customes not to be found mentioned or awarranted by the Scriptures making with them the Scriptures imperfect and that their imperfection must be supplyed by these unwritten traditions but wherein they are opposed by our Protestant Divines to whom we send you touching this matter 3. But that we may come to speak to the Canons themselves that you cite out of this Council particularly 1. First We do not find in that sixth Canon that you do chiefly insist on any of the words Patriarch Primate or Archbishop at all there used only it is decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria he is not called the Patriarch as you call him have power over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis We confess the word Metropolitane is used in this Canon but not any of the other above-mentioned the like whereunto is to be observed touching the seventh Canon by you cited And yet we lay no great stress on this that these words are not there found but hint only thus much to you by the way who take advantage at us in regard of words though without reason but shall grant unto you that the things understood by those words may be there found As touching the thirteenth which you here quote that speakes nothing at all touching the business but wholly concernes the lapsed Catechumeni And whereas you cite the twenty fifth twenty sixth and twenty seventh Canons of this Council you do therein both wrong this Council and your selves in fathering upon them supposititious Canons there being not above twenty Canons that are genuine Indeed it is well observed by Lucas Osiander after he had recited in his Epitome of Ecclesiastical History Centur. 4. lib. 2. Chap. 10. the twenty Canons of this Council and which only he judged to be genuine that there are other besides these that are read in some supposititious writings of the Fathers under the names of Athanasius and Ambrose but he judges them and that rightly to be falsly ascribed to the Synod of Nice Perhaps you judged us to be so little conversant in the Fathers and Councils as that we should have let all these things pass for currant if otherwise we see you are so addicted to the Episcopall cause that you matter not so you can make it out though it be out of supposititious writings 2. As to the main thing you cite this Council for and that which indeed is chiefly to be here insisted on sc the ancient custome that the sixth Canon speakes of touching the power and dignity of the Metropolitanes which yet was not such as you imagine at the first appointing them and of which more anon Let it be granted as you would have it that this Council did not constitute and create those Metropolitans but confirme them and what power and dignity they had before according to an ancient custome yet we say that ancient custome is to be limited in in regard of its Antiquity And 1. It cannot referre so high as to the times of the Apostles there being then no Metropolitan Bishops they being never at all mentioned in the New Testament either by that name or the thing thereby signified 2. Neither can it referre to the age next unto the Apostles because in that age and a good while after a Bishop and Presbyter were all one We shall for the proof of this first mention a very observable passage in a Letter written by the Lord Digby unto Sir Kenelmne Digby and which for the observableness of it is cited by others and with good reason considering how much he was for that kind of Episcopacy that you contend for His words are these He that will reduce the Church now to the forme of Government in the most Primitive times should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of Government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a forme not chosen for the best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forced the Church from what it wisht to what it might not suffering the dignity and State Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it and which soon afterward upon the least lucida intervâlla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy c. You see this Gentleman who was firme for Monarchical Episcopacy doth yet acknowledge that in the most Primitive times and first age of the Church that kind of Episcopacy had no footing and that the Presbyterian Government as it is in Scotland and so consequently as it is in other reformed Churches and with us is nearer to the Primitive patterne of the Church then that Episcopal Governement which you would prove from the Council of Nice And therefore in those times there was no such superiority of a Bishop over a Presbyter no Archbishops and Metropolitans or Primates and Patriarehs as you speak of and for which you quote this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice But if you would peruse Blondellus his Apologia pro sententiâ Hieronymi de Episcopis Presbyteris he would give you a particular and large account touching this matter he undertaking to prove as he is a man of vast reading that untill the year 140. or thereabout there was not any Bishop over Presbyters And in the dayes of Polycarpe we find in his Epistle to the Philippians but two orders of Ministery mentioned sc Bishops and Deacons according to what Paul in his Epistle to the Church had signified more anciently Hear his own words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. therefore you ought to abstain from all these things being subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as unto God and Christ And therefore this ancient custome mentioned in this sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which you quote must hereupon be limited and restrained in regard of ancientness and is not to be understood so as to referre to the whole space of 327. years after Christ or thereabout before its assembling although the custome of appointing Metropolitans before might be called ancient comparatively with those customes which were but sprung up more lately or were very new And though we shall not undertake to shew what was the universal and constant practice of the Church for either the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof though it concerned you who are so confident that the whole stream of testimonies to be produced shewing the unanimous consent of Fathers and the universal and constant practice of the Church even up to the Apostles dayes runs so for Episcopacy that there is not the least rivulet for any others to have made this out yet this we may say that Episcopacy did not grow up to that height that it was in at that
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
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
know whom we mean by lawfull Pastors our Answer is we mean such Persons as have received their Ordination from men lawfully and truely qualified with a just power of conferring Orders which you and we believe 't is none but you presume one Presbyter may give another Whereupon you instance the opinion of Dr Vsher in a late Letter of his set forth by Dr Bernard and refer us to Dr Bernards animadversions upon it We have perused the Papers to which you refer us and finde that Dr Vsher doth not invalidate the Ordination by Presbyters but with a speciall restriction to such places where Bishops cannot be had But this we must desire you to consider is ex necessitate non ex perjurio pertinaciâ which he in the next page clearely dilucidates his words are these You may easily judge that the Ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworne Cannnical obedience cannot possibly by me be excused from being schismaticall Examine your selves in this particular we shall not judge any man For this Purity amongst Church Officers an Errour first broacht by Ae rius and for which amongst other things he was most justly condemned of Heresie and Ordination by Presbyters otherwise then before expressed cannot possibly be made out by any instance out of Dr Vshers Letter or Dr Bernards animadversions upon it since he is clearly against it and so that Catalogue of Divines Schoolmen and Fathers by you out of him collected is frustraneously cited Concerning submission to the judgement of Councils rightly called and constituted we have said enough before In which point if you will hold to what you profess you shall not have us dissenting from you But we shall finde you of another minde before you come to a conclusion As for your Provinciall Assembly at Preston or any other elsewhere of that nature we say it is a new Termed Assembly Not for the words sake Assembly but new both in respect of the word Provinciall and place at Preston That this County of Lancaster should be termed the Province of Lancaster and the Synods and Assemblies therein convened at Preston or elsewhere should be termed Provinciall all new New also in respect of the Persons constituting this Assembly Lay-men to preside to rule and to have decisive voices in as ample manner as the highest and chiefest in holy Orders is a novelty no Antiquity can plead for it Nor doth Dr Bernard or Bishop Vsher that Learned and reverend Antiquary or the Fathers and Councils there alleadged and by you out of him so confidently cited any way make for such an Assembly And so your Provinciall Assembly at Preston may in the Judgement of Bishop Vshor be accounted a new termed Provinciall Assembly and remains as yet uncleared from all suspition of novelty The Animadversions of the Classe upon it FIrst We must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse the third Section of our Answer to which you do here reply You do in the next Section tell us that the most considerable part of our Answer as to the bulke doth insist on the proof of the establishment of our Government by Authority this you also said in the close of your second Paper But if the Reader but compare what is contained in this Section with what is in the next where we prove this establishment of our Government by authority he will finde our answer here in this one Section is