit of a moderate Episcopacy for fear of encroachings upon the Pastors right c. Yet we do here professe we should so far 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 into the necks of one 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 unsetled rent and distracted Church to the glory of God throughout all Churches Now who are they that disturbe this our happy closure and conjunction We wish not with the Apostle that they were cut off but that they were taken away that trouble us for only they let that will let untill they be taken out of the way and those are the Ruling Elders as you call them We suppofe you mean those whom you have chosen out of the Laity and admitted without further entring into holy Orders into the whole execise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in equal right with the Ministers of the Gospel in which respect your Assemblies and so your Provincial at Preston would be accounted in the judgement of Dr. Vsher a new termed Provincial assembly and stand yet uncleared of suspition of novelty whom you say You cannot consent to part with unlesse you should betray the Truth of Christ as you judge quoting Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. and for further Testimony refer us to some Modern Authors all of yesterday Now whereas you say you cannot part with them unless you betray the Truth of Christ as you judge By this Parenthesis we gather that you are not so wedded to that opinion but you can and will submit to better reason when offered to you And we do again profess to you that we will not willfully and pertinaciously hold a contrary Tenent And in this confidence we proceed to shew to you that Lay-Elders are not meant nor mentioned in those Texts by you alledged Briefly thus but more largely hereafter if what is comprehended in this paper be not judged satisfactory Run over all the Expositers of holy writ whether the Fathers in general or more particular Councils And Calvin saith there can be no better nor surer remedy for deciding ofcontroversies no better sense nor Interpretation of Scripture then what is given by them in such Councils or whether the Fathers apart And first for that Text Rom. 12. here what Dr. Andrews saith and at your leisure examine the Fathers There is no Epistle saith he on which so many of the Fathers have writ Six only I will name Origen Chrysostome Theodoret Ambrose Jerom Oecumenius All which have treated of it Let their Commentaries be looked on upon that place not one of them applyeth it to the Church Government which by all likelihood could not be imagined but they would if that had been the main place for it nor finde those Offices in those words which they in good earnest tell us of c. As much may be said for the other two Texts Not one Father in their Comments upon them giveth such a sense Finde one Exposition for you and which is much we will yield you all Many there are that apply them to the Bishops And so one for those many of our Modern Doctors we could give you to answer those modern you quote in behalf of your Elders of our English Church Dr. Fulk by name we instance in applying these Texts to the Bishops only whom we quote in regard of the moderate judgement he was supposed to be of in point of Church-government and therefore more likely to sway with you than any other we could produce His words are these Amongst the Clergy for Order and Government there was alwayes one principal to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or Super-intendent hath been applyed which in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoting these Texts Rom. 12. 8. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Heb. 13. 17. And therefore it can be no betraying of the Truth of Christ if you will seriously weigh it in the ballance of impartial and unprejudicate reason to part with them and to take in the other but a strengthening and a backing of it Wherefore in the name of God and in the tender bowels of Christ we beg again and again beseeching you not to stand upon circumstantials or private interests But to apply your selves to this happy conjuncture and reconcilement of so many poor Christian Souls in truth love and peace in this our English Church in these our days The blessing that may redound to all parties thus reconciled is unconceiveable The lives and manners of dissolute persons and how many there are amongst our selves of that sort we are but too too conscious
shall be severall of them found to allow of the thing it self and give testimony to the being of these Officers in the Church in their time We shall here mention onely some of those that may be alledged touching this particular And first Ambrose his words on 1 Tim. 5. 