The Animadversions of the first Class within the Province of Lancaster, on this paper.

1. FIrst, There was no reason, why (though our answer was large (which you complain of) seeing it was in order to, and necessary for your satisfaction) that should hinder your acknowledgement of our civillity towards you; especially considering those sharp reflections on us, and on our Government in your first paper, (which in your second you do not deny) and which ministred unto us occasion of provocation; but we were resolved not to answer you in your own kind, as through the grace of God we hope (though we must deal faithfully with you) we shall keep our selves still from returning railing for railing; notwithstanding in this paper you deal farre more uncivilly and unchristianly with us, as the Reader will perceive.

Secondly, But whereas you acknowledge our civillity only so farre, as it related unto you, we cannot see any reason for this restriction, we having not dealt uncivilly with any, that we had occasion to mention or quote in our answer.

Thirdly, Neither did we give any occasion, by the answer we gave you to your second paper, to conceive that we intended not an amicable union, and composure of differences, according to our profession of our cordial and hearty desires; although (we must needs confess) whatever your hopes were, we did not apprehend any great likelyhood of a closure with you, or that you had reason so to conceive, upon the termes you propounded in your second paper, as we have said already in our an­swer to it; except you thought we might be courted out of our principles, upon your earnest entreaty, without any grounds and reasons at all.

Fourthly, We cannot but wonder that you should say with any qualification, that you condiscend to come to our terms; except it be, as it were, to come to our termes, to [Page 179] propound in order unto peace, What? in that very place, where we profess our selves so willing and desirous of u­nion, we had expresly cautioned against, as being things we could not in conscience yeeld unto. But when you speak of your condescension, we cannot but thereby con­ceive your meaning to be this, that if you grant preaching Presbyters any power in Ecclesiastical matters, and to have decisive votes in Synods (where the Bishops are to be the superintendents and perpetual moderatours, accor­ding to the proposals of Dr. Ʋsher) you think you con­discend very farre. And upon this and other grounds, we have cause to fear, if the ruling Elders were removed, and you should come to be censured by the preaching Presbyters, your exceptions then would be as much a­gainst them in such a case, as against the ruling Elders now; and that then you would cry up the Bishops, as having the solitary power of jurisdiction, and that it be­longed not to other Ministers to meddle therein at all.

Fifthly, When mentioning our professions cordially to desire peace, (which you will have to be but a pretending to it only) you say, Oh that there had been such a heart in us! We must needs tell you, that we can approve our hearts to him that is the searcher of them, that there was then, and is still, a cordial desire of peace and union, with all that are truly godly and orthodox throughout the Land, however differing from us in some points, touching Dis­cipline and Government; and do heartily wish, that you closed with us in those desires, as cordially and hear­tily as we do. But we hereby perceive, that except we have an heart for Episcopacy (condescended by you for the present to be moderated) and to throw out the ruling Elders (even to the forcing of our consciences against the Scriptures we urged in our answer, for the divine right of their office, and against the Scriptural arguments thence urged, to which we referred you, (though by you sleighted) and against the reasons also we urged in our answer, where we cautioned against moderate Episcopa­cy, [Page 180] never so much as attempted to be answered by you) you judge us to have no hearts for peace.

Sixthly, Whereas you say, our discourse concerning the civill sanction of our Presbyterian Government (which pro­duced the authority that awarranted all that was in that paper, we published in our several Congregations, and whatever we have acted in the exercise of that Govern­ment from the first to the last, since it was set up) was needless, we leave it to the Reader to judge of, when he shall consider, that in your first paper you told us, of our making Laws and Edicts, and publishing them openly in the Church, for all to obey upon pain of Excommunication, contrary to the Laws in force—and that it concerned us to look unto it, whether we had not run our selves into a praemunire.

Seventhly, But it seems you count that discourse also tedious; though it was necessary, both for our own vin­dincation, and to give you full and particular satisfaction, touching the rules prescribed unto us in the forme of Church-Government to walk by; besides that this fair manner of dealing with you, in bringing to your hand, what we judged you might never have enquired after, gave you the opportunity to have excepted against us, for transgressing our rule, if you had any thing to have al­leadged against us in that respect: But perhaps the men­tioning of any Ordinances of Parliament, and rules there­in expressed for the Presbyterian Government, was that which was tedious to you, and which we have some rea­son for to think; and therefore afterward you endeavour (though you performe not what you undertake) to take them all away, and utterly to nullifie all Ordinances of Parliament whatsoever.

Eightly, You judge also, that we quickly forget our selves, when we said in our answer, our leisure would not permit us to spend time about impertinencies, and yet presently fall upon alleadging of sundry Orders and Ordinances of Parlia­ment; but these were not produced by us to prove, that the Presbyterian Government was established by the Law of the Land, but to give you some account how the setting up of the [Page 181] Presbyterian Government in this County, the dividing it into several Classes, the making those Classes into a Pro­vince, and appointing this Class to be the first, was all done by Authority of Parliament: this being the inference that we made from our recital See the first Section of it to­wards the close. of the Orders and Ordi­nances of Parliament, that were mentioned in our answer, and which was occasioned by your selves, who having intituled us in your first paper, The first Class at Manchester, within the Province of Lancaster, then presently added, Give us leave to salute you in your own terms: We judged you might be ignorant of the particular Orders and Ordinan­ces touching what concerned this Province of Lancaster, and this Class in particular, in the particulars above­mentioned, though you might have seen some Ordinan­ces in the general, for the Presbyterian Government, and which we believe any indifferent Reader will discern, are distinct things; as the Parliament also in passing them, distinguished them; and therefore you should not have dealt so disingeniously with us, as to have accounted the discourse impertinent, which was necessary for your in­formation, if you were ignorant: If you knowing these Orders and Ordinances, would yet have this discourse impertinent, notwithstanding your jerking us, for calling our selves the first Classis within the Province of Lancaster, (which terms we told you we gave not to our selves, till the Parliament had first given them us) we leave it to the Rea­der what to judge of it.

Ninthly, Here is also another strange assertion, when you say, it was no question of yours, whether our Government be established by the Law of the Land; when as in your first paper, in the words thereof recited even now, you told us of our making Laws and Edicts, and publishing them contrary to the Laws in force, and questioning whether we had not run our selves into a praemunire. Doubtless if our Government be established by Ordinance of Parliament, and that Or­dinance awarrant us for whatever was published by us in the paper, and yet that be asserted by you to be contrary to the Laws in force, it must needs be a question of yours, [Page 182] whether our Government be established, by the Law of the Land; as it is that which afterward you go about to prove, that it wants the establishment of Authority; and so how­ever you dare not tell the Justices of the Peace, that have acted on other Ordinances of Parliament (that yet are also null and void, if that we have acted on be) that they are not thereby sufficiently secured against the danger of a praemunire; yet you dare tell us of this once and again, and yet also it be no question of yours, whether our Church-Government be established by the Law of the Land; but how contradictory these things are one unto another, we leave it to be judged of. As touching our starting more doubts, then (as you say) we can assoyl, we shall have leisure hereafter to examine, in the place where you have a mind to encounter us, and now shall follow you in the way you have chosen to go in. And so we come unto the next.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

FIrst, We perceive you are resolved to stick to what you have once said, though it be only the taking ad­vantage of some litteral mistake, and which in our an­swer we had told you was none of ours, when you called our paper by the title of a presentation, but imputed it to the Scribe, (speaking indefinitely, which might be yours as well as ours; though in your printed Copy you will have us to say what we did not, that it was the mistake of our Scribe) and however you say now, that in all the Copies which you have seen (which implies many) you find in the close of that our paper, these words; this presentation is ap­proved by this Provincial Assembly, Thomas Johnson Moderator, [Page 184] Edward Gee Scribe: Yet we believe, that if you be put upon the proof, it will be hard for you to produce one Copy that was given forth by the Class, and written by our Scribe, where you find our paper approved by the Provincial Assembly under the title of a presentation, but of a representation only, as we said in our answer. But as in the Preface to these papers that you printed, you in­sinuate that we are men of low and cheap abilities; and in this paper do afterwards jeer and scoff at us, as persons desti­tute of all learning, as if you would monopolize (as all power and jurisdiction) so all learning, and make the same proper to your selves and your own party, (though we hope we have so much, as to fathom the depth of that which you would make some shew of) so here we have cause to fear, you had a mind to represent us, (and which is worse, the Provincial Assembly too, and those reve­rend and learned brethren, the Moderator and Scribe of it also) to be such poor illiterate persons, as did not well know how how to write good English.

Secondly, In your representing what we said touch­ing submitting to Synods and Councils; you do it but by the halfes, (and so deal unfaithfully) never so much as mentioning what we had in our answer in the first place declared, viz. that our faith was not to be resolved into the determination of any company of men on earth whatsoever, or to be built on the judgement of Synods and Councills, &c. for which we gave our reasons. And further we there said, that (when you had said in your first paper, that as touch­ing what you therein declare as your sense and apprehensions of ours that we published, you did not rest in the judgement and determination of any general Concil contrary thereunto:) if your meaning therein was the same with what we had declared ours to be, you had not us differing from you. After we came to declare, in what respects they were to be reverenced; viz. as they were the ordinances of God, and in respect of their authoritative judgement, and that, in that respect they were to be submitted to; in which re­spect we said we submitted our apprehensions, in the case [Page 185] propounded to the judgement of the Provincial Assem­bly. But to make this more plain, we proceeded to di­stinguish betwixt a private and publick judgement in matters of Religion, allowing the private to our selves and o­thers, who (we said) were all of us to see with our own eyes, and judge concerning what is to be believed in mat­ters of this nature. Again we distinguished the publick and authoritative judgement, into a concional (which be­longed (we said) to every Minister, to whom the key of Doctrine was committed, by himself singly) and juridi­cal; which (we said) belonged to Synods and Councils, who having the key of Discipline committed to them, were to enquire into, try, examine, censure, and judge of matters of Doctrine and Discipline authoritatively, (though tyed to the Word in such proceedings) and like­wise to censure offenders; and then we applyed this to our purpose, and said that it was in this sense, that we submitted our apprehensions, in the paper we published, to the judgement of the Provincial Assembly, and for which we urged our grounds; all which will be clear to the Reader, upon the perusal of the second Section of our answer: But you only mention this last branch, and say, we tell you of an authoritative judgement of Synods and Coun­cills, and how we hoped when you had weigbed the matter better, you would not in this respect see cause to submit, what you may publish as your own private judgements about matters of Reli­gion, to the judgement of a general Council, suppose it might be had. But seeing, towards the close of this Section, you profess, you are glad to hear us of the same mind with you, touching this submission to Synods and Councills; you should not thus maimedly have represented out opi­nion; considering how vastly different ours and yours is in this matter; as will appear from what hath been decla­red to be ours, and what you declare to be yours in this Section, and which we shall manifest anon to the Reader.