considerably larger then all that great bulk you complain of in the next and it will be found to be as much as all that we have touching this matter throughout our whole answer And therefore we cannot but wonder that you should so much forget your selves and so little consider what you say as again and again to assert with no small confidence what is so farre from truth But in this Section the Reader may further descern that you pass over some things in silence to which you should at the least have made some reply testifying either your assent to them and so your receiving satisfaction or have given us the grounds of your dissent but we shall desire that what was answered by us and is by you replyed unto might be compared together by the candid Reader that he may see with his own eyes wherein you fall short Secondly You profess that in some things you finde we much dissent not only in the third and last concerning the heresie and schisme of those who erre so grosly in Doctrinals or points of Discipline you mention the reason we gave you why we did not so expresly mention them their sin and punishment as the grosly ignorant and scandalous scil the inconsider ableness of the number of the former to the number of these But First This was not the only reason we gave but there was also another mentioned scil because we were to give in to the Provincial Assembly what our apprehensions were touching the case propounded to us by them touching some further meanes to be used for the information of the ignorant and reformation of the scandalous Secondly But yet this you pitch upon because you had a mind to charge us and all others that have in our Congregations severed themselves from the Bishops with schisme that so you might hereby also invalidate that reason rendered of our not mentioning expresly the heretical and schismatical But we hope we have in our answer to your second Paper said that which will be sufficient to wipe off that aspersion and you must pardon us if wherein Dr. Usher in this point differing from us in judgment expressed himself too farre we therein though we otherwise reverence him both for his piety and learning look upon him as a man We cannot as yet be perswaded that the Bishops were the only true constituted Church of England from whom because we have severed our selves you do here though without any reason charge us to be schismatical and to have rent our selves from a true constituted Church Thirdly But seeing in this third and last touching those that are chargeable with heresie and schisme you profess to diffent from us you might have testified either your assent to or dissent from that previous course that in our answer we mentioned was to be taken with these before they were to be excommunicated especially considering we had told you that though you allowed of admonition of the scandalous before there was process to the censure of them yet you said nothing of this course to be taken with the other and wherein therefore we purposely declared our selves that if you judged the previous course of admonition necessary to be held with the scandalous you might not censure us as indulgent toward any of the other that might be in any of our Congregations though we said the number of them was not considerable to the number of the scandalous because we took it to be our duty according to the practice of the
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
expensis diversum sensum non malé quadrare fateor ut sit nomen officij Ceremoniam pro ipso â—actu posuit and which is the sense that in his Institutions he doth adhere to But Calvin must not have leave from you first to alledg one interpretation as that which in his judgement was probably true and so to approve of it and afterward upon consideration of all things he thought were to be weighed to conclude with another if he do and thus deliver himself in his Comment uâ—on this place he is flat opposite to himself in his institutions as you judge though we believe all equall judges will be more candid toward him then to approve of your censure of him in this particular 3. But it may be this of Calvin was mentioned by you that thence you might take the occasion to have a fling at us For after you had aspersed him you say you fear you shall find us as wavering and unsetled in our judgments when it comes to scanning But wherein For that we said divers of the Fathers did interpret this word Presbytery as we did and as we said had been declared before That which in our answer we said had been declared before referd to what we had before sc in the latter part of the third Section of it alledged out of Dr. Usher in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the forme of Synodicall Government where he proves from several of the Fathers and from the 4th Council of Carthage that Presbyters had a hand in the administration of the Discipline of Christ We produced him alledging the Fathers you here make mention of and you your selves even now alledged many more interpreting the word Presbytery used 1 Tim. 4. in the same sense that we concurre with and which concurrent sense of ours with the Fathers we declared in that short Parenthesis on which you do thus enlarge when we said the Fathers did understand the word Presbytery as we do But now what is it that you lay to our charge or what is it that is our offence with which you here upbraid us You tell us it is because we said the Fathers understood the word Presbytery as we did and because we produce Dr. Usher speaking in this sense But as to the preaching Presbyters and which was all that in the place above-mentioned in our answer we alleadged him to bring in the Fathers to speak for is not this clear and manifest to him that will either peruse what he hath or what you acknowledg we alleadge out of him or shall but consider what Fathers you your selves do say do expound 1 Tim. 4. touching the company of Presbyters i. e. the Bishops that lay on hands And therefore if you press us herein to stand to their sense and interpretation by us alleadged out of Dr. Usher we shall not run back nor have any cause to be ashamed when we assert that their interpretation of the word Presbytery is the same with ours Yes say you we may be ashamed to say so For that Presbytery which we say is established by Ordinance of Parliament and is that which we stand for and which when we speak of the Government of the Church by Presbytery do mean by that word is not the same with that Presbytery which the Fathers understand And this we suppose you say because you judge the Fathers do not comprehend the ruling Elders under the word Presbytery mentioned 1 Tim. 4. To which we answer that where we alledged the Fathers out of Dr. Usher we never produced them for any such purpose as to prove that the ruling Elders were comprehended under the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. only we thought to gain upon you by steps and from what Dr. Usher alledged the Fathers for thence to inferre the antiquity of Assemblies where the Pastors of the Church are members have decisive votes and a right to rule and unto which if you assented we judged then we were so farre agreed and which was the reason why mentioning his proposal of Assemblies we said they were the same in substance with ours and for the reason of which expression we have in this our answer to this your Paper given a full account before and to prevent repetition do referre the Reader thither however the ruling Elders be admitted into them as members although we desire the Reader to take notice and do mind you thereof that we have shewed that it is no novel thing for to admit such to have decisive votes in Synods and Councils that were never ordained to preach and administer the Sacraments and that we have alleadged testimonies of the Ancients for to prove the being of such an Officer as the ruling Elder in their times and consequently that he was a member of the Ecclesiastical consistory But we have thus shewed for what sense of the word Presbytery we alleadged the Fathers out of Dr. Usher as it will be manifest to him that will peruse our answer in that place where we cite them And now we leave it to the Reader to judge whether we have for this merited such language from you as here you give us Do we confidently assert that the Fathers give the same interpretation of the word Presbytery as we dâ— and yet stand to nothing Do we not still own that very sense of the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. which you your selves produce sundry of them to give Where then is our wavering or unsetledness in our judgements that you charge us with Or in what do we run back eating our own words as you here say we do But this is but a little matter in comparison for you will have us hereupon to have two hearts and not one ferehead But what were we in your second Paper your dear friends nay more brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord and are we now become monsters in Christianity having two hearts and have not that common shamefastness that might be found even amongst Heathens having not one forehead We leave it to the Reader to judge how cordial you were in those sugared words you gave us there when you do here thus vent the rancor that was in your hearts and that upon so sseight an occasion doubtless the answer we gave in words to your second Paper could give no just cause for such unchristian and uncivil censures to pass upon us neither was there any thing in that part of our answer to your first Paper which your selves acknowledge was full of civillity towards you unto which you here reply that gave any such occasion the Fathers we quoted out of Dr. Usher being for such a sense of the word Presbytery as we cited them for But your uncharitableness in passing such hard censures upon us is not all for you do also here charge us with sundry manifest untruths For we never quoted Dr. Usher who in his proposals is expresly for moderate Episcopacy which we as expresly cautioned against as our own man whom we declined