1. are full and plain to our purpose Vnde synagoga postea Ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum sibi volunt aliquid videri i. e. Whence both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Elders without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church Which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not unless perhaps through the Teachers sloathfulness or rather haughtiness while they alone would be thought somewhat In the next place observe what Optatus saith lib. 1. Adversus Parmen Eram Ecclesie ex auro argento quam plurima â—rnamenta quae nec defodere terra nec secum poâ—tare poterat quare fidelbus Ecclesiae senioribus commendavit i. i. e. The Church had many Ornaments of Gold and Silver which she could neither hide in the Earth nor carry away with her which she committed to the Elders The Provinciall Assembly of London do observe that Albaspinaeus that learned Antiquary upon the place acknowledgeth that besides the Clergy there were certain of the Elders of the people men of approved life that did tend the Affaires of the Church of whom this place is to be understood To these we may add That Austine gives frequent intimations of the ruling Elder in his time We shall here onely mention some places In his 137. Epistle to those of his owne Church he thus directs it Dilectissimis fratribus Clero Senioribus universae plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis i. e. To the most beloved Brethren the Clergy Elders and all the people of the Church at Hippo. Where we see Elders are mentioned distinctly and are interposed between the Clergy and the people as distinct from both Again De verb. Dom. Serm. 19. Cum ob errorem aliquem asâ—nioribus arguuntur imputatur alicui de illis cur ebrius fuerit c. When they are reprehended for any errour by the Elders and its imputed to any of them why was he drunk c. So againe Lib. 3. contra Cresconium cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter seniores Musticanae regionis Peregrine the Presbyter and the Elders of the Mustican Region And long before him Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. hath this passage Nonnulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant ut qui turpia committant iis communi caelu interdicant c i. e. There are some Rulers appointed who may enquire concerning the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted that they may debar from the common Assembly such as commit filthiness This place of Origen is clear for ruling Elders whose work it is to enquire into the Conversation and manners of those that are admitted to communicate with the Congregation at the Lords Table and is so understood by others as well as our selves We might alledge more Testimonies of the Fathers for the proof of what we are in hand with but that we judge these sufficient Even those that do oppose the ruling Elders Office with too much vehemency are forced to confess that besides Pastors and Doctors and besides Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to be found in Antiquity Seniores ecclesiastici Ecclesiasticall Elders also But they will have them to be onely as our Church-wardens or rather as our Vestry-men as one of them speaks See the Author of Episcopacy by divine right pag. 146. whereas the Testimonies alledged shew they were Rulers and Judges in Causes Ecclesiasticall and did assist the Ministers of the Word in the ruling and governing of the Church which being very clear from the above mentioned Testimonies and others of the like kind another zealous enough against them would have them to be some or other in chief Rank amongst the rest of the people taken in occasionally for advice and present assistance and so an extraordinary kind of Church-Guardians without any peculiar and setled Jurisdiction Which is but gratis dictum sayd without all proof See Velitatienes polemicae by I. D. pag. 96 But at last this Author as not satisfied with former Answers given and granting that the Fathers in truth do make for them as indeed they do yet he would not have their Testimonies amount to so much as to the clearing up of Divine Right so strongly stood upon by divers as he speaks But the matter of Fact then is granted that there were such Ecclesiastical Officers which the Fathers owned and allowed of And being the Divine Right of their Office was not then questioned it is as easie for us to affirm that as those Fathers did not deny it so they owned it as it is for that Author to say That they were but admitted as an expedient and behoovefull Order in the Church or on prudentiall grounds To use his own expressions quoted before Vide Pag. 96. Sect. 30. Although this being granted will be sufficient to vindicate this Office of the ruling Elder from all suspition of novelty and to shew That it was no new fangled device of Calvin at Gevena as some tauntingly have sayd And for your admittance of the ruling Elder this might be sufficient for your satisfaction as we think according to your Principles But now to return to the Texts alledged by us to prove the Divine Right of the ruling Elders Office After you had sent us to the Fathers to consult them you tell us Many there are that apply them to the Bishops and amongst these you instance Doctor Fulk applying these Texts to the Bishops onely whom you say you quote in regard of the moderate Judgment he was supposed to be of in point of Church-government c. But you having not dealt so fairely with Calvin as had been meet you must pardon us if we cannot take the matter you quote him for upon trust and from your representation of him You do not here cite the place but for what reason your selves best know as we leave it to the Reader for to judge But the words that you alledge out of him though mangled by you we find in him in his Answer to the Rhemists on Titus 1. 5. And we shall give them the Reader intirely and at full length and they are these Amongst whom speaking of the Clergy for Order and seemly Government there was alwaies one Principall to whom by long use of the Church the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applyed Which Room Titus exercised at Crete Timothy in Ephesus and others in other places Therefore although in Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in preaching the Word and administration of