Thirdly, You seem here to abhorre the refusal to sub­mit, what you have published or may publish as your own private [Page 186] judgement, in matters of Religion, to the judgement of a general Council that hath been, or any that may be hereafter, and do complain, that we should either our selves judge, or induce others to the perswasion of you, that you should refuse to submit your judgement in the sense declared. But here we must mind you, that the sense we declared was, that there was to be a submission to them, in regard of their juridical authori­ty; not that faith was to be built on their judgement; And in this latter you will be found to submit too much; as if they should determine against you, we fear in the former you would be found to submit too little. We shall give the Reader our Reasons for both, that we may not seem to wrong you, in fastening upon you without ground, what perhaps, as we have expressed the matter, you may be ready to disclaim.

For the first; You do in this very Section profess, as touching matters which are not so plainly set forth in the word of God, your willing submission to the judgement of a general Council; and hereafter in the sixth Section of this Paper, you say, where there is a doubt or difficulty, the Church may expound the Scripture; although you grant what we said, soil. that it is tyed to the rule of Gods words in such proceedings, as Judges to the Law; though we do not see, it is lawfull for any private persons to examine, whether in case of such a doubt or difficulty, the Church hath given the right sense of Scripture; but must (notwithstanding any grounds, they may have from that Text, which the Church may expound, or other Texts of Scripture, to the contrary;) submit their faith and belief in the case, to the Churches determination. For you there add and say, we are b [...]und up by that, speaking of the Churches ex­position, as you say, we are to those cases in the Law, which are the judgement and exposition of the Judges, upon the dark places of the same: the Churches exposition and practice, (as you there further say) is our rule in such cases, and the best rule too—and when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture, it is to give way to private interpretation, and domi­nari fidei, to lord it over the faith of others, to utter any [Page 187] other sense of Scripture (which you there call the uttering of mens own fancies) then hath been delivered by our Forefa­thers, as you do more fully declare your selves in that place. From all which it follows, that however in this Section you say, in matters of faith, and such articles, as are plainly warranted by Gods word, and constant practice of the Catholique Church, you refuse to submit your judgement to the judgement of a general Council; yet in matters of Religion, that are not so plainly set forth, you do; and to the Churches exposition, where there is a doubt and difficulty, which is your rule, and the best rule too, and by which you are bound up; which what is it else, then to build your faith in such cases, upon their judgement, and so to submit to them, as we said, too much? And seeing, there is almost no point of faith, but it is controverted; if all such points must be judged, such matters, as about which there is doubt and difficulty, and not plainly set forth in Gods word; then in all such cases it must be the Churches exposition of the Scriptures and practice (as you do insi­sinuate) that must be the rule by which you must be guid­ed, and that on which in such cases your faith must be built; and which, when we come to the sixth Section, we shall sh [...]w to be very unsound, and with the Papists, in whole or in part, to resolve your faith into the determi­nations of men, the exposition of the Church, or of Synods and Councils, that are the Church representative. The Reader by this account may perceive, that in this respect you submitted too much to Synods and Councils, and a great deal further then ever we submitted, as is manifest from what we have shewed, was in this our declared judgement, in our answer to your first Paper.

But we shall now further proceed, to give the Reader our Reason, why if Synods and Councils (and you say of these, you shall submit to any that shall come hereafter) should determine against you, we feared, in regard of their juridical authority, you would submit too little. There is betwixt you and us a controversie touching the superiority of Bishop above Presbyters; we deny it, you [Page 188] herein are for the affirmative. You assert in the very next Section, that Ae▪rius was condemned for heresie, for asserting this parity of Church-Officers; and it is Bishops and Presbyters only that are there spoken of. There is also another controversie betwixt you and us, touching ruling Elders, whether they be by divine right or no; you herein deny, and we affirme. In these matters then, we shall take it for granted, till you deny it, that you yeild there is a doubt and difficulty, and touching which you will not have the Scripture to be so plain, but that Fathers and Councils must be consulted in these cases; and which was the reason, why in the case of the ruling Elder, you sent us to them for to consult what exposition they gave of the Texts that we alleadged for the divine right of those Officers. Now the Question is, whether you will submit to the determination of Synods and Councils in regard of their juridical authority? As touching the first of these matters in difference, we shall, in our Animadversions on your next Section, shew, that there are Fathers that deter­mine against you. As touching the other concerning ru­ling Elders, we have in our Answer to your second Paper, shewed, there are several Fathers that do give in clear evi­dence touching the being of this Officer in their times; But as touching this Officer, vvhether he be an Officer of the Church by divine right, vve have not read of any general Council, before vvhom this case in controversie vvas brought, much less that they determined against vvhat in this point vve hold: (but vve suppose) that from vvhat you, or vve may alledge out of Fathers or Councils of an­cienter times, these points vvill not be found to be deter­mined, but there vvill be a difference betvvixt us still. What then is it, that you vvill submit to? To a general Council that shall come hereafter? If so, and that you vvill give that due respect to Synods and Councils, that may be hereafter, in regard of their juridical Authority; Then untill a general Council may be had, that may be regularly and duely called, and rightly constituted; seeing the mat­ters in difference betvvixt you and us have been tryed and [Page 189] examined, judged and determined This is mani­fest from the ad­vice of the As­sembly to the Parliament, touching Church Government. against you, and for us, by a reverend and learned Synod and Assembly of Di­vines (against vvhom [...], your exception against our Pro­vincial Assembly, in regard of the Elders being admitted there as members, lyes not) that was called by the Autho­rity of the Civil power, of this Nation under which we live; you ought to testifie your submission to that Synod, and not contrary to their resolution of the cases in diffe­rence, and the Ordinances of Parliament for the Presby­terian-Government, and against Episcopacy, disturb the peace of the Church, by publishing your own private judg­ments (if their determinations had been against us, and we had published ours in the cases in difference, you would have called them our fancies) and thereby testifie what little respect you have to their resolutions. Upon this consideration we cannot but think; that if a general Council should hereafter come, and determine these cases against you, you that now submit not, would not submit then: And so the upshot of the matter would be this; that if in these or such like cases in controversie, you were o­therwise resolved in your judgements, you would not sub­mit to the determination of a general Council, in regard of their juridical authority; only if they determined ac­cording to your resolutions, then you would submit; wherein notwithstanding your great professions of sub­mission, you do not submit much.

Fourthly, But now you find your selves agrieved, be­cause when you said, you did publish this your sense and ap­prehension of our Paper, as far as it was plain to you, we leav­ing out the words, as far as it was plain to you, dealt not fair­ly with you: for you say those words carry another sense with them, then indeed we did understand them in; that is, as here you explain your selves; so far as the matter con­tained in our Paper was plain to you, you closed and joyned with us, being (as you say) you explain your selves afterward; so fully warranted thereunto by the word of God, and constant pract­ice of the Catholick Church, that therein so far as it is thus made plain to you, you shall not submit your apprehensions to the judge­ment [Page 190] of a general Council; but now your complaint of us is, that by leaving those words out, which you thus explain, we represent you, as if where matters were not so plain, but doubtfull, you refused to submit. The truth is, we took these words referring to our Paper, so far as it is plain to us, in opposition to obscurity and darkness, you after complaining, that other parts of our Paper were full of darkness; and then though we left those words out, yet we could not conceive, we wronged you therein, being you could not profess your closure and joyning with us in any thing in our Paper, any further then you understood our plain meaning. But seeing you here otherwise explain your selves, and say, you did it before; we will be more liberal to you, then you are to us afterwards, and shall al­low you the liberty to explain your selves; though we do not think, that the sound and orthodox Reader will judge that your opinion thus explained, and which you have here declared, touching your submission to Synods and Councils, is any sounder, then as we understood you to have meant those words; and which we doubt not, but he will discern from what hath been said concerning it, in the Animadversion going before.

5. But by this explication of your selves, you have cre­ated to us a further scruple; for it a [...]peats to us from thence, (seeing you joyn the word of God, and constant practice of the Catholique Church together, (as that which must make those matters of faith and articles of Religion so plain to you, that you thereupon will refuse to submit such matters, so made plain, and your apprehen­sions concerning them, to a generall Council) that ex­cept the plainest matters of faith, and articles of Religion from Gods word be also made plain, to have been the constant practice (rather judgment, as we think you should have expressed it) of the Catholique Church, they are not so plain to you, as not to submit your apprehen­sions concerning them to a generall Council; and so the word of God alone, even in the matters of faith and ar­ticles of Religion, that are therein most plainly contained; [Page 191] shall not be a sufficient foundation, to bottom your faith upon, except it be also evident, what was the constant and universall practice (rather judgment) of the Church in those points; and so your faith, even in the plainest ar­ticles of Religion, must be resolved into the constant pra­ctice, or rather declared judgment of the universal Church, and which makes it a meer humane not a divine faith. But touching this, as the rule in any cases of matters of Religion, we shall have further occasion to speak in our animadversions on the sixth Section of this paper.