of Antiquity for the space of three hundred years after Christ as imperfect and far from shewing the Universal practise of the Church then and to brand the most approved Authors of those times as spurious and corrupt void of all modesty and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty But suppose the Monuments and Records of Antiquity for the space of three hundred years after Christ were now as you say grown unperfect and not able to shew what was then the Churches practise yet come we to the General Councils which are the best Expositors of Scripture and of the Churches practise and we by them shall find the practise of the Church in former time That famous Council of Nice which must be and is of all wise and Learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselves shews you the practise of the Church in its form of Church Government by Patriarch Metropolitan Arch-Bishop Bishop c. as by the 6th 7th 13th 25th 26th and 27th Canons of the same Council appeareth Not that this Council did constitute and create as some falsly conceit but did onely confirm and strengthen those orders and degrees which were in the Church even from the beginning so are the words of the Council Can. 6. The very first words of that Canon whereby it is ordained that the whole power of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria even as it is also there decreed that the ancient Customes and Priviledges which belonged to the Bishop of Rome Antioch and the Metropolitanes of other Provinces should be preserved are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very words which Ignatius useth to express the Apostolical Traditions Anriqui mores obtineant in Aegypto Lybiâ Pentapoli c. i. e. Let the ancient customes in Aegypt Lybia and Pâ—ntapolis continue that the Patriarcks of Alexandria should have power over all these even those Customes which were deduced down to those times from St Mark the Evangelist not only Bishop of Alexandria but of the Churches of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis also So Eusebius lib 2. cap. 15 16. and others So that these Canons here made gave no new thing did not de novo institute or establish this standing subordination in the Church viz. of all inferiour Officers in the Church to the Bishop in every Diocess of the Bishop in every Province to the Metropolitan of the Metropolitane in every Region to the Patriarch or Primate but did onely confirm it These standing powers and subjection being defined and asserted by the ancient Canons yea the most Ancient even in memorial Apostolicall Tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. cap. 4 6. Concil Antioch cap. 1 20. Concil Chalced. cap. 119. See more of this in Dr Hammond of Schism Cap. 3. sect 22. 23 24 25. cap. 8. sect 8. Thus much to shew the practice of the Church in point of Church Government for the first three hundred years even from generall Councils the best Expositors of the practice of the Church in those times And as they are our best Informers of the Churches practise so are they the best Interpreters of the mind and will of God in Scripture touching Church Government Calvin reckoning up the severall orders and degrees of Bishops Arch-Bishops Metropolitane and Patriarch and rendring the reason of such Governours ordained by the said Council of Nice though he dislike the name Hierarchie which some gave unto that Government yet saith he omitting the name if we look into the thing we shall find that these ancient Bishops did not frame a form of Church Government differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his word Mark we pray the Churches practice in the form of Church Government was hitherto according to the prescript of Gods Word in Calvins judgment And this was 330. years after Christ Yea Beza likewise that earnest â—atron of Presbyterian discipline confesseth That those things which were ordained of the ancient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs assigning their limits and attributing to them certain Authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeal and therefore such sure as was according to knowledg and the word of God otherwise it would be far from being optimus the best zeal And thus we have found a Church Government agreeable to the will of God and universall practise of primitive Churches such a one as we pray for may be established in this Nation putting both together not the word of God alone nor the Churches practice alone but both together and both in their due piaces not crying up the Church above the Scripture nor crying up the Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church but restoring the practice and customes of the Church into that credit is due unto them by invalidating of which all hereticall and schismaticall persons seek to overthrow the Church Nay but yours is that Government which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures and your ruling Elders are jure divino which you cannot part with unless you should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. We answer these Texts are too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of and so you have been often told by many more learned Doctors of our English Church Yet ruling Elders must be found here for so you will have it let Gideâ—ns fleece be wet or dry That is whether there be dew enough in those Texts to water the sense or no Therefore being resolyed on it you wrest the Scriptures which St Peter complains of with Expositions and glosses newly coined to make them speak what they never meant giving such new and strange senses to places of Scripture as the Church of Christ never heard of till of late years This wresting of Scripture Dr Andrews taxeth the Papists withall saying Malus hic Cardinalium mos and we as truly Malus hic Presbyterorum mos rem facias rem si possis rectè si non quocunque modo rem c. such a sense you give of these places which none of the Fathers â—ave or heard of and being a stranger to them we can but terme it an Imagination of yours and so leave it and you to what we have in our last Paper further spoken of it Touching which no reply hath been as yet sent us from you The Animadversions of the Class upon it WE are sure we are now come to that which is the worst part in all your Paper your principles here being very corrupt even in a Doctrinall matter of high concernment and that distemper which was upon your spirit breaking out here into railing in an high degree if not to blasphemie besides your flandering of us and scoffing at us which is ordinary with you of which we shall speak anon particularly 1. But we shall begin with that Representation which you first make of what we
Pauli sensum ingredieris nisi Pauli spiritum imbiberis and again Nunquam Davidem intelliges donec ipsâ experientiâ Psalmorum affectus indueris and therefore the exposition of the Church the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not the best rule for the interpreting of the Scripture Argument 2. Because no men can be sufficient interpreters of the Scripture so as when there is a doubt or difficulty by the interposition of their authority they can remove it and determine the controversie about it because then they should have a dominion over the soul and over faith which the Apostle denies 2 Cor. 1. 24. yea then faith which standeth not in the wisdome of men but in the power of God 1 Cor. 2. 5. should be resolved into the sentence and judgement of men and their sentence be the matter of our faith or the thing that were to be believed and whereon our faith were to be built which were quite to overthrow it and to bring in an humane faith in the room of a divine But on the contrary when there is any controversie about any matter of Religion and so about the interpretation of any Text of Scripture the controversie is to be determined and the doubt and difficulty to be removed not by the authority of any men but by the authority of God and of the Scriptures Whence it was that the Fathers of the Nicene Council disputing with Arrius pressed him with the authority of Scriptures and condemned him by the testimonies thereof And therefore not the unanimous consent of the Fathers and of Councils is to be the rule for the interpreting of Scriptures Argument 3. The unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule for interpreting of the Scriptures because then this should alwayes have been the rule it being of the nature of that which is a rule that it be alwayes one and that sure firme and perpetual but that this was not alwayes a rule is manifest because there was once a time when there were no writings of the Fathers extant nor when there had been any general Councils the Council of Nice that was the first general Council of all other after the death of the Apostles not having been convened till above three hundred yeares after Christ and many of the Fathers having written nothings till four hundred yeares after Christ and some not till five hundred or six hundred yeares after him and so before that time the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils could not be the rule of interpreting Scriptures Besides after the Fathers had written yet there is not in all things an unanimous consent amongst them in their interpreting of Scripture as might be evidenced by several and sundry examples You your selves told us that the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of the word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latin Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselme and others taking this word Presbytery for the function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest as you express it The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and some others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters We shall adde only another example Origen Jerome Athanasius