is proved from the grounds already layd For this Jurisdiction of theirs above Presbyters did not belong unto them by Divine Right we having proved that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter to be both one And therefore the Parliament that by Law gave them their power might seeing just cause for it by Law take it away They had also just reason for to take it away in regard of the oppressiveness and burthensomness of it both to Ministers and People to this whole Church and Nation as hath been proved before And therefore what they herein did was justly yea piously and prudently done and for which the Church of God in this Land both Ministers and People do for the present and will for the future see great cause to bless God for many Generations And that they had the concurrence herein of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines is clear from their Exhortation annexed to the Ordinance of Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament with Instructions for taking the League and Covenant in the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales In this Exhortation of the Assembly of Divines in answer to some Objections they apprehended might be made against the taking of the Covenant they thus express themselves If it be sayd for the extirpation of Prelacy to wit the whole Hierarchiall Government standing as yet by the known Laws of the Kingdome is new and unwarrantable This will appear to all impartiall understandings though new to be not onely warrantable but necessary if they consider to omit what some say that this Government was never formally established by any Laws of this Kingdome at all that the very life and soul thereof is already taken from it by an Act passed this present Parliament so as like Jezabels Carkass of which no more was left but the Skull the Feet and the Palmes of her hands nothing of Jurisdiction remains but what is precarious in them and voluntary in those who submit unto them That their whole Government is at best but a humane Constitution and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament in which the Judgment of the whole Kingdome is involved and declared not onely very perjudicial to the civil State but a great hinderance also to the perfect reformation of Religion Yea who knoweth it not to be too much an Enemy thereunto and destructive to the power of Godliness and pure administration of the Ordinances of Christ which moved the well-affected almost throughout this Kingdome long since to petition this Parliament as hath been desired before in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James for a total abolition of the same And then a little after And as for these Clergy-men who pretend that they above all other cannot covenant to extirpate that Government because they have as they say taken a solemn Oath to obey the Bishops in licitis honestis they can tell if they please that they that have sworne Obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all lawfull means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous And yet if there should any Oath be found into which any Ministers or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land in this case they must teach themselves and others that such Oathes call for repentance not pertinacy in them Thus far the Assembly of Divines in their Exhortation for the taking the solemne League and Covenant and which we have thought requisite to transcribe that so it may appear how fully they concurred with the Parliament in what they did touching the abolition of Episcopacy as it doth also confirme by their Testimony severall things that have been mentioned by us wherein the Reader may perceive their concurrence in Judgment with us From all which it is clear that seeing Diocesan Bishops did but obtaine that Jurisdiction they exercised over Presbyters by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church The Parliament finding this Government of Episcopacy to be very oppressive to this Church A great hinderance to the perfect Reformation of Religion and prejudiciall to the civill State they might both lawsully and laudably being therein also backed with the advice of a reverend and learned Synod take it away And hence it will follow that if the Ministers of this Land for severing themselves from the Bishops and with-drawing their Canonicall Obedience from them as some speake the Parliament according to the reverend Synod having before taken away from them all that Jurisdiction over Presbyters that did belong unto them must needs be accused of Schisme It is a good Schisme yea a blessed Schisme to use the words that Gerhard did defending the Protestants with-drawing from the Pope and the Church of Rome that they will be found to be guilty of The blot whereof as it is not to be much regarded so it is easily wiped off and as we think it is already done in the Eyes of all impartiall and unbyassed Readers by these Considerations which we have layd down We have onely one thing more to add which is the third generall Head we offer to the Reader here before we leave this first Argument with which you would perswade us to returne againe to our former Yoke of Bondag 3. For we offer it to the consideration of all impartiall