6. As touching our selves, we have declared, that we did not submit to Synods and Councils, so as to build our faith on their dictates, or resolve it into their determina­tions; and in this we would be understood touching all matters of faith whatsoever; not only those that are most plainly contained in Gods word, but also such as about which there may be some doubt and difficulty, although we reverence Synods as an Ordinance of God; and in way of means, judg it more likely in doubtfull cases, that what is Gods mind should be boulted forth to our satisfaction, by the learned debates of learned, judicious and godly Di­vines in such Assemblies, then by the discussion of one Bi­shop, or some few Ministers. But as touching the juridicall power of Synods, we profess our selves to be ready, to submit to their judgment, and did so submit our Paper wholly to the judgment of our Provinciall, which was a Synod actually in being, and to whom we knowing our selves to be accountable, and judging we ought so to be, thought it not meet to publish the Paper, that was read in our severall Congregations, except it had first been ap­proved of by them. Now how farre we do, in this decla­ration of our judgements, touching our submission to Sy­nods and Councils, concur with what here you declare to be yours, we leave it to your selves, and the Reader to judg of; but we are sure there is herein a great distance betwixt your declared judgment and ours; though you shall not finde afterwards, that we do hardly grant that to a generall Council, rightly constituted and regularly called, [Page 192] which we either in truth or any shew, do grant to our Pro­vinciall.

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, [Page 195] 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 [Page 196] 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 Apostles in the Synod at Jerusalem, and the Fathers of the Nicene Council, and o­thers we instanced in, to endeavour their conviction, in the due use of all good meanes, before there was a process to excommunication. We remembred also, how quick the Prelates were, in thundering out their excommunica­tions, against such as (though godly and religious) were in those times accounted by them to be schismatical; and we thought it requisite, to bear witness against those manner of proceedings. But of this you take no notice, and we do not much wonder: for we see you count all those, that severed themselves from the Bishops, schismatical; and may be, if they had power again in their hands, you did not much matter (though you are willing the scandalous should be admonished before) if all these, for their great schisme, in your esteem were forthwith excommunica­ted.

Thirdly, As touching publick Catechizing we said, we heartily wished it had been more generally practised in our own Church at home, as it is practised by the refor­med Churches abroad: But by our own Church, we meant the Church of England, as it is a national Church; and in which, though Catechizing was enjoyned in for­mer times, yet it was neither so generally and constantly practised, as it should have been; else we should not have had so much cause to have complained of the gross igno­rance of so many aged persons in our Congregations (who were nor trained up under the Presbyterian, but Prelatical Government) as now we have. And here we observe, that when you profess you are glad, to hear us so heartily wish, that Catechizing had been more generally practised, it is but that you may take occasion to affix the [Page 197] greater blot upon us; for you would have it to be our Churches in whom this neglect is chiefly or only to be found; and it is we, (that are again by you charged with separation) that have by our pretended reformation, (as you are pleased to speak) destroyed this practice. We wish as heartily in this case, as we did in the other, that you may be sensible how prone you are to revile and slander, and pray to God that it may not be laid to your charge.

But you might have remembred, that as we professed our selves to be for publick Catechizing (which blessed be God is practised in our Churches, though you would make the world to believe that we had destroyed it) so we professed to be for private too, that so such as were not like, in regard of age, or timorousness, to be brought to instruction by the publick, might yet by the private gain some knowledge. In the Paper also, that was published in the Congregations, there was some order ap­pointed, for the better and more convenient practice of it. And doubtless, by how much we were willing to be at the more pains for the information of the ignorant, the greater fault will lie at your doores, and be charged upon you, (if you repent not of it) that by your opposi­tion, you have not only laboured to obstruct the good courses by us propounded, for the help of poor ignorant souls; but accused us also, that by our pretended refor­mation we have destroyed Catechizing.

Here also we take notice, that however in your first Paper you had a proviso touching Catechizing, that it be publick, and that we thereupon gave you some reason (though briefly) for private Catechizing, yet this you wholly pass over in silence, and say nothing to it; thus you pretend to make a reply to our answer, and yet but speak to what of it you please. But if you had manifested any dissatisfaction, touching private Catechizing, we should here have proceeded, to have given further rea­sons for it; although this work is so fully done to our hands by Mr. Baxter in his Gildas Salvianus, that it would [Page 198] have been needless unto those that have read that Book, and whereunto, for his further satisfaction, we referre the Reader, if he desire it.

Fourthly, If we understood you aright in this, that you held it not fitting, that persons grosly ignorant should be ad­mitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the conclusion that we inferred hence, stands good against any thing brought by you to invalidate it.

But here we observe, you stretch it beyond its scope, and that in two particulars.

1. In that you would have it referre to examination before the Eldership, which was not that, which we spake of: we only said, there ought to be examination and triall of all persons before they be admitted to the Lords Supper, not de­termining here, touching the persons by whom this ex­amination was to be made; but only inferring, that then there ought to be this examination; that so the grosly igno­rant might not be admitted, as they might be, if all promiscu­cusly were to be admitted without any triall at all; and which was the reason, that we alleadged in our answer, for the inference we made, and which still stands good, you ur­ging nothing at all to take away the strength of it. It is true, that the examination and judgement of all such as shall for their ignorance, not be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is to be in the power of the Eldership of every Con­gregation, and not in the power of one Minister only, by the rules of our Government. See forme of Church-govern­ment, pag. 30. But this was not the thing we there spake of; we only concluded, that there ought to be an examination, and hoped that we had gained from your own concession, this one further step, toward an agreement betwixt you and us, that all such persons, as should be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per, must be examined by some or other, not determi­ning by whom; there being no way to discover the ig­norant, but by triall. And as touching our practice, it is well known, that when the Eldership is sati [...]fied, touch­ing the knowledge of such as offer themselves to that Sa­crament, upon the examination of a Minister and one [Page 199] Elder, or upon the examination of two Ministers (how­ever none is to b [...] debarred for their ignorance, but by the juridical act of the Eldership, and which is for the better securing of the Church-priveledges to the members, then to have left the power to the Minister alone) such are not required, to be examined before the Eldership, but are upon the testimony of the examiners, (there being nothing to be objected justly against them) admitted by the autho­rity of the Eldership.

2. There is also another thing, wherein you would make our inference to be that, which indeed it was not; for neither did we speak, concerning any examination de novo, of such persons, as had been formerly admitted; our words recited even now, and to be seen in our an­swer, do plainly speak, concerning an examination be­fore admission to the Lords Supper, not concerning an ex­amination de novo. Indeed we shall neither be ashamed of, nor deny what is our practice, which is to take a triall of all the communicants de novo, before admission of them to the Lords Supper. We well remember how under the Episcopall government, there was a generall admission, and that sundry grosly ignorant did croud in amongst the rest, unto this Ordinance; and therefore that these might be discovered, and kept off from this Sacrament, till fitter for it; we judged it requisite, that, according to that power that is glven to the Eldership in the form of Church-go­vernment, for this purpose, there should be a triall taken of all the communicants, that so there might be some di­stinction made, and not be a promiscuous admitting of all as heretofore. And we are sure, that such amongst us, who, having been anciently catechised, and a long while commoners at the Lords Table, (to use your own expressions) have wit­nessed the best confession for their parts and piety, have been the most forward, to draw on others to be willing to be re­examined, by their own good example therein; and that the greatest opposers of this course, however they may be some of them persons of parts, yet have been such, as have been either scandalous in their lives, or not so for­ward [Page 200] for piety as were to be desired. We have thus given an account, of what is our practice in this matter; but this examination of communicants de novo, was not the thing we here spake of, as why the examination of them be­fore their admission of them at the first, was here mentio­ned, we have delared before. But we see you are wil­ling, to lay hold on any thing, wherein you apprehend you have any advantage against us, though it be never so small.

Fifthly, You charge us again with another non sequitur; when we inferre, that if the Churches lawfull Pastors have power to excommunicate the scandalous, we see not in reason, how you can find fault with our proceedings, if there should be occasion for our censuring any such persons; but this inference yet stands good against any thing by you alleadg­ed to the contrary, and in it self is clear and manifest; being there is no excommunication that passeth with us against any, but by the juridical act of the lawfull Pastors of our several Churches or Congregations; and whose power by you should not be questioned, or the validity of their censures, because of the concurrence of the ruling Elders; as by way of preventing an Objection, we hin­ted to you in our answer, considering what power was exercised in the time of Episcopacy, by the High Com­missioners, Chancellors and Commissaries (as much Lay-men then in your judgement, as ruling Elders can be now) to whom yet there was a submission by you; This reason you say is weak, but you do not prove it to be so; Nay here you fall short in two main points, For

1. You misrepresent the matter of fact, and that in two particulars: 1. When you would intimate, that the High-Commissioners, Chancellors and Commissaries, did all of them officiate by deputation from, and under a law­full Pastor; when as it is manifest, the High-Commis­sioners had no deputation from the Bishop, but received their Commission from the King, (if not the Chancel­lors also,) and did act in those Ecclesiasticall censures, that were by them passed, in joynt and equall power with the [Page 201] Bishop by virtue of their Commission. 2. The Parlia­ment, that did appoint the ruling-Elders in the form of Church government, did not oblige any, that were to sub­mit to them, to acknowledg the jus divinum of their Of­fice, neither do we impose this opinion of them upon any. And therefore, notwithstanding our own judgment con­cerning them in this respect, the comparison betwixt them and the other, as to what is necessary for your satisfaction, doth still hould good, and is neither weak nor frivolous, as you say.