Ambrose do so interpret those words of the Apostle Rom. 7. where he saith I am carnal sold under sin c. as that they say Paul doth not there speak concerning himself but in the person of a man not regenerated whereas Augustine will have it to be understood as indeed it ought to be touching a man that is regenerated and so that Paul there speakes of himself as he most certainly doth Many more examples of this kind might be given but by these we may sufficiently conjecture of the rest Argument 4. Adde unto the former that the Fathers have sundry of them erred which is so manifest to him that is conversant in their writings that it will not be denyed as if any should be so impudent as to deny it it is easie to make it good in manifold instances yea some general Councils have erred as that Council held at Ariminum that established the Arrian heresie and the second Council of Ephesus that confirmed the Eutichian heresie and the second Council of Nice that established the worshipping of Images which is forbidden in the Law of God Whereupon the Fathers have acknowledged that the authority of Councils was only so far of force as their determinations are agreeable to Scriptures and that there lyes an appeal from all unto the Scripture Whence that of Athanasius speaking concerning the Arrians of old urging Councils Fruâ—â—ra inquit circumcursitantes praeteâ—unt ob fidem concilia se postulare Divina enim Scriptura perfectior est sufficientior omnibus Conciliis We see he acknowledged the divine Scriptures to be more perfect and sufficient then all Councils But hence it is clear that if both Fathers and Councils have erred the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule much less the best rule as you speak of interpretinâ— Scriptures Argument 5. Besides sundry of the Fathers and of the writings that go under the names of the most approved Fathers are doubtfull others suppositious and spurious and others corrupted This is clear because there have been many writers heretofore that have been publikely adorned with the title of the Fathers that are now rejected as heterodox and unworthy to be called by the names they go under and whereof if you doubt learned Voetius doth afford you a catalogue That there are also many suppositious and spurious works attributed to the genuine and true Fathers and published with their works which some receive others reject others do doubt concerning is so cleare and manifest that it will not be questioned by any that ever saluted the Fathers writings and had either sound judgement of his own or would believe the censures of the Learned concerning them as of Rivet Erasmus Perkins and others and which is so clear that the Papists themselves as Bellarmine Cajetan and others will not deny it and as if it were to our purpose might be particularly proved by instancing in the suppositious writings attributed to Ignatius Cyprian Basil Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Augustine and others of the most approved Fathers and from all which it will follow that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be a rule for the interpreting of Scripture it being that which will be disputed concerning some whether they be not meer feigned Fathers and concerning sundry of the works that are attributed to the genuine Fathers and in which such Scriptures may be interpreted where there is doubt and difficulty whether they be not suppositious Argument 6. To say nothing of the difficulties or obscurities in the genuine Fathers and their genuine writings by reason of phrases now grown out of use Idiotisms Histories and Antiquities that make them the more hard to us of these
there hath been occasion But here we must further acquaint the Reader that the errours and depravations of this Paper which we found in it as it had been by them Printed we have rectified as we well might according to the Originall and now exhibit it to the Readers view as it was when it passed from us We have Printed their first Paper as we found it Printed by themselves only we have added the rest of the Names that were subscribed to it when it was presented unto us that so those that were represented to us as the subscribers of it may own it or disown it as they see cause We have divided our Answer to their first Paper into eleaven Sections as also the last Paper of theirs on which we Animadvert into the like number that so by comparing all together it may be the better discerned how they have dealt with us what they reply to and what they omit and we leave the whole together with our Animadversions on the severall Sections of theirs to be judged of by the Reader We have also Printed their two last Papers as we found them Printed by themselves and have noted in the Margents of them both the variations which yet are not great from the Copies that were presented unto us and whereof the letters Cl. and Cop. prefixed to those variations and intimating how it was in those Copies that were exhibited to the Class are an indicium or the sign We confess our Answers to their two last Papers are now grown to a greater bulke then we first intended or then what some perhaps may judge necessary but we wish it might be considered that if some things that fall into debate betwixt them and us be not of generall concernement yet the discussion of them being of use for our vindication and the discovering unto them their errours and faults we conceive that in those respects it was requisite although the Reader may find severall things spoken to that be of common use and whereof we give him some account at the end of this Epistle as also where they may be found that such as have not either leisure or will to peruse the whole may take a view more speedily of what they may chiefly desire to read When we were to give our reasons why we could not consent to admit of Episcopacy moderated we considered that the point touching Episcopacy having been so fully discussed by farre abler Pens we thought it might be the fittest for us to insist chiefly upon the inconveniency and dangerousnesse of that Government and what we in this Land and the Neighbour Nation had experienced in those respects In another place we urge some Arguments to prove a Bishop and a Presbyter to be in a Scripture sense of those words all one What is spoken touching the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office was occasioned from the Texts we had urged though it was but by the way in our Answer to their first Paper and their excepting in their second against our alledging those Texts for that purpose But we do here professe that we do not discusse that point our selves we only transcribe what is solidly and fully done concerning it to our hands by other Reverend and Learned Brethren and therefore when in our Title we mention the clearing up of the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office the Reader is so to understand that branch of it as when we come to speak of that point particularly we there give him our reasons of that transcription We have now no more to acquaint the Reader with and therefore shall leave the whole to his perusall not much mattering the censures of loose and prophane spirits though we hope with such as are unprejudiced and zealous for reformation our endeavours shall find some acceptance And having the Testimonie of our consciences that in the uprightness of our hearts we have aimed at the Glory of God and the good of his Church in what we now send abroad into the world we do not question but that God who is the trier of the hearts and reines and the God of truth will not only own that good old cause of his in the defence whereof so many of his faithfull Servants have suffered in former times but us also the meanest and unworthiest of his Servants in this our standing up for it and so bless our labours herein that they may be of some use for the publique good The Father of Lights and God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace give unto us all and to all His the spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of his Will guide our feet in the waies of Peace and after our manifold and great shakings settle the Affairs both of Church and State upon some sure foundations to the Glory of his own great Name and the everlasting Comfort Peace and Wellfare of all his People Amen AN ACCOUNT Of some of the principall things in the ensuing Discourses 1. THe dangerousness of admitting moderate Episcopacy shewed pag. 85. 2. The Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office is cleared pag. 103. 3. The nature of Schisme opened and the imputation thereof taken off those that disown Episcopacy pag. 121. 4. The being of a Church and lawfully Ordained Ministery secured in the want of Episcopacy pag. 130. 5. The imputation of Perjury taken off from such as do not again admit of Episcopacy pag. 204. 6. The claim of the Presbyterian Government to the civill Sanction made good in the fourth Section of our Answer to the Gentlemens first Paper and further in our Animadversions on their last pag. 219. 7. The Scriptures proved to be the sole supreme Judg in all matters of Religion pag. 255. 8. Councils and the unanimous consent of Fathers not to the rule of the interpretation of the Scriptures pag. 260. 9. Civill penalties not freeing from Ecclesiasticall censures cleared pag. 290. The Title of the Papers as they were Printed by the Gentlemen together with their PREFACE Excommunicatio Excommunicata OR A CENSURE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CENSURES And proceedings of the Classis at Manchester Wherein is modestly examined what Ecclesiasticall or Civill Sanction they pretend for their new usurped power In a discourse betwixt the Ministers of that Classis and some dissenting Christians THE PREFACE IN such an age as this when the heat of vaine and unprofitable controversies has bred more Scriblers than a hot Summer in the Comedians simile does Flies it might seem more rationall according to Solomons rule for prudent men to keep silence then to vex themselves and disquiet others with such empty discourses as rather enlarge then compose the differences of Gods People It was a sad age that of Domitian of which the Historian affirmeth that then Inertia pro sapientiâ erat Ignorance was the best knowledge laziness and servility was the best diligence and we could wish this age did not too much resemble that But when we see