men whether considering what hath been spoken touching the nature of Schisme in the generall and how lawfully and laudably the Parliament did abolish Episcopacy and how they passed by Ordinance the forme of Church-Government Anno 1648. establishing the Presbyterian in roome of the Episcopall and that how it was set up in this County by their Authority If they but observe what your actings have been and what your expressions are in your Papers they will not thereupon see just cause to impute Schisme taken in the worst part and as it is taken most usually unto you who have been so forward though without reason to fasten this blot upon us But we are sure during the prevalency of Episcopacy those that were not guilty of any such disturbance of the peace of the Church by any such boisterous Ventings of the Distempers of their Spirits as you are were counted and called by the Prelates Schismaticks And from which Aspersion though sundry of those being peaceable and godly however Non-conformists were free yet you being very unlike them are not thereby quit But we have now done with the first of those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly whereby you would perswade us to admit againe of Episcopacy and hope we have sayd to it that which is sufficient 2. We therefore now come to the second wherein you still rise higher for therein you insinuate a thing of a farre greater and more dangerous consequence if Episcopacy be not restored For you intimate that it is necessary That the Church of God may be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the
Testament but also from the ould and which books proving the Presbyterian Government as from Christ and his Apostles so also from the Jewish judicatories to which some conceive Christ alludes Matth. 18. when he saith tell the Chutch which were appointed many hundred years before Christ and answering the opposers of this Government in all the materiall points that ever were objected against it by the greatest Champions for Episcopacy were never yet answered that we have seen to this day And for this assistance however you contemn it yet we bless God neither are we ashamed of Mr. Hendersons answer to his late Majesty telling him that the Presbyterian Government was to be found in the Scriptures as our Divines have answered the Papists sufficiently after the same manner touching other matters as we are not ashamed neither to make this defence on the behalf of our Church And though we thank God heartily for those farre abler disputants and Champions of the Protestant cause then we or any of us have ever pretended to be not thinking our selves worthy to be mentioned for any abilities amongst them yet we desire to know which of those Champions though they refused not to fight against the Papists with their own weapons sc the testimonies of Fathers and Councils did ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion as you do or did they not rather stoutly and irrefragably maintain and defend this main point of faith against the adversary 5. But now you come to tell us what reverence you pay to the sacred Scripture for you say you acknowledg it to be an infallible and unerring rule And will not a Papist say so too But let us enquire of you will you acknowledge the Scripture to be the sole supreme judge of controversies in matters of faith Except you come up to this you are as yet in regard of any reverence you pay to the Scriptures no further then a Papist nay you joyn hands with them for they say as you do we may not cry up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men to honour and obey and sano sensu in a right and sound sense we shall say so too But you further declare your selves touching this matter and say that the Scripture where it is plain should guid the Church and the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop and you quote in your margent BP Laud's Preface that is not against Usher but Fisher * But here 1. You mistake the Question for it is not Whether to the Church belongeth not a Ministry for the expounding of the Scriptures This is readily granted to her by us as it is by our Protestant Divines and that the Texts you cite in the margent will prove 2. You plainly discover your opinion to be no other then what in this point is held by the Papists and is abundantly refuted by our Protestant Divines in their writings The matter is plainly thus and no otherwise for when you say where the Scripture is plain it must guid the Church but where there is a doubt or difficulty the Church is to expound the Scriptures you plainly insinuate that the Scriptute is not to be the sole and supreme judge touching controversies in Religion for there is no controversie in Religion but the Adversaries be they Antitrinitarians Arrians Papists or whomsoever may say as you here do in such and such points in controversie the Scripture is not plain here is a doubt and difficulty and we must stand to the Churches determination who is in such cases to expound the Scripture neither is the Scripture in such cases to be the onely sure infallible interpreter of it self to which all parties are to stand and in whose determination alone they are to rest and into which our faith must be resolved which yet is that which is maintained by our Protestant Divines against the Papists and of which we shall speak more fully anon Onely for the present we must mind you that this assertion is fetcht out of the dreggs of Popery and is such an opinion as all sound Protestants will disclaim neither do the Texts you cite in your margent prove any such a thing Not 1 Tim. 3. 