2. But if the matter of fact should be granted to have been according to your representation, sc. that High-Com­missioners, Chancellours, &c. did all of them officiate by deputation from, or under a lawfull Pastor, how doth this help the matter, to make your submission to these lawfull, and yet your submission to the ruling Elders unlawfull? For 1. we are as yet to learn (and we think you will never be able to make it good) that a trust committed to one by man See S ^r Fran­cis Bacon., much less reposed by God in an officer in the Church, and particularly in the Pastor may be delega­ted. If this be so, he might sufficiently discharge his duty by another, preach by another, administer the Sacrament by another, as well as dispense the censures of the Church by another, who yet himself is to give an account of their souls unto God; which he will never be able to make, in the omission of those duties in his own person, though he appoint another unto them. But being the highest offi­cer in the Church, doth not himself act out of plenitude of power, (for that were to make him a Pope and Anti­christ; that belonging only to Jesus Christ the King and Matth. 28. ver. 18. Lord of the Church, to whom all power is given in Hea­ven and earth) and hath no more but a ministry com­mitted to him, which he hath received of Christ, as his ser­vant, who hath required him to fulfill it; he may not Col. 4. 17. depute any other as under him, or as his servant, to do that which his Lord and master hath intrusted him with, and appointed him to do himself. 2. But further we do here enquire of you, whether by virtue of that deputation, [Page 202] which the persons spoken of received from a lawfull Pa­stor, according to your allegation, you will have them to be Ecclesiasticall officers, or but meer lay-men still? If, not­withstanding that deputation, they be but meer lay-men, how will you awarrant them to meddle with Ecelesiasti­call censures? because deputed thereunto by the Bishop? when God hath excluded all those that are but meer lay-men from medling authoritatively with Ecclesiasticall matters? If the High-Priest in the time of the Law, had given to Ʋzziah a Commission, to have gone into the Temple of the Lord, to burn incense upon the Altar of in­cense, and he had so officiated by deputation from and under him, would that have been sufficient to have born him out in so doing, whenas that work pertained not un­to him, but unto the Priests the sonnes of Aaron, that were 2 Chr. 26. 18. consecrated to burn incense? If by vertue of that deputa­tion they had from the Bishops, they were Ecclesiasticall officers, invested with authority, to exercise Ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction and dispense Church-censures, and so not meer lay-men; we may say much more for the outward call unto that office, that our ruling Elders do execute, they having been elected by the people (that anciently had a vote in the choice, even of the very Bishops, as is clear from the Records of Antiquity) and examined by the Pastors of the Churches, and by them approved as fit, and set apart solemnly to rule in the house of God by exhorta­tion and Prayer, as hath been said before.

6. But you now go on, and declare whom you mean by lawfull Pastors, sc. such persons as have received their Or­dination from men lawfully and truely qualified with a just power of conferring Orders. Now these, according to what you have declared in your former Paper, are the Bishops, with­out whom, you there insinuate, the Church of God cannot be continued amongst us, in a succession of a lawfully ordained Mi­nistry, and so at once cashier out of the numbet of law-full Pastors, all such Ministers either of our own, or other reformed Churches, that are ordained by Presbyters one­ly, and to whom you allow not the power of Ordination, [Page 203] as you here also do plainly declare your selves. But we have in our answer to that clause quoted out of your for­mer Paper, sufficiently (as we hope the Reader will judg) declared the absurdity of this your opinion: And you your selves (as all men may see) may hereby perceive how vain a thing it is, for you and us to labour in any way of accommodation, whilst you retain these principles, they being destructive to union, and your communion in severall of our Churches, either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper. For how can you have communion in those Or­dinances dispensed by such Ministers amongst us, as being ordained by Presbyters onely, you on this ground will conclude to be no lawfully ordained Ministers? And there­fore if you be cordiall for union, we wish you to revise what you have as touching this matter asserted, and weigh what in our former Paper we have opposed unto it. But as touching the power of ordaining Presbyters by Presby­ters onely, you will have it to be our opinion onely, and that in this we are singular; for you say, we (and you be­lieve it is none but we) presume one Presbyter may confer or­ders upon another. And here indeed 1. If we held that one Presbyter might ordain another Presbyter, you had rea­son to accuse us of singularity: but we are professedly a­gainst all solitary power in ordination, as well as in ju­risdiction, by whomsoever this power is, or hath been ex­ercised. 2. But if your meaning be, that it is we onely that hold, Presbyters alone, without any Bishops, may ordain Presbyters: 1. You might have known, that this was and is the judgment of the reformed Churches abroad, as well as ours. 2. And further you may remember, we alleadged out of Dr. Bernard, the testimony of severall Epis­copall men, as well as of Dr. Usher, asserting and proving, that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the ordina­tion of Presbyters standeth valid; which speciall restri­ction we mentioned in our Answer (as the Reader will finde) and which, though added, would not have hin­dred (if you had been of the same opinion with them) but you might have acknowledged, that such as are with [Page 204] us ordained by Presbyters onely, are notwithstanding law­full Pastors; Bishops being now taken away by the power of the civil Magistrate, and excluded from having any liberty to ordain, by those acts where Prelacy is exempted from that indulgence, that is granted to some others. If also that Catalogue of Divines, Schoolmen and Fathers, that we cited out of Dr. Bernard, (who are cited by him also out of others) be consulted, they will be found to affirm (as we said in our Answer, though you take no notice of it) that Episcopacy non est ordo praecisè distinctus a Sacerdotio simplici; Bishop Davenant (as he is alleadged Vide pag. 130. of their last Book publish­ed by D ^r Ber­nard. by Dr. Bernard for this purpose) producing the principall of the Schoolmen, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Gerson, Durand, &c. for this opinion. Whence also it is evident, that they are not by us frustraneously cited, though it be an easie matter for you to assert the same without any reason, or ever an­swering to what they were alleadged for to affirm. We shall not here deny, but Dr. Usher saith, that the ordination made by such Presbyters, as have severed themselves from those Bishops, unto whom they had sworn canicall obedience, could not possibly by him be excused from being schismaticall. But yet he doth not say that the ordination by them is null and void, although in his judgment there was thereby a schisme made. There may be schismes in the Church; yea some particular Churches may be schismaticall, and yet for the substance of them continue true Churches of Jesus Christ; as if it were to our purpose, might be cleared both from Scri­ptures, and also Fathers. But as touching the aspersion of schisme, that is cast on such Presbyters that have severed themselves from the Bishops, we hope it is sufficiently wi­ped off, by what we have already spoken in our answer to your second Paper.

7. However it seems that charge was not high enough, The imputa­tion of perjury taken off. and therefore in this you proceed further, charging us with perjury and obstinacy; for you having mentioned that speciall restriction of Dr. Ushers, of not invalidating the ordi­nation by Presbyters, where Bishops cannot be had, add and say, but this we must desire you to consider, is ex necessitate non [Page 205] ex perjurio & pertinacia; and however you would smooth up the matter, by bidding us. examine our selves in this particular, and saying you shall not judge any man; yet it is plain enough to any discerning Reader, who they are that are charged by such expressions. But as touching the thing it self, we shall now examine the justness of the charge. And first we shall begin with that of perjury, unto which we shall need to say the less, considering that the grounds layd in our Answer to your second Paper, (pro­ving that such Presbyters, as since the Parliaments abo­lishing Prelacy, have severed themselves from the Bishops, or cast off Episcopacy, are not justly to be charged with schisme) do here also take place, to acquit such Ministers, that did swear Canonicall obedience to the Bishops, from the guilt of perjury. We shall here onely minde you and the Reader of two things; 1. That seeing the superiority which the Bishops chalenged and exercised above Presby­ters in this Nation, did belong unto them onely by the Law of the Land, (we having proved in our Answer to your second Paper, that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture sense are both one) and was taken away from them by the Legislative power of this Nation, (as they might lawfully take it away) that power which they exercised not being due to them by Divine right, nay being an usurpation up­on the Pastors office, as hath been also shewd) and so their whole Office as Diocesans, together with their jurisdiction, as sundry also of their Persons are all extinct (and as is ma­nifest in particular, touching him that was the Bishop of this Dioces) we wonder much (and we think every Reader will here wonder with us) that your great heat for Prelacy, should thus farre have transported you, as to charge us with perjury, for which there is not the least colour. Con­sult Dr. Sanderson de juramenti promissorii obligatione; consult all other Casuists, and you shall finde, that the best and soundest of them, do determine with one consent, that when the matter of an Oath ceaseth, the obligation by ver­tue of that Oath ceaseth also; and therefore Prelacy being taken away by lawfull authority, there can be no perjury [Page 206] 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 [Page 207] 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 sensi [...]; 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 sanc [...]is in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Phillip­pis, cum Episcopis & Diaconis; gratia vobis & pax, & reliqua Phillipi una est urbs Macedoniae, & certe in u [...]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 [Page 208] 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, See their jus divinum Mini­sterij evangelici part. 2. pag. 143, 144. 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 Augu [...]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, pr [...]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 [Page 209] 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 new tearmed Assembly, not for the words sake (Assembly) but first in regard of the word (Provincial) although that, in the judgement of Dr. Usher (who in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the forme of Synodical Government, received in the ancient Church, doth expresly mention among his proposals (as we said also in our answer) the Provincial Synod) would not have been accused of novelty; but that which you are here offended at, is, that this County of Lancaster should be tearmed the Province of Lancaster, and the Synods and Assemblies therein convened, should be tearmed Provin­cial; for which yet you have little reason, if you had considered, all this was done by the authority of Parlia­ment, who had power to bound the Province and the Sy­nod or Assembly to be held thereih, for the ordering and regulating the affairs of the Church, within the bounds set, as they judged to be most convenient. And seeing that a Synod within the bounds of a County, may meet more frequently with conveniency, for the regulating the affairs of the several Classical Presbyteries within those bounds, then if the bounds had been larger, (especially if so large as to have comprehended within them several Counties, as formerly the two Provinces of York and Can­ [...]erbury comprehended all the Counties within the Land) and which doubtless the Parliament considered, when they ordered, Decemb. 21. 1646. That the several Classes in Luncashire should be one Province; (and of which we had be­fore given you an account in our answer to your first Pa­per) if you had acquiesced in the authority of Parliament, as sufficient for the ordering of such a matter, you would not have found fault with this for its novelty; all Laws that are newly made, though for the ease of the su [...]j [...]cts, being as liable to exception in that respect as this. Your [Page 210] next reason why you charge our Provincial Assembly with novelty is, in regard of the place (at Preston) but this exception was prevented in our answer (unto which here you make no reply) when we said, if Provincial Assem­blies be warrantable, and have been of ancient use in the Church, that having been long in disuse, they of late began to be held at Preston, that could not justly incurre your censure; and cer­tainly the most famous Synods and Councils that have been, or that may be hereafter, must be all accused in re­gard of novelty, if this be a sufficient ground of accusati­on, even the first four general Councils, of Nice, Constan­tinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, those being all as new in regard of their places, where they were assembled at the time of their first meeting (there having been never such Assemblies convened in those places before) as our Pro­vincial Assembly was or is, that met, and still ordinarily doth at Preston. But perhaps there is more strength in the last reason, why you charge it to be a new termed Provincial Assembly, when you say, it is new in respect of the persons constituting this Assembly, lay-men presiding, and ruleing, and having decisive voyces in as ample a manner, as the highest and chiefest in holy Orders, nor doth Bishop Usher (as you say) or what we alleadge out of him, make for such an As­sembly. But here