of our Presbyterian discipline c. Unto which we say That we have constantly professed against those of the separation That the several Assemblies or Congregations within this Land that make a profession of the true Christian and Apostolique Faith are true Churches of Jesus Christ That the several members of these Congregations are by their birth members as those that were born in the Jewish Church are said to be by the Apostle Jewes by nature Gal. 2. That this their membership was sealed to them in their Baptism that did solemnly admit them as into the universal Church so into the particular wherein they were born We have also constantly maintained against the afore-mentioned Persons That the Ministers of these Churches are true Ministers notwithstanding that exception of theirs against them that they were ordained by Bishops who also themselves were true Ministers in our Judgement though we cannot acknowledge that by divine right they were superiour to their fellow brethren either in regard of order or jurisdiction And that therefore the Word and Sacraments the most essential marks of a true visible Church according to the professed Judgement of our Divines against the Papists on the one hand and those of the separation on the other dispensed by these Vinisters were and are the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ And that hereupon our work was not when the Presbyterian Government was appointed to constitute Churches but to reform them onely And that therefore none within our bounds except they shall renounce Christianity and their Baptisme can be deemed by us to be without in the Apostles sense and so therefore not within the compass and verge of our Presbyterian Government Neither is it their not associating with us in regard of Government that doth exempt them from censure by it if they should be such offenders as by the rules thereof were justly censurable It not being a matter arbitrary for private Persons at their own will and pleasure to exempt themselves from under that Ecclesiastical Government that is settled by Authority And as you know it would not have been allowed of under the former Government 2 And therefore whether you and all others within our bounds be not comprehended within our Government according to the rules laid down in the Ordinance of Parliament above mentioned appointing the form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland and therein ordaining as hath been recited before in the first page thereof and to which we referre you Especially considering that all within the bounds of our several Parishes that are no other now then formerly even Papists and Anabaptists and other Sectaries were under the late Prelatical Government we leave it to you to judge Onely if so we wish you to consider that then you are brought under the Government of Presbytery not so much by us as by the Parliament appointing this Government And then we think you who warn us not to contemn civil power might well out of respect to the Authority ordaining it but especially considering the word Presbytery is a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4 and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been declared before have used a more civil expression then to have called it a common fold into which it should seem your complains it that you should be driven Although Presbytery layes restraint on none but such as being scandalous in their lives and so contemning the Laws of God are therefore truly and indeed the lawless Persons that we speak of But whereas as you suppose This is our chief design in this as in other transactions of ours to subject all to our Government We doe refer our selves to our course of life past and hope it will witnesse with us to all that will judge impartially what our designes have been in our other transactions And as touching our design in the Paper published whether it hath been ought but the information of the ignorant and reformation of the scandalous to the Glory of God and their salvation we leave it to be judged by those that will judge of mens intentions by what is expressed in their words and actions We know very well we are charged by some that we affect Dominion to Lord it over the People and to have all sorts of Persons of what rank soever to stoop to us But we do openly professe that the Government of the Church that is committed unto men is not Despotical but Ministerial That it is no Dominion but a Ministery onely And that the Officers that are intrusted with it are themselves to be subject both in regard of their bodies and estates to the Civil power That by the Ordinance of God they are appointed to be under and that in their Government they have nothing to do with the bodies and estates of any Persons but with their Souls onely Although here we desire to enquire of you whether if you be indeed for the settling of any Government at all in the Church as you professe to be you do not think that all should be subject to it We cannot judge you to be so irrational as to be for a Government and that yet subiection to it must be denyed And if the late Government of the Prelacy was not blamed by you because it required subjection to it we wish you to consider whether upon this account you have reason to censure us But further whereas you tell us That we garnish over our Government with the specious title of Christs Government Throne and Scepter We wish you to consider what in your Answer to an objection that you frame out of our Paper your selves doe say You there tell us You pray for the establishment of such Church Government as is consonant to the will of God and universal practice of primitive Churches that Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the World The expressions you here use are as high touching that Government you would have established as any have been that ever we have used of ours For your prayer is That Ecclesiastical Discipline may be exercised in the hands of them to whom it was committed by Christ and left by him to be transferred from hand to hand to the end of the world The Government then that you are for must be with you Christs Government Throne and Scepter And why do you then condemn us if we have used such expressions concerning our Government till you have convinced us that it is not such When yet you take to your selves the liberty to use the like language concerning the Government you pray may be established But where as you say Presbytery is the main thing driven at here and that however she comes ushered in with a Godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and the ignorance of the times and the duty incumbent upon us
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
create that happy and desirable Peace among us that is so thirsted after by all good men 2. But yet we cannot dissemble what we apprehend and is in our thoughts that there are some sorts of Persons in this Land that till God change their Judgments and the frame of their Spirits though we shall so far as is possible and as much as lyeth in us live peaceably with them and with all others and shall be ready to requite good for evill by all Offices and Duties of love toward them yet we see little hopes of any reall and hearty Union and closure with them And here we must profess that however we were willing for our own exoneration if no other end should be thereby attained to entertain a Treaty with you touching an Accommodation and which was pursued by us with all Cordialness and Sincerity being desirous to wait on God in the use of the means for that purpose so far as we saw any hope not knowing what God might work out thereby as will appeare we doubt not to the Reader from our Narrative yet you have now discovered so much bitterness and distemper of Spirit and so much unsoundness in your Principles and Opinions together with a resolvedness to adhere to them for ought we can discern to the contrary that till God do open your Eyes and change your hearts giving you a through sense of and sâ—uâ—d humiliation for what to your own shame you have published to the World in your Papers we have not any great hopes of accommodating with you though we shall not in the mean season cease to pray for you and use the best means we can to bring you into the right way from which you have turned aside But yet we desire we might not be here mistaken For as for such as are moderate and godly Episcopall men That hold Ordination by Presbyters to be lawfull and valid that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same Order of Ministery which are not your Tenents as will appear from both this and your next Paper and that are Orthodox in doctrinall Truths though we may differ from them in Judgment in some Points touching Church Government yet they are such as we do heartily desire to accommodate with and we believe that such tearms might be propounded that betwixt them and us there might be an happy Union as we could heartily wish that all and every of you with whom we have here to deal were of this stamp Although here also we must not conceal that we have many reasons why we dare not admit of moderate Episcopacy as the tearms of accommodation with those of this sort And because it is that which you press us with fully expecting we should submit unto what is propounded by Doctor Vsher in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church although as we have hinted to you we have reason from your own Papers to judge you aime at more then is there propounded we shall not here refuse to give you some of our reasons why we cannot consent to you in these Proposals as you know moderate Episcopacy was that we expresly cautioned against in our Answer to your first Paper And 1 First We shall here mind you of what is well observed by our reverend Brethren of the Province of London in their Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici Part second in the Appendix Pag 117 118 119. There they lay down their fifth Proposition in these words That when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not grounded upon a Jus divinum but upon prudentiall Reasons and Arguments And the chief of them was as Hierome and divers after him say In remedium Schismatis ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the Seeds of Errour might be rooted out of the Church This Proposition thus layd down they add Now that this prudentiall way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appears as Smectymnus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16. 