15. that is usually urged by the Papists for that very opinion which you maintain but is sufficiently vindicated by our Divines shewing that the Church is there called the Pillar and ground of Truth in regard of her Ministry onely by her preaching publishing and defending the truth and thereby transmitting it to posterity but not to intimate that the Scripture in any point where there is doubt or difficulty did borrow authority from the Church no more then the Edicts of Princes do from the publishers of them or from the pillars and posts to which they are affixed that they might be the more generally known The other Text sc Cant. 1. 8. proves indeed that the Church hath a Ministry committed to her for the feeding of babes in Christ as well as stronger men which is not denied but if you will stretch it further its plain you wrest it 6. In the last place you urge us with what we our selves granted unto Synods and Councils acknowledging they were invested with an authoritative juridicall power to enquire into try examine censure and judge of matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline and to whose authority we professed our selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit urging Scripture for it c. nothing whereof we do here retract or eat our own words casting that out as unsound and hetrodox as you say we do which before we acknowledged was a Christians duty to practise For here you do not distinguish betwixt the submission of our faith to the determination of Synods and Councils and the submission of our persons to their censure in regard of any matter of Doctrine held forth by us or any practice This latter submission we still do readily yeeld unto them and that in regard of the juridicall authority they are invested with by the Ordinance of God and this submission was that we professed before to yeeld unto them and was that we argued for But as touching the submission of our faith to their determinations or so as to resolve it into any other principles then the Word of God alone or to build it on any other foundation was not that reverence we ever acknowledged was to be paid to Synods and Councils and is that which here we do professedly deny And therefore you do here again no less then slander us when you say we still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and Discipline to the judgment and determination of our Provinciall Assembly and yet deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church whom neither we ever denied to be a guide or their Expositions of Scripture to be an usefull
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
for interpreting of Scripture or that judging the Government of the Church by Patriarchs Metropolitans Archbishops Bishops then Chancellours and Commissaries Deanes Deanes and Chapters Arcadeacâ—ns and other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchie not to be a Government agreeable o the will of God and universall practice of Primitive Churches do therefore cast it off which yet w fear are Articles in fome mens Creeds 5. But having spoken what we judge sufficient unto what you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice and to what you further have urged for the proving of that which you do here cite it for we shall now proceed to consider what you have to say against our Government as not being that which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scripture and to prove that the ruling Elders are not jure divino nor any such Officers appointed by Christ in his word but that they may be parted with without any danger of betraying the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. Now here we might have reasonably expected that you should have urged some arguments to have proved that ruling Elders are not meant in these Texts considering what more large satisfaction you promised in your second Paper afterward if what was comprehended therein was not judged satisfactory But we find that notwistanding your large promises and confident and high undertakings you discover barrenness in arguing though what is wanting in reasons you make out in foul language yet we shall consider the utmost that you say First in answer to these Texts you say they are too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of But this you should have made good and not magisterially have asserted it as you do without all proof But you think it is enough that we have been often told so by many more learned Doctors of our Church And we must tell you who it seems reckon your selves in the number of these learned Doctors that it is a greater part of learning to prove these Texts to be too general to prove a ruling Presbytery out of then only to say so much as by that account which we have given you in our second Paper we have there shewed that both the Provincial Assembly of London in their vindication of the Presbyterian Government and the London Ministers in their Jus divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici do more then say that these Texts do hold forth such an Officer in the Church as the ruling Elder for they do also prove it yea and that he is there particularly mentioned and distinguished from all other Officers of the Church they