1. We must minde you, that we did not cite Dr. Usher, for to prove the antiquity of Provincial Assemblies, in regard of these members constituting them. Let our an­swer be perused, it will be found to alleadge him for to prove the antiquity of the Assemblies of the Pastors of the Churches, for the ordering Church affairs, and having the power of ruleing them; and because we did not know, whether you were not so fond on Prelacy, as not to allow of these Assemblies, we quoted Dr. Usher, for to prove their antiquity; neither did we conceive, that Dr. Usher would have judged these Assemblies, where the Pastors of the Churches are members, to have been whol­ly new, or the Pastors to have lost their authority in them, because the ruling Elders are admitted into them [Page 211] as members, whatever his own thoughts might be con­cerning them.

2. But as touching them we must further minde you, of what we have said before, that they are not meer lay-men, but duely and orderly called to an Ecclesiastical Office, although they never praeside in these Assemblies as moderatours. And further that we have proved from antiquity, in our answer to your second Paper, the being of such an Officer in the Church, in the time of Origen, Am­brose, Augustine, Optatus, and which is so clear, that the adversaries of this Officer cannot deny it; only they would have him to have been as an extraordinary Church-guardian, or admitted on prudential grounds, which yet is but gratis dictum, as we have said.

3. We shall now only further add what is well obser­ved by the Provincial Assembly of London, that Sutlivius, (a Prelatical Divine, and otherwise an opposer of the Of­fice of ruling Elders,) de concil. lib. 1. cap. 8. saith, that a­mong the Jews Seniores Tribuum, the Elders of the Tribes, did sit with the Priests in judging controversies of the Law of God; hence he argues against Bellarmine, that so it ought to be in the Christian Church also, because the priveledge of Christians is no less, then the priveledge of the Jewes. And it is not denyed by other Prelatica! Di­vines, but by them held and proved, that men of abili­ties, which are not Ministers, are to be admitted into ge­neral Councils, (as they have been also anciently, and which is too manifest to be denyed, it appearing to have been so from the ancientest historians, and subscriptions of Councils) and to vote in them as members of these As­semblies. And therefore, however the ruling Elders be be admitted into our Provincial Assemblies, as members, (whom you account to be but lay-men) and have decisive votes there, the Assembly should not by you have been ac­cused of novelty in this respect: for you see such as were no Ministers, have been anciently admitted into Synods and Councils, to vote there as members, according to the old rule, Quod tangit omnes, debet tractari ab omnibus.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

1 IN the first place you charge us, that our professi­ons and expressions for peace and unity, were not as cordial and real as yours; but how is this proved? scil. because in that answer we gave to your second Paper, we put you upon the invalidateing the civil sanction for our Government, being before warned by you of not running our selves into a praemunire. But let the Reader judge, [Page 215] what incivility or unsatisfactoriness there was in this an­swer; or whether there was any thing, that did not be­come cordial wishers of peace and unity, godly, sober and mo­derate spirited men, as we do not only pretend, but hope to approve our selves to be, both to God and men. If it be indeed inconsistent with, either an hearty desire of u­nity and peace, or with godliness and sobriety, to insist upon the authority of that Parliament, that was instru­mental for our freedome from Prelatical bondage, and that setled the Government, wherein we have acted, and that doth fully awarrant us for whatever we have acted therein; and to insist upon this authority, when we were challenged as transgressors, in making Laws and Edicts con­trary to the Laws in force, then we must confess, we pre­tended only to be for peace and unity, when in our hearts we were not real for it. But as our own consciences ac­cuse us not of dissembling, (professing that which we ne­ver intended) so we believe, whatever your censures of us be, others will be more equal judges, then to say, the answer we gave to your first Paper, was any evidence thereof; and such as know what some of you were in time past, will rather conclude that the urging the authority of Parliament for the setling of our Government, and the a­warranting of our actings, was that indeed which you could not brook.

Secondly, But as you judge our answer to your second Paper was uncivill, and not suitable to that moderation we made profession of; so still you will have the answer we gave unto your first to be full of darkness; although, even as you here represent it, it is very plain to any ordi­nary understanding, to hold forth thus much, that be­cause the mistakes we saw you had run into, might per­haps some of them arise, from your unacquaintedness with the rule we walk by (although we said, we were not to be blamed for any mistake, that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris, i. e. in you, as the whole tenour of the discourse shewes; and therefore we added, whether simple or affected, that we determined not, but left it to you to judge of, who were most; [Page 216] fit, to be judges in a matter of that nature, you therein knowing your own hearts best) we were willing to be at some pains to acquaint you with it. This we desire might be taken notice of, because what is here manifestly our meaning, even from your own representation, is afterwards See Sect. 9. toward the end. most grosly perverted by you; for you would make the world to believe, that we assert such an absurd position as this, that we were not to be blamed, for our ignorance of the Law, and then cry out of it as a strange saying. But you did warily forbear, the imputing any such thing to us here, where our words are too plain, to be so wrested; and reserve this for another place, hoping the Reader would, by that time he came thither, have forgotten, what you had here represented us to have said, and there take the matter wholly upon trust from you, believing us to be so farre devoid of rea­son, as you would there make us to be. But this is but a small part, in comparison of the injury you do us; yet we desire you might see it, that you might not hereafter be charged with it, by him that is to be the supream Judge betwixt you and us at the great day.

Thirdly, As touching the pains that we have taken, and of which you do here again complain, as having swel­led our answer to so great a bulk, yea so as that the most considerable part thereof (as to the bulk) insists thereon, (as you say) scil. to prove our Presbyterian Government, to be warranted by the civil anthority; and which you say, was not by you oppugned, nor so much as questi­oned by you; as also touching your judging this discourse to be impertinent, we referre the Reader unto what we have already said, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Animadversions on the first Section of this Paper; as also to what we mind him of in the first Animadversion on the third Section thereof; by perusal of all which, he will find how much you forgot your selves, when you come over and over again with such assertions, they ha­ving in them no more shew of truth, then only to evi­dence, that it is wearisome to you to hear of Ordinances [Page 217] of Parliament; especially such as are for the setling of the Presbyterian Government, or what makes for our own necessary vindication, and to manifest that our actings in the management of that Government, have been regular and orderly, according to the forme of Church-Govern­ment appointed by authority; and to see that we took off that Objection, that is commonly made against the Pres­byterian Government, as being established by the Parlia­ment but for three yeares only; and unto which purposes, all the Orders, or Ordinances of Parliament, or Rules by them given, and by us recited, tended; and all which in the fourth Section of it (to which the complaint here re­fers) takes not up above four leafes of our answer, which yet in your Preface, your selves say is seven sheets.

Fourthly, But what you cannot make out with any co­lour of truth, you hope to do by scoffs and jeers; and therefore you say, we wheel about, and are come to the pole we first started at, like an horse in a mill, that travels all day, and is no further at night then he was in the morning, in which also there is as little truth, as in your other assertions; we having already shewed, that our first essay was, to give you some account, how the termes (when we called this, the first Class within the Province of Lancaster, which you had called ours) were no other, then the Parliament had given us by their Order. That which we attempted in the fourth Section of our answer (to which you here reply) was to shew, that the Ordinances of Parliament, for the Presbyterian Government, were still in force, and that those rules laid down in them, awarranted all our actings, and particularly what we had published in our several Congregations in our Paper; and which whoso­ever doth not so start at, because they are Ordinances of Parliament, but that he keeps in his right mind, he will see to be different things. But you do still go on with your flowts, and will needs have it to be, that we went a­bout to prove (which is your own phrase and not ours) our Government to be established by civill authority, the first work we took in hand, and that we are no further yet, but going a­bout [Page 218] to prove, (your own phrase again) as if the matter must needs be, as you say it is; or therefore true, be­cause you represent it to be so, after a scoffing manner.

Fifthly, And when you have thus pleased your selves with your taunting expressions, you now would profess to do us a kindness, being willing to conduct us (if possible) in­to the good old way again, by taking off our Government from the establishment of authority, upon the proof whereof (as you say) so great a part of our answer doth insist. But seeing the way you herein go (as will appear anon) doth quite overthrow all other Ordinances of Parliament, as well as those that are for the establishment of the Presby­terian Government; you must excuse us; though upon your most earnest entreaty, we dare not follow you in this your way, being w [...]ll assured we should be then in­deed out of our way quite.