17. and Schismes 1 Cor. 3. 3. and 11. 18. yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy-ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those Breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their Office And though the Apostle saith Opportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vas Yet the Apostle no where saith Opportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are amongst you may be removed 2 Because the Holy-ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not only be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a Stirrop for Antichrist to get up into the Saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity for setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unless men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only amongst Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to Reason Truth History and our own experience And then they add hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 1. that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he adds But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elders of the Church as Hierom sayth Schisms arose and as I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one amongst the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in an higher degree called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth that if Hierom others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schism as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast destroy the former Ministry that fed the Flock Thus far Musculus Sadael also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a Gate they opened to the ambition of Bishops Hence also Dr. Whitakers asking how came in the inequality between Bishops Presbyters answereth out of Hierom that the Schism and Faction of some occasioned the ancient
actuall existence in the Church whereas neither then nor some hundred years after was there any Christian Magistrate 3. That this Church-Governour is seated by God in his Church and so is a Plant of Gods one planting 4. That this Church Governour is a Church Officer For though it be a question amongst the Learned whether some of the persons here named as the Workers of Miracles and those that had the Gift ef Healing and of Tongues were seated by God as Officers in the Church and not rather only as eminent Members endued with these eminent Gifts yet it is most certain that whosoever is seated by God in his Church as a Church-Governour must needs be a Church Officer For the nature of the Gift doth necessarily imply an Office which they do further shew from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred Governments being a Metaphor taken from Pilots or Ship-masters governing their Ships 5. That this Church-Governour is an ordinary and perpetuall Officer in his Church as they shew does appear from the perpetuall necessity of him in the Church a Church without Government being as a Ship without a Pilot as a Kingdome without a Magistrate as a World without a Sun 6. That this Church-governour is an Officer contradistinguished in the Text from the Apostles Prophets Teachers and all other Officers in the Church This they prove 1. By the Apostles manner of expressing their Offices in an enumerative form first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then Gifts of Healing c. 2. By the Recapitulation V. 29. 30. Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers Are all Workers of Miracles c. 3. By the scope of the whole Chapter which is to set down different Gifts and Offices in different Subjects as they do more at large shew answering an Objection and then shewing that this Interpretation which they have given is not onely the Interpretation of reformed Divines both Lutherans and Calvenists but of the ancient Fathers and even the Papists themselves And here they quote Gerhardus de ministerio ecclesiastico Calvin in locum P. Martyr in locum Beza in locum Piscator in locum Ambrose in locum Chrysost in locum Salmer in loc Septimo loco ponit gubernatores i. e. eos qui praesunt aliis gubernant plebemque in Offici◠continent Et Ecclesia Christi habet suam politiam cum pastor per se omnia praestare non posset adjungebantur duo Presbyteri de quibus dixit qui bene praesunt presbyteri duplici honore digni habeantur maxime qui laborant verbo doctrina qui una cum pastore deliberabant de ecclesiae cura instauratione qui etiam fidei atque honestae vitae consortes erant Thus far the Provinciall Assembly of London The London Ministers in their Jus divinum do urge the Argument hence thus Major Whatsoever Officers God himself now under the new Testament hath set in the Church as Governours therein distinct from all other Church-governours whether extraordinary or ordinary they are the ruling Elders we enquire after and that Jure divine Minor But the Governments named in 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Officers which God himself now under the new Testament hath set in the Church as Governours therein distinct from all other Church-governours whether extraordinary or ordinary The Major being in it self cleer they prove the Minor in the severall Branches of it proving 1. That the Church here spoken of is the Church of Christ now under the N. T. 2. That the Governments here mentioned are Officers set in this Church not out of the Church as Rulers governing therein 3. That they are set not by man but by God himself 4. That these Governments thus set in the Church are distinct not onely from all Governours out of the Church but also from all governing Officers within the Church Whence the Conclusion is inferred Therefore these Governments in 1 Cor. 12. 28. are the ruling Elders enquired after and that Jure divino This Argument thus urged is confirmed in the severall Branches of it from Pag. 136. to Pag. 144. And after they vindicate the urging of this Text for this purpose from the severall exceptions made against the same by Dr. Feild Sutlive Whitgift Mr. Coleman and Bilson from Pag. 144. to Pag. 150. 3. The third and last Text we urged for the Divine right of ruling Elders Office was 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy double honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine For the understanding of whichwords the Provinciall Assembly of London lay down this Rule That every Text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literall and Grammaticall construction unless it be contrary to the Analogy of Faith or the Rule of Life or the circumstances of the Text. Otherwise say they we shall make a Nose of Wax of the Scriptures and draw quidlibet ex quolibet And then they add Now according to the Grammaticall Construction there are plainly held forth two sorts of Elders The one only ruling and the other also labouring in the Word and Doctrine Then they give the true Analysis of the words thus 1. Here is a Genus a General and that is Elders 2. Two distinct Species or kinds of Elders Those that rule well and those that labour in Word and Doctrine as Pastor and Doctor 3. We have two Particles expressing these two kinds of Elders Ruling Labouring The first do onely rule the second do also labour in Word and Doctrine 4 Here are two distinct Articles distinctly annexed to these two Participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that rule they that labour 5. Here is an eminent discretive Particle set before these two kinds of Elders these two Participles these two Articles evidently distinguishing one from the other Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially they that labour c. They do urge out of Dr. Whitaker That it is absurd to say that this Text is to be understood of one and the same Elder If a man should say All the Students in the University are worthy of double honour especially they that are Professors of Divinity he must necessarily understand it of two sorts of Students Or if a man should say All Gentlemen that do Service for the Kingdomes in their Counties are worthy of double honour especially they that do Service in the Parliament this must needs be understood of different persons And however they do take notice that Archbishop Whilgift Bishop King Bishop Bilson Bishop Downame and others labour to fasten divers other Interpretations upon these words yet they observe that all other senses that are given of these words are either such as are disagreeing from the literall and Grammaticall Construction or such as fall into one of these two absurdities either to maintain a Non preaching Ministry or a lazy preaching Ministry to deserve double honour and which they make to appear particularly as
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