also together with the Assertors of the Government of the Church of Scotland to whom with other reverend and learned men of our own and other reformed Churches we have referred you do answer whatever we have heard alleadged by those many more learned Doctors of our English Church that you here speak of to prove these Texts to be too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of And therefore it is not according to our will or what we are resolved on that the ruling Elders are found there but according to the clear evidence of strong and good reason shewing notwithstanding your scoff that the sense we have given of these Texts is the true sense and meaning of them But though you urge no argument to convince us of so great a fault yet you can readily enough accuse us of wresting the Scriptures with expositions and glosses to make them speak what they never meant and which you think is sufficiently made forth by telling us that we put such strange senses to places of Scripture as the Church of Christ never heard of till of late yeares as if nothing were to be received that is contained in Scripture as the true sense and meaning thereof but what can be confirmed to be so by the testimony of Fathers and Councils or as if all the expositions that had been given of these and other Texts of Scripture by the Church of Christ till of late yeares were now to be made evident from the writings of the Fathers that are extant shewing what the expositions given by the Church were or as if the expositions of reverend and learned Synods and Assemblies of Divines of our own or other reformed Churches having had the help of all the labours of those that had been in the Church of Christ before them backed with the evidence of Scripture reason and the circumstances of the Texts were all to be sleighted and to be had in no account both by us and you who yet profess though in your practice you shew but little of it to reverence Synods and to be ready to submit to their determination although we have also told you in our answer to your second Paper that however it being no controversie in the purest Primitive times of the Church whether ruling Elders were understood in those Texts nor this case brought before the Synods of those times that ever we have read of and so not that occasion given to the Fathers to discuss this matter upon their expositions of those Texts we are not wholly destitute of the testimony of the Fathers for the being of such an Officer as the ruling Elder in the Church and do herein referre you and the Reader to what we have said to this purpose in our answer to your second Paper But yet for all this we must with you be esteemed wresters of the Scriptures and to brand us the more you apply unto us yea to all Presbyters what Dr. Andrews taxed the Papists withall whereby you shew the esteem we are in with you in that you herein parallel us with the Popish Cardinals which is also the charity you have towards us who in your second Paper whilest you had hopes by courting us to have brought us on to a compliance with you were your dear friends nay more brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord and this also is that more large satisfaction that you now give us in performance of your promise there made if what was comprehended in that Paper was not sufficient But having here said nothing that can have any shew of this promised satisfaction you do well to referre us to what in your second Paper you say you had further spoken of it for the Reader hence may be ready to think though he find here little but flouts and uncharitable censures yet there you had said something to the purpose which yet when it is summed up will be found to be only this sc your sending us to the Fathers to consult what interpretation they gave and telling us none of them expound these Texts as we do which yet is that you say over again here and to which there is no need to return any further answer then what hath been already made only we cannot but take notice that your way of giving satisfaction is very easie sc by ridding your hands quickly of
this be either sincere or ingenuous dealing we leave it to the Reader to judge 3. But as touching Calvin's being in his judgement for the Presbyterian Government as that which Christ hath in particular prescribed in his Word though here again you would make him a patronizer of the Government by Patriareh Archbishop Bishop c. in our answer we said was manifest from his works to the whole Christian world And is not this clear to any that will but consult what he hath written touching this matter Consult his Expositions and Commentaries Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and you will find him there to be downright for the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office Consult his Institutions you will there find Lib. 4. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. expresly that he takes Bishops Presbyters and Pastors for one and the same and that according to the use of Scripture as he there speakes and argues for that purpose Tit. 1. 5. Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. and having reckoned up the preaching Officers he then comes in the very same Section and mentions the ruling Elders shewing that they are mentioned by Paul Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. We will but cite only one passage that he here hath concerning his quoting these Texts Guhernatores fuisse existimo seniores de plebe electos qui censurae morum exercendae disciplinae unà cum Episcopis praeessent Neque enim secus interpretari queas quod dicit qui praeejt id faciat in solicitudine Habuit igitur ab initio unaquaeque Ecclesia suum Senatum conscriptum ex viris piis gravibus sanctis penes quem er at illa de quâ posteà loquemur jurisdictio in corrigendis vitiis Porro eâ—usmodi ordinem non unius saeculi fuisse experientia ipsa declarat Est igitur hoc gubernationis munus saecuâ—is omnibus necessarium Whence it is very clear that Calvin's judgement is so full for the Office of the ruling Elders that otherwise he saith we shall not be able to interpret that of the Apostle He that ruleth let him do it with diligence And hence he concludes that every Church had from the beginning its Senate or Consistory that consisted of men that were godly grave and holy to whom did belong the jurisdiction in correcting of vices of which after he saith he will speak Further he saith that experience it self declares that this was not an order of one age and thence inferres that therefore the ruling Elders Office whom he undestands by the Office of Government is necessary for all ages Is it possible for any man to declare himself more fully and plainly for the Presbyterian Government then Calvin here doth We forbear to cite any other parts of his works we doubt not but the Reader by this will be sufficiently satisfied and will presently hereupon conclude that you but gather out of Calvin what you think makes for your purpose and when we cite him for that which he is so full for matter not much how you misrepresent him to the world that so you might make him to appear otherwise But we wish you to consider that it is not safe for any to make lies their refuge But you have notwithstanding all this the boldness to alleadge Calvin as a Patronizer of Episcopal Government as you did before And because you come over again with the same thing we shall be forced for his vindication to make some repetition of what we have in part already said That in Calvin which you here referre us to is the place in his Institutions which was before quoted sc Lib. 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. But in the Chapter immediately going before we have even now shewed that he declares himself fully for the Presbyterian Government but this you wholly conceal in which you deal not honestly with him Nay in the very first words of this Section which you cite he tells you he had been hitherto speaking of that order of governing the Church as it is delivered to us out of the pure word of God and concerning the Ministeryes as they were instituted of Christ And then he addes now that all these things might appear more clearly and familiarly it will be profitable in those things to take a view of the forme of the ancient Church which as he there saith will represent unto us a certain image of divine institution which are part of the words that you cite But hence it is clear that seeing it is Calvin's scope in this Chapter to compare the forme of Government in the ancient Church with that forme of Government that he had held forth in the Chapter going before from the Scriptures he judged whatever construction you put upon him to the contrary that that very Government in the substance of it which he had before proved was held forth in the Scriptures and which as we have already shewed from what we have cited out of him out of the third Chapter goin gbefore was the Presbyterian was to be found in the ancient Church in the purer times of it But in the next place he comes to prevent an Objection in these words Tametsi enim multos Canones ediderunt illorum temporum Episcopi quibusplus viderentur exprimere quam sacris literis expressum esset eâ tamen cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt ad unicom illom verbi Dei normami ut facile videas nihil fere hâc parte habuisse à verbo Dei alienum Hence it is yet further plain that however he confess that the Bishops of those times did seem to express in many of their Canons something more then was expressed in Scripture yet that he saith they did compose their whole Oeconomy unto the only rule of Gods word that one might easily see they had in this particular nothing almost differing from the word he hereby declares his judgement yet further that for the substance the Government of these times was the same with the Government he had held forth from the Scriptures in the former Chapter But hence it is also clear that as we observed before he did not approve of every thing in those Canons as also he presently after confesseth there was something deficient and wanting in them For however he excuse them in regard they endeavoured to keep the institution of God with a sincere endeavour yet he acknowledges that in something they erred although he saith not much as is clear from his own words which are as followes Verumetiam si quid posset in ipsorum institutis desiderari quia tamen sincero studio conati sunt Dei institutionem conservare ab ea non multum aberraverunt plurimum conducet hic breviter colligere qualem observationem habuerint And then he shewes what the Ministers of the ancient Church were Thus we have given a full and particular account of what Calvin hath in this Section and that in the very order which he himself observes
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.