Sixthly, But now you come to answer to the Orders and Ordinances of Parliament by u [...]recited, and so to the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, Aug 29. 1648 establishing the forme of Church Government, to be used in the Church of England and Ireland, and which re­maines (as we said) unrepealed to this day, and receives strength by the humble Advice, assented to by his late Highness, and which Ordinance was by us more especi­ally insisted on. But what is it that you alleadge, to take away the strength of any Ordinance of Parliament, that we made mention of in our answer?

In the first place you tell us, that when we speak of a Go­vernment established by Law, you hope we mean such as hath the strength and force of a Law, to bind the free born people of this Nation, and thereupon you question, whether our Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, though unrepealed to this day, be of that force; and touching this you referre us to the judgement and resolution of the Sages of the Law, affirming, that nothing can have the force of a Law, to bind the people, without the concurrent consent of the three estates in Parliament: and you instance par­ticularly in the Lord Cook, and several passages in his Institutes.

In answer unto all which, we must needs in the first [Page 219] place (as we did in our answer to your first Paper) apo­logize The claim for the Presbyterian Government to the civil San­ction made good. for our selves; that being no Lawyers, we shall not take upon us to determine any Law case; and that our cause in this particular, were fitter to be pleaded by the learned in the Law, that have farre better abilities for it, then we have; only till some of these undertake in this particular to plead for us, we hope we may be allow­ed, freely to speak for our selves. And here we shall not say all that we could, much less what persons better able to deal in an argument of this nature, might. But that which we shall say is, first something in the general; then we shall proceed to answer more particularly.

In the generall we say two things, 1. That if the Ordi­nances of Parliament for Church Government be of no force, because there was not the concurent consent of three Estates to the making of them, then all Ordinances of Par­liament (without exception of any) are null and void, and of no force to binde the people, as well as those that concern Church Government: and so it concerns all Com­mittees that have been throughout the Land, and those that have acted under them, or do yet act, and all Judges and Justices, that have acted or do act, upon any Ordi­nance of Parliament, to consider what they have to say, to what you do here alledge against their proceedings, as well as against ours. Nay then the Act made Anno 1650, for Relief of Religious and peaceable People, that yet is afterwards much insisted on by you, is of no force; for to that questionless there was not the concurrent consent of three Estates in Parliament.

2. That the Parliament themselves, who made these Ordinances, declared; That, the King having not onely withdrawn himself from the Parliament, but leavied war against it, salus populi was suprema Lex; and thereupon by Ordinance of Parliamēt they proceeded to settle the affairs both of Church and State without his consent; yea and to repeal some former acts; and as they did expresly, when they passed the Ordinance for the Directory for Worship; repealing the Acts of Parliament, that had been passed for­merly [Page 220] for the Book of Common Prayer, as appears by their Ordinance for that purpose of Jan. 3 ^d 1644. And also when they passed another Ordinance Octob. 9. 1646. for the abolishing of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of W [...]les, by which they are expresly dis [...]nabled, to use or put in ure any Archi­episcopall or Episcopall jurisdiction, or authority, by force of any Let­ters Pattents from the Crown, made or to be made, or by any other authority whatsoever, any Law, Statute, usage or custome to the contrary notwithstanding, as appears from the very words of that Ordinance. And if we forget not, it was by them in those times further declared; That however the King had withdrawn his Person from the Parliament, yet his Royall Authority could not be withdrawn. But we know, that what the Parliament in those dayes acted, in the pas­sing those and such like Ordinances, was approved by the Sages of the Law, that in those times adhered to the Par­liament. And this will now lead us to return our more particular answer, to what you present, for to take away the obliging force of Ordinances of Parliament.

And therefore, 1. We say, That that long Parliament (as you call it) who did so much honour the Lord Cook, as to publish his Works by their special appointment, did so well understand him, that they were well assured, there was not any thing in them, that condemned their proceedings as illegal: as on the contrary, we do thereupon conceive, that if he had been alive in those times, he would have justifi­ed them. And further we say (under correction) that all youalledg out of him, was and is to be understood in cases ordinary, not as it was in the times when the Ordi­nances for Church Government, and other Ordinances for the setling the affairs of the Nation were passed, when the King had withdrawn himself from the Parliament, and levyed war against it. 2. But to add some further confirmation to what we here assert; be pleased to take notice that we meet with a Book printed in this very year, 1658. Entituled, A collection of Acts and Ordinances of general use, made in the Parliament, begun and held at [Page 221] Westminster, the third day of November 1640. and since unto the adjournment of the Parliament begun and holden the 17 ^th of Septem. Anno 1656. and formerly published in print, which are here printed at large with marginall notes or abreviated; be­ing a continuation of that Work from the end of Mr. Poltons Collection, by Henry Scobell Esq Clerk of the Parliament; examined by the Original Records, and now printed by speciall Order of Parliament. In this book, as we finde the Ordi­nance for the Directory of Worship, recited at large, and likewise the Ordinance above mentioned, for the abolish­ing of Archbishops and Bishops within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, so likewise we meet with the Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. establishing the form of Church Government, to be used in the Church of England, and Ireland, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines; and this recited at large, as will appear to any that will peruse that book. And being the design of that book was, to make a continuation of a Collection of Acts and Ordi­nances of generall use, from the end of Mr. Poltons Colle­ction, as appears by the Title of it; the Parliament, that ap­pointed this book to be printed by their speciall Order, and Mr. Scobell the Clerk of the Parliament, who collected these Acts and Ordinances, and examined them by the originall Records, were much mistaken in the putting forth this book, that is also printed in a large black Character, after the manner of the Statutes; if no Ordinances of Parlia­ment have in them any force to oblige the people of this Nation. 3. We have onely one thing more to add, sc. that in the 16 ^th Section of the Humble Advice, (and where­of we minded you in our Answer) it is expresly provided, that the Acts and Ordinances not contrary thereunto, shall conti­nue and remain in force: Now that there is nothing in the form of Church Government contrary to any thing con­tained in the humble Advice, we shall make out anon: But thus we hope, we have said that which may be suffici­ent, for answer to your first exception against the Ordi­nances of Parliament for Church Government, as not ha­ving the concurrent consent of the three Estates, and to [Page 222] what you alledge out of the Lord Cooke. As touching what you urge out of Judg Jenkins, saying, an Ordinance of both Houses is no Law of the Land, by their own confession (meaning the Parliament) 1. part Coll. of Ordinances, fol. 728; we cannot give that credit to his representation of the Parliament, (he having been an opposer of it) as to conclude thence, there is no force in any Ordinance of Par­liament, to oblige the people of this Nation; considering that in some of their Ordinances, they do, as we have said, expresly repeal former Acts of Parliament, made by the concurrent consent of the three Estates; and considering, that if they have any where any expressions to that pur­pose, they may be understood either of Ordinances of Parliament made in cases ordinary, when the King had not withdrawn himfelf from it, or concerning such as were of no long continuance, but for the present emergency; or of such as were but temporary and long since expired; and which sort of Ordinances, Mr. Scobell in his Preface to the Book above mentioned, saith, he collected not; but one­ly such whereof there is or may be daily use, as he there speaks.

We have now donewith your first exception against the Ordinances by us recited, for the establishing Church Go­vernment and come to your second; for admitting Ordinan­ces of Parliament, to have an obligatory force in them; yet those that concern the establishment of the Presbyterian Government, you would have to be repealed. Indeed here you said some­thing, if you could bring forth any of those subsequent Acts, that you speak of, (granting liberty to pious people in the Land) that did repeal the Ordinances for Church Government, either implicitly or expresly: For we shall not deny, that Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, but in this you fall short, as in the former. There is not any subsequent Act or Ordinance, that we have seen, or that you mention, that grants any liberty to any, which is deni­ed in the form of Church Government. The Act made 1650, for relief of Religious and peaceable people, from the rigour of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Reli­gion, [Page 223] (and which you will have to be an express repeal) doth not make void the Ordinance which we act [...]on: It onely repeals the poenall Statutes, that imposed mulcts and punishments on the offenders against those Laws, in their bodies or estates: It doth not at all refer to the Ecclesiasti­call censures, nor so much as mention them, as will be clear to him that will peruse it. And so the Ordinance establishing the form of Church Government, stands whole and entire, and untoucht at all by this Act. But here we desire two things might be observed; 1. That if this Act stood good against our proceedings, repealing the Ordinances establishing the Presbyterian Government, so as that the persons mentioned in it, were thereby exempt from all Ecclesiasticall censure, then it must needs much more stand good against all other sorts of persons, that have no such Ordinance awarranting their proceedings, and would be a barr in their way, that they could not cen­sure with Church censures any of their members. 2. That, being you in your Papers do fully declare your selves for Episcopacy; and that the Acts granting some indulgence to some persons, yet do still provide, that the liberty granted by them, should not be extended to Popery and Prelacy; neither this nor any other Act for the relief of any pious or con­cientious Christians, can with any colour, be alledged by you, to the purpose for which you urge them.