go under the Names of the most approved Authors of the Primitive times referring therein after a more especiall manner to the Epistles of Ignatius are neither spurious nor corrupted But hence it will follow that what is alleadged by you out of Ignatius for the support of the Episcopall cause is not of that waight as to prove what was the practice of the Church in the time of the true Ignatius much less to prove what was the universall practice of the Primitive Church long before the assembling of the Council of Nice or to evidence that that Council in the 6th Canon had any reference to the words of Ignatius which you cite and which might as well be foysted into his works afterwards as other things and so nothing thence to be concluded either with the shew of any certainty or of any good measure of probability 5. Now whereas you will have these ancient customes touching the power and priviledges of the Metrapolitans and Patriarchs to be deduced from St. Marke the Evangelist who you say was not onely Bishop of Alexandria but of the Churches of Egipt Lybia and Pentapolis and will have the subordination of all inferiour Officers in the Church to the Bishop in every Diocess of the Bishop in every Province to the Metropolitan of the Metropolitan in every region to the Patriarch or Primate these standing Powers as you call them and subjection to be defined and asserted by the ancient Canons yea the most ancient even immemoriall Apostolicall tradition and custome you must either prove that the customes standing Powers and subjection that you speak of are warranted defined and asserted by the Canon of Scripture which you will never be able to do or else you do hereby intimate that you would have it to be believed that there are some customes and traditions that are Apostolicall and to be received as such that are not found written in the Canon of the Scripture But by this assertion you gratifie the Papists and open a door to let into the Church the many unwritten traditions they would obtrude upon it under the specious name and title of Apostolicall traditions though you might have known they are abundantly therein consuted by our Divines that yet were never answered by them or any other patrons of unwritten traditions And upon this account we hope we shall be sufficiently excused though we forbear to either examin or say any thing particularly to the Councils and Dr. Hammond that you cite for this purpose But as touching Marke the Evangelist whom you will have to be not onely Bishop of Alexandria but also of Egypt Lybia and Pent apolis also you do herein assert things inconsistent sc that he was an Evangelist and yet an ordinary Bishop For Evangelists properly were extraordinary Officers extraordinarily employd in Preaching of the Gospel without any setled residence upon any one charge were companions of the Apostles and under the Apostles had the care of all Churches and in which sense Mark was an Evangelist as well as in regard of the Gospel which he wrote But Bishops were Officers that were ordinary and fixed to one particular charge neither did they ordinarily travell with the Apostles from place to place as the Evangelists did Neither could Evangelists be any more called Bishops properly then the Apostles could be so called who were not such formally but onely eminently and virtually But as touching Eusebius whom you cite Scaliger saith concerning him that he read ancient Histories parum attentè But further you are to consider that the Apostles themselves were called Bishops in those times and yet they could not be so called properly as is proved by Mr. Banes in his Diocesan Triall who there gives reasons why Apostles neither were nor might be both Apostles and Bishops properly We shall onely urge one of the reasons there mentioned which also doth strongly prove that Mark the Evangelist neither was nor could be an ordinary Bishop for then he is made liable to errour as all ordinary Bishops were and are and then in writing of his Gospel as well as in his teaching he might erre and hereupon occasion is given to call that part of Canonical Scripture in question as the asserting the Apostles to be Bishops properly gives the like occasion to call all their writings in question which is dangerous and no wayes to be admitted of And hence it will follow in what sense soever you call Mark an Evangelist yet he could not be a Bishop properly although it should be granted he had an inspection under the Apostles of all those parts you mention 6. But thus farre we hope it is manifest unto the Reader that as yet you are to shew what the practice of the Church was in point of Church-Government for the space of the first three hundred years after Christ that which you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice not manifesting it either for the whole space or the greatest part thereof as appears by what we have said touching this matter Neither must we allow what again you here further assert sc that General Councils are the best enterpreters of the mind and wiâ—l of God in Scripture touching Church Government the Scripture it self being a farre more sure and safe interpreter of Gods will and minde therein revealed in the plain places thereof when there is a doubt and difficulty arising from the darkness of some other places and as hath been fully shewed as also considering that there was some swerving in point of Church Government from Scripture rule before the first general Council met or assembled when yet there was more purity as to that matter then there was afterward 7. Neither must we suffer that to pass for currant which you here say of Calvin sc that though he disliked the name Hierarchy yet he allowed the thing The place you here chiefly referre to is as we judge that place in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 1 2 3. but especially what we find Sect. 4. where we grant having mentioned Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs and having given the reason of the first institution of them in that fourth Section he hath these words Gubernationem sic constitutam nonnulli Hierarchiam vocarunt nomine ut mihi videtur improprie certè Scripturis inusitato c. Verum si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit i. e. the Governement of the Church so constituted some called the Hierarchie by an improper name as it seems unto me certainly by a name not used in the Scriptures c. But if omitting the Word we look upon the thing we shall find that the ancient Bishops would not frame another forme of governing the Church from that which God hath prescribed in his Word He speaks then here of what was in their intention not as approving every thing they did He saith they
would not they had not any such a will purpose or intention he doth not say as you say that they did not frame a forme of Church Government differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his Word He had intimated in the first Section that many of the Canons that were made in those times sc of the ancient Church did seem to express more then was to be found in sacred Scripture and though in regard of that good measure of purity of Governement and Discipline that did remain in those times he doth seem to extenuate what deviation there was from the word of God yet he doth not allow of every thing that was then appointed In the second Section he comes to shew how Bishop came up at the first sc that for the prevention of Schisme the Presbyters chose out of their number in every City one to whom they gave the title of Bishop and that upon this reason lest dissentions should arise from equality But withall there shewes that the Bishop thus superiour to the rest of the Presbyters in honour and dignity had not any dominion over the Presbyters whom he calls his Colleagues but only had that office as the Consul in the Senate and as indeed the Moderatour hath in our Assemblies as from that which he there instaneeth in that did at the first belong to him is clear and manifest And then he addes and saith even this it self the Ancients themselves confess was at the first brought in Pro temporum necessitate in regard of the necessity of the times and humano consensu by the consent and agreement of men as he proves out of Hierome And in the fourth Section which you chiefly here referre to he saith whereas every Province had amongst the Bishops one Archbishop and whereas also in the Synod of Nice there were constituted Patriarchs who were above the Archbishops in regard of dignity that did belong as he there saith to the conservation of the discipline But yet addes Quanquam in hâe disputatione praeteriri non potest quod â—arissimi â—rat usus i e. although in this disputation it may not be omitted that it was of most seldome or rare use And then he shews that the use of the Archbishop was for the calling a Provincial Synod as there might be occasion when the matter requiring it could not be determined by fewer and so by a lesser Assembly and in case the cause was more weighty or difficult that then the Patriarch was to call a more general Synod from which there was to be no appeal but to a general Council And thus Calvin shewes what was the reason of the first institution of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs but from that account given by him of this their first appointment it is manifest that their superiority above their fellow Brethren was not from the beginning it being but an humane constitution only and that at the first yea even in the time of the Nicene Council it was nothing like to what it grew to be afterward And that that power even of the Patriarchs and Metropolitans that was appointed or confirmed by the Nicene Council was nothing like unto that power that was exercised by the Bishops and Archbishops in this Land whilest Episcopacy stood their power at that time being chiefly if not only for the calling of Synods sc Provinciall or of a larger circuit as there might be need and they having therein only a presidency or moderatorship and not exercising any dominion over their Colleagues according to that representation of the matter of fact that Calvin truely makes And because the appointment of them was done out of a good intent without any will or purpose to appoint any forme of Government in the Church differing from that which God had appointed in his word and as an Ecclesiastical constitution only which the godly Fathers in those times thought might be of use though afterward as we have before shewed it proved otherwise and considering what a good measure of the ancient discipline remained entire in those times Calvin did therefore speak moderately of what they did though he did not as is manifest approve of all they did But thus the Reader may discerne that you have not dealt any more fairly with Calvin here whom in this place you would make to be a justifier and patron of Prelacy then you have dealt with him elsewhere though by what we have said we hope he is sufficiently vindicated and the contrary to what you alleadge him for fully evidenced And this that hath been said concerning Calvin will likewise shew how Beza is to be understood if he any where say what the ancient Fathers appointed touching the Hierarchy was done optimo zelâ— out of a very good zeal For by that expression he only approves of their pious and good intent in what they did but not of all that was done and when you call him that earnest patron of Presbyterian discipline you should not by stretching his words beyond their scope have represented him to have approved of that which the Presbyterian discipline doth not own 8. And thus having answered fully to what you have said for that Government which you are for and pray might be established in this Nation we must still mind you that whatever you here again say to the contrary as yet you have not proved this Church Government to be agreeable either to the will of God which was not as yet attempted to be made out by you or to the universal practice of Primitive Churches your proof for this falling far short and that however now you would mince the matter speaking of the rule whereby we are to judge touching Church Government or other matters of Religion in saying you put both together not the word of God alone nor the Churches practice alone but both together and which is not to be disallowed of when it is clear that the Churches practice is agreeable to the word of God yet by what you have discovered to be your opinion in this Section and of which we have fully spoken it is manifest you have given that to the Church Councils and Fathers and their exposition which is proper to the Scripture sc to be the only sure interpreter of it self and judge in all controversies of Religion and which is that which we have asserted and defended against you in this answer and by giving of which unto the Scripture we have detracted nothing from the credit that is due unto the Church or her lawfull and laudable customes which we are so farre from any wayes invalidating that we do assert and defend the same as also her authority against all heretical and schismatical persons that seek her overthrow although we see no reason to count those heretical and schismatical persons that seek to overthrow the Church that cannot either believe that the Church is the only iudge of coutroversies in matters of Religion or her exposition the best and surest rule
appoints fofeitures in case of prophanation of the Lords day by Carriers c. that travel on the Lords day or by Butchers that sell or kill victuass on that day By all which you may plainly see if you will not shut your eyes that it is not against Law that a man may come to be punished twice for one offence Nay what hath been heretofore more ordinary then the High-Commissioners imprisoning fining and excommunicating for one and the same offence But yet you will have the latter Acts and Ordinances against drunkenness swearing prophanation of the Sabbath c. enjoyning punishment by the Civil Magistrate onely though they do not speak one word that tends to the repealing of the Ordinance for Church Government to have utterly taken off all power of Excommunication But this we must not so easily grant and yet we shall not be unready as there may be occasion to complain to the civil Magistrate of any lawless persons that are justly censurable with the censure of Excommunication the conjunction of the Civil and Ecclesiasticall Sword being sharper and longer then either of them alone The Gentlemens Paper Sect. VIII And you further proceed to make answer to our severall ensuing Quaeries but how fully and satisfactorily all may judge that have perused what hath formerly been said touching the civil sanction of your Government Our first Quaerie is Why Government in singulari Your answer is Because it is the onely Government that is established in this Church by Civill Authority This Answer hath been confuted before we shall say no more here to that But we are unsatisfied what you mean by this Church whether you mean this Church at Manehester where your Classis is or you mean the Church of England If you mean this Church of Manchester of your association it is establisht not so much by Ordinance of Lords and Commons in Parliament as by later Acts grauting the free exercise of Religion in Doctrine and Worship to all Churches and Congregations in their own way to all and all alike but such as are particularly cautioned against And so you in your Presbytery in your Church at Manchester are protected because you have possessed your selves of that Church But then others in other Churches and Congregations to wit Prestwich Burie Middleton and the like may say of their way of worship it is the onely Government which is establisht in this Church But if your meaning be of the Church of England and so we conceive by the subsequent words viz. That there is no other Government but yours owned as the Church Government throughout the whole Nation You are certainly mistaken and dare not maintain it that his Highness or his Council owns Presbytery and none but that Government But leaving the Civill Sanction you come to the divine right of Presbytery and prove it to be the onely Government in singulari because it is that onely Government which Christ hath prescribed in his word and what Christ hath thus prescribed must needs be de jure one and the same in every Church And Calvins judgement you say in this particular is so manifest by his works to the whole world that it needs no proof We have told you before of the form and order of Church Government appointed by the Council of Nice by Patriarch Arch-Bishop Bishop c. How this Government which we suppose you will not say is Presbyterian is in Calvins judgement not differing from that which Christ hath prescribed in his word And in his first Section of this Chapter he tells us of Bishops not one word of Elders chosen out of the people who should rule in the Church but Bishops that did all viz. make and publish Canons a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church in which saith he they so ordered all things after the rule of Gods word that a man may see they had in a manner nothing differing from the word of God And this form of Government did represent a certain Image of divine Institution Can Calvin say more for your Presbytery nay can he say so much then how manifest is his judgement for the jus divinum of your Presbytery that it is that Government in particular which Christ hath prescribed in his word Thus have we taken off your Calvin and Beza as above your modern Doctors for Fathers you have none and now you descend to the Assembly of Divines The jus divinum by London Ministers the provincial Synod at London Rutherford Gyllaspie to prove your divine right of Presbytery modern Authors of yesterday with whom you paint your Margent in abundance and may serve your turn amongst the ignorant and vulgar sort who measure all by tale and not by weight when others that know what and who many of them are will conclude you draw very near the dregs As for such as are lawless persons and who those be whether drunkards swearers unclean persons prophaners of the Sabbath such as will not subject themselves to the present Government c. all together or a part conjunctim seu divisim whether you will they are onely punishable by the Civil Magistrate you cannot exclude them the Church by any of your censures as we have said before The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. WE did indeed proceed to make answer to your several Queries and desire the Reader to peruse the Queries you propounded to us in your first Paper and the answer we gave unto them and then to judge how satisfactorily we did it after he had fully weighed our answer and what you have said to take off the establishing of our Government by the civil Sanction But whereas your first Query was why Government in singulari and our answer given thereunto was because it is the only Government that is established in this Church by civil Authority you say this answer hath been confuted before but how strongly we shall leave it to the Reader for to judge But it seems this answer hath raised another scruple in your mindes for you are unsatisfied what we mean by this Church although in our answer we had sufficiently explained it it being that Church wherein the Prelatical Government formerly had been set up and wherein that being put down the Presbyterian was set up in its stead as the only Government that was owned as the Church Government for the whole Nation as we had told you and which words did sufficiently declare that by this Church we meant the Church of England This you confess is that which you conceive to be our meaning yet you quarrell at the word that so upon supposal that the Church of Manchester of our Association and where our Classis meets might thereby be understood you might take the liberty to tell us that our Church Government is not so much established by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament as by later Acts granting as you say the free exercise of Religion in doctrine and worship to
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