As touching the eleventh Section of the humble Ad­vice, (to which you referre us) we had throughly peru­sed it, and seriously weighed it, before you minded us of it: but we never did, neither do we as yet see any con­trariety betwixt it, and the forme of Church Govern­ment established by Ordinance of Parliament. We finde still, as we told you in our answer, though you here nei­ther take notice thereof, nor make any reply thereto) that it seems clearly to own the Directory for worship, and the forme of Church Government, as the publique profession of the Nation for worship and Government; as we also said in our answer, there were the like expressions in the Government of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland, as it was [Page 424] publikely declared at Westminster, Decemb. 16. 1653. pag. 43. Sect. 37. And if you had pleased, you might have found, that whatever indulgence, is granted to any in this Sect: it is there expresly provided, that that liberty be not ex­tended to Popery and Prelacy. And therefore you, and all men may discern, that when you say (speaking of the humble Advice) that in the eleventh Section, all Ministers throughout the Land and their Assemblies, professing the true Protestant Religion, though of different judgments in worship and discipline, are all of them equally protected in the liberty of their profession, that proposition is a great deal larger, then the humble Advice will allow of; it expresly concluding, even from that protection allowed to some others, the way of Prelacy, though it should be set up by some Mi­nisters and others of the Protestant Religion; and there­fore all Ministers and their Assemblies, though professing the Protestant Religion, cannot equally lay claim to the protection there spoken of. But for answer to all that you here urge out of this eleventh Section, of the humble Advice, we shall say two things. 1. That as your selves speak only of protection, allowed by it, to some persons of different judgement in worship or discipline, so who­ever will peruse this Section, shall not find, that it saith one word, touching the restraint of the exercise of Church­discipline towards any; when it speaks of some (that shall differ in other things (sc. that had been mentioned particu­larly before) in doctrine, worship or discipline, from the pub­lick profession held forth, to whom it allows protection from injury, as it grants them a freedom from mulcts and civil penalties; and then after of such Ministers, or publick Preachers, who shall agree with the publick profession in matters of faith, although in their judgement and practice they differ in matters of worship and discipline, whom it makes capable, (being otherwise duely qualified and duely approved) of some special grace and favour, that the former sort are not ca­pable of; it is plain from those expressions, that it owns a publique discipline, which is not held forth any where, but in the forme of Church Government, established by [Page 225] Ordinance of Parliament for the Church of England and Ire­land, Aug. 29. 1648. that hath been often times mentioned. But you will not find, that the exercise of this publick disci­pline held forth, is any where at all in this Section prohibi­ted, or that it is restrained in regard of its exercise towards any, or limited only in that respect, to the Ministers and As­semblies of this or the other perswasion. And yet that this publick discipline held forth, as aforesaid, might be free from all suspition of any undue rigour or harshness towards any; we shall here mention one rule (which we recited, with several other things, in our answer to your first Paper) touching the Order prescribed in the forme of Church Go­vernment, of proceeding to excommunication, which runs in these words;

By this one rule it is very clear, that as this discipline is not to be accused of undue severity, so there is no repugnan­cy between the humble Advice and it. 2. That which in the second place we have to say, is, that admitting your pro­position were fully as large in the humble Advice, in regard of the persons to whom you would have liberty to be extend­ed, as you have laid it down (which yet we have shewed is not so) yet how inconsequently do you argue? when you will inferre an exemption of persons from Church censures, authorized to be exercised by the forme of Church Govern­ment, from the humble Advice, because it affords them a protection against civil injuries. As if this proposition were [Page 226] most certainly true; All those, that according to the humble Advice, are to be protected against civil injuries, are thereby ex­empted from Church censures; and yet this must be proved, or your consequence is never proved. But to make that out, we shall allow you time, and in the mean season must deny it.

And so now all you have, to the conclusion of this Secti­on, is but meer varnish; although we are able to tell you, as we have told you even now, and often before, what pow­er is granted unto us (who act by an unrepealed Ordinance of Parliament, and yet in force) that others have not; al­though when you say, are these within the bounds of our asso­ciation, subject to our Government, unless they will renounce their Baptism and Christianity? (and which you would repre­sent us to assert, in that recital you make of our words in the beginning of the next Section) you do therein manifestly offer violence to the words of our answer: for if the Reader peruse the first part of the fifth Section of our answer, he may there find, that we declared our selves in the first place, fully against those of the separation, and concluded that discourse with these words, that hereupon our work was not to constitute Churches, but to reforme them only: 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; this being our answer, to what you had pressed us with, in your first Paper, pleading your exemption from under our Governement, from the words of the Apostle, and saying, for what have you to do, to judge those that are without? The conclusion then that we inferd, did answer that argument you urged from the A­postles words. For its plain from our declaring our selves, we judged none to be without in the Apostles sense, but only Heathens, of whom the Apostle spake; or such, as having for­merly professed Christianity, did renounce it, and their Bap­tisme; and that therefore none could be exempted, by those words of the Apostle, from being within the verge of our Presbyterian Governement; which was the inference we thereupon made. By all which it is very clear, in what sense those words were to be taken, that you here mention; [Page 227] and that we did not say, that except men did renounce Christi­anity and their Baptisme, they were subject to our Government, (as you would have it to be) but that they could not be judged by us, to be without in the Apostles sense, except they should make so great an apostacy; and wherein we were more li­beral and charitable toward you, then you were toward your selves. It is one thing, that makes a member of the Catho­lick visible Church, and another, that makes a member of this or that particular Church; as it is also true, that the censures of the Church, Government, Offices, and Ordinances are first given to the universal visible Church, before they be given to this or that particular Church; although it be true also, that he who is a member of the Catholick Church, must also be a member of some particular Church, under the Discipline and Government thereof.

But we did not argue from what made you members of the Catholick Church, to prove you to be members of some one or other of our particular Churches, and so to be under the Government of this Class; this we prove from individu­ating circumstances, because within the bounds of our Asso­ciation appointed by authority of Parliament, and other cir­cumstances. And so we do not say, that except men re­nounce Christianity and their Baptisme, they are subject to our Government; but we say, we look upon all those with­in the bounds of our Association, who have not renounced Christianity and their Baptisme (of which sort we know not any amongst us) as persons we have an inspection o­ver, and appointed by Ordinance of Parliament to be sub­ject to our Government; which yet we exercise towards all, according to those rules, and that moderation, that is prescri­bed in the forme of Church Government.

And thus we have answered, all that you have here pre­sented, to take off our Government from its establishment by the civil Sanction; for it is not your coming over again with the Act of 1650. already answered, and bidding us to read it; nor your bidding us to read the close of the Eleventh Section of the humble Advice, and not proving any thing in the form of Church Government to be contrary to it, that will prove [Page 228] either an expresse or implicit repeal, though pressed with never so much vehemency of expressions; that onely pro­claim your heat, and earnest desire to have it so; and how gladly you would be believed upon your word, and confi­dence in this matter, when you want further arguments to make out what you say.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

1. ALthough we will neither flout at you, nor triumph over you, as you do over us (as if you had quite ta­ken away our claime to the civil Sanction, and made all that we had said for it void) yet we doubt not but the Reader will judg, that what you attempted with great confidence, you have performed but so and so, weakly and no otherwise. And as touching what you now recite, out of our Answer, we desire the Reader not to take it upon your representation, but to peruse himself the whole fift Section thereof, you having not dealt fairly with us: your representation being neither full nor candid; we not concluding, as we have already shew­ed, that except men will renounce Christianity and their Bap­tisme, they are within the verge of our Presbyterian Govern­ment; but that except they renounce Christianity and their Baptisme, they are not without in the Apostles sense; al­though, because they are within our bounds, we look upon all such, as under our Government, according to Ordinance of Parliament, as we have said before.

2. Neither shall we upon this assertion, have any cause to fear the contempt and scorn of any other parties, there being none, but the Presbyterian party onely, that can lay claim to the civil Sanction, for the establishment of that Government which they exercise, as you (who would gladly croud your selves into the number of those, to whom some indulgence is granted, have no liberty granted you by any of the Acts, that have been made since the Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. that [Page 231] established the Presbyterian Government; you not being un­der the Character of the persons spoken of, either in the Act of the 27. of Septemb. 1650, or the humble Advice, or any other; you being for Prelacy, that is excluded from that indulgence, granted unto others. Nay you might have known, that for reading the Common Prayer book, such persons are punish­able, by the Act for ejecting of scandalous Ministers; and therefore if you, or any of you (who are members of our se­verall Congregations, and within the bounds of our Asso­ciation) shall be found at any time justly censurable by the rules of our Government, it will be no great boldness for us, to proceed to censure you, we being backed with an Ordi­nance of Parliament, that still stands in force, against any thing you have alledged to the contrary, and therefore do not fear your threatning us again with a Premunire.

3. We were offended at you, for calling Presbytery a [...]common fold, and instead of removing that offence given, you encrease it. But you first represent in your paraphrase upon our words, after your own manner, the ground of the offence taken, and then return your answer; in which we observe, (that you might with more freedom lash at Presbytery and us) you are here pleased, to enlarge your selves, upon a very few words of ours, brought in by way of a Parenthesis onely, though in other parts of your Reply, you leave whole leaves untoucht; and often say nothing at all, to severall considera­ble things in our Answer, to which you should have spoken: yea in the fifth Section of this your Reply, you pass over in silence, all that we had said in the beginning of the fifth Section of our Answer; wherein we had declared our selves against those of the Separation, in severall positions, thereby making way to the answer we gave, how we understood the Apostle, when he spake concerning such as were without; which you took no notice of, but rent part of our words from what went before, and wrested them from their proper sense, as we have shewd before. And not only this, but when in your first Paper, you had upbraided us, with the garnishing of our Go­vernment, with the specious title of Christs Government, Throne and Scepter, and we had answered you out of your own Paper, [Page 232] and shewed, from the expressions you had therein used con­cerning the Government, that you are for, that that with you must be Christs Government, Throne and Scepter; and that there­fore, we were not to be condemned, if we had used such expres­sions concerning our Government, till you had convinced us that it was not such; yet all this is passed over, without so much as mentioning what we had said, or returning any an­swer to it; as if it were nothing for you to upbraid us with what, if it were a transgression, you your selves were found guilty of; and when we had so answered it, to say nothing to it; the like whereunto you do also here practice, in saying nothing to what we had answered, when you had told us, that it was the chief design of the Paper, we published in our Congregations, to subject all to our Government. For in our Answer we first apologized for our selvs, professing, that though we were charged by some to affect dominion, &c. yet the Government of the Church was but Ministeriall, and that we acknowledged all subjection to the civil Magistrate; and then we retorted upon you thus, and said, that you being for the 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 [Page 233] 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 g [...]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, Theophilac [...], 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) [Page 234] 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 selve [...] 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, [Page 235] not only explaining the word (Presbyters) by Bishops, but again explaining the word (B [...]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 [...]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 u [...]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 [Page 236] 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 4 ^th 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 above­mentioned 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, [Page 237] 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 d [...], 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, [Page 238] 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 or tendered his judgment, as an umpire and composer of diffe­rences betwixt us, as you here say; although we reverence him, as a man that was learned and godly, and of a farre different spirit from the generality of those, that dote upon Episcopacy; but for what purpose we quoted him, and how farre we ac­cord with him, we have, as in answer to this occasionally, so fully declared our s [...]lves before, in our answer to your second Paper. And therefore you should not have been thus rash, as to impute such things to us, for which there is not the least shew of truth; as there is not any in what you further adde, saying, that you would have closed with us on our own termes; unto which we have spoken sufficiently, in the beginning of this answer to this Paper, shewing how much you forgot your selves, when you said so before. And we must further tell you, that however you may conceive of us, yet we can still profess with a good conscience, that we can cordially our selves joyn in Dr. Bernards wish, and heartily recommend it to all sober spirited and godly persons, that are sound in the main points of Religion (though of different opinions in some things touching Church Government) that they would close therein; there be nothing more that we long after, then an [Page 239] happy healing of breaches amongst those that are the children of peace.

4. We having thus vindicated our selves, do now come to what followes, where you say, that Presbytery in the Fa­thers and Scripture expressions you reverence; but ours you still term a common fold, and th [...]se godly pretences of ours, (as you call them) as so many waste Papers, wherein our Presbytery (you say) is wrapped, to make it look more handsomely, and pass more cur­rantly. But if you had reverenced Scripture expressions, as it had been meet you should, you would have abstained from terming our Presbytery a common fold; that Presbytery, which you acknowledge to be the Scripture expression, according to the interpretation of the Fathers by you alleadged, being thereby reproached; that being Presbytery still, and part of that, that by you is so ignominiously spoken of, as (seeing it is disputed betwixt you and us, whether ruling Elders be not comprehended under the latitude of the word Presbytery, when speech is touching the Ecclesiastical judicatory) due reverence unto Scriptural institutions would have withheld you, from coming near to the vilifying that, which you are not certain, but may be of God; especially considering, how the reformed Churches abroad, the late reverend, pious, and learned Assembly of Divines at home, the Provincial As­sembly of London, and the Ministers of the Provincial Assem­bly of this County (to which you owe respect) do all con­ceive the ruling Elders to be Officers of the Church, ap­pointed therein by Christ; and so consequently may be com­prehended, under the latitude of the word Presbytery. But the truth is, we have cause to fear, that you, or most of you, are so much devoted to Episcopacy, that Presbytery in any sense, is not any further in esteem with you, as any Govern­ment of the Church to be owned by you, but as you appre­hend in this juncture of affairs, it being admitted for the pre­sent, with Prelacy moderated, might be a step to erect again in time, Episcopacy in its full height; and which we judge to be that cause, which in your Preface to these Papers you have printed, you profess to love; as we do also conceive, we may further say, without transgression of any rules of charity, that [Page 240] if the late King had not been too much bent for the upholding of that kind of Episcopacy, that was on foot in his time (that spoiled the Pastors of the Churches of that rule, which our Church acknowledged, did of right belong to them) and had not been therein backed with the concurrence of some of you, and sundry others throughout the Land, that were therein fully of his mind; the proposals of Dr. Usher, touching the re­duction of Episcopacy, to the forme of Synodical Govern­ment, had been more readily complied with, then they were, to the prevention (in likelihood) in a good measure, of those troubles, that afterward did arise about Church Govern­ment. But however, there was no reason, why either he, or you should have called Presbytery a common fold; or why you should, though you had been backed with the authority of the greatest Prince on earth, have called it the anguis in herbâ, whereof you had need to beware, and to which you here say nothing, though you used that expression concern­ing it, in your first Paper. And whereas you had also there said, referring to the Paper we published in our several Con­gregations) that she came ushered in with godly pretence of sorrow for the sins and ignorance of the times, and the duty incumbent on us, to exercise the power that Christ had committed to us, for edi­fication and not destruction, and then said, that these were but so many wast Papers, wherein Presbytery was wrapped up, to make it look more handsomely and pass more currently, yet that is no pur­gation of you from your uncharitable censuring of us, and usurp­ing that which belonged not to you, in making your selves judges of that which fell not under your cognizance, and which was that, which we had charged you with in our answer; but from which you do not here acquit yourselves. But as touching our selves, we are not conscious, that we have so farre trans­gressed the rules of charity, in passing hard censures either upon him, you, or any others, but that we may approve our selves here to God, touching our innocency herein, and the sincerity of our hearts; and hereafter, stand with boldness, before the Tribunal of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, at the great day; and we do heartily wish, that nei­ther any of you, or any others throughout these Nations, [Page 241] who adhered to the late King, in that war he levyed against the Parliament, had given the occasion, justly to be com­plained of at that day, as therein his greatest enemies.

The 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 answered to that Objection which you made out of our Paper; wherein as you cut it short, so you do manifestly deprave our words; for though, speaking of that, which was to be the rule of deciding controversies, touching Ghurch Government, or of any other matters of Religion, we said, That the Word of God alone, and then ad­ded (which you here wholly leave out) and the approved practice of the Church recorded there (whether it was the universal and constant practice of the Church or no) is to be the onely rule to judge by, in this or any other controversies in matters of Religon; yet we never said, away therefore with the constant and univer­sal practice of the hCurch, this being an addition of your own: and which, when you profess to represent what we said, was [Page 246] no more fair, then your former substraction; especially when such additions, or substractions belonged to the true sta­ting of the Question betwixt you and us; although, if the uni­versall and constant practice of the Church, must be added to the will and Word of God, or it is not a sufficient and perfect rule whereby to guide us; we may well then say, away with the constant and Universal practice of the Church, in this sense. And yet in our Answer you might have taken notice; that we said, we did much honour and reverence the Primitive Churches, although we professed, we owed greater reverence to the Scriptures then to them; and whereby we did not judg, they were any whit disparaged, as they themselves would never have thought upon such an expression. But in our Answer, after we had propounded the rule which you seemed to us to make for deciding of the controversie, touching Church Government and other matters of Religion, sc. the Word or will of God, and the constant and Universal practice of the Church (as if the Word of God alone, except confirmed or explained by the constant and Universal practice of the Church when there were any doubt about any matter (as here you speak) were not of it self sufficient to determine it, and which is that rule which here you own, we first (suppo­sing it were admitted of) put you upon it to prove, what was the Universal prctice of Primitive Churches, in the matter of Church Government; intimating to you, that we thought it would be hard for you, or any others to demonstrate out of any Records of Antiquity, what tha [...] was for the whole space of three hundred years after Christ, or the greatest part thereof (excepting so much as was left upon record in the Scriptures of the new Testament) for which we gave you our reasons, unto which you say something, after you had first vented your distemper against us, for not admitting your rule; but how satisfactory will come after­ward to be examined. In the next place we came to op­pose the rule it self, and for this also we gave you our rea­sons, none of which you do either recite in your representa­tion of what we had here said, or return any answer to after­ward; and which is such a kind of replying to our Answer, as we believe, all ingenuous rationall men would have been [Page 247] ashamed of, who would have conceived, they were obliged either to have returned some answer to our arguments, or to have never replyed at at all, but been silent. But seeing you mention them not, we shall give the Reader a short ac­count what they were, and referre him to the answer it self, where he may see them more fully. The reasons we gave, why we could not admit of the rule you laid down, were three, although we did not in our answer number them, and which perhaps might be the reason, why you might think, if you took no notice of them, such an escape might the more easily pass.

The first reason we urged against your rule was, because thereby the Scriptures were accused as imperfect, or as not having light enough in themselves, for the resolving all doubts touching matters of faith and practice, except it were first known, what was the universal practice of Primitive Churches.

2. The second was, because admitting the constant and universal practice of Primitive Churches, to be that which must assure us, what is the will of God concerning Church Government, our faith is hereupon resolved into a most un­certain ground, and so made fallible, and turned into opini­on; there being no monuments of antiquity besides the Scrip­tures, that could infallibly assure us, touching the matters of fact therein contained.

3. Our third reason was, because if we could be assured what was the universal and constant practice of the Primitive Churches, yet that could not be a rule to us, what is most consonant to the will of God; considering, that in such mat­ters as are not absolutely necessary to salvation, we did not see, but the universal practice of the Churches, might in some things be dissonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures. We here shewed, there were corruptions and so failings in practice in the best of men, instancing in the hot contention betwixt Paul and B [...]rnabas, Peters dissimulation, Gal. 2. and not only in these Apostolical men, but also in Apostolical Churches, as of Corinth, Galatia, Asia; and then shewed, how afterward corruptions grew in the Church, in Doctrine [Page 248] and Government, as the Reader will see more fully upon per­usall of our answer; and where he will finde all these reasons, though you here were pleased to take no notice of any of them. But we hereupon inferred, that whereas you say, that you pray for the establishment of such Church Government, as is most conso­nant to the will of God, and universal practice of Primitive Churches; we did believe you might cut the matter a great deal shorter (which you eagerly catch at in the representation you make) and say, that you are for the establishing of that Government, that is most consonant to the will of God revealed in the Scriptures, and that the word of God alone (and on which only faith must be built, and into which at last be resolved, when other records of antiquity, that yet are not so ancient as it is, have been searched into never so much) shall determine what that is; and so those wearisome and endless dis­putes, about what is the universall and constant practice of Primi­tive Churches (and which if it could not be found out, in any good measure of probability, for the first three hundred yeares after Christ, could never yet be so far issued, as to be a sure bottome, whereon our faith may safely rest) may be cut off; it being a most certain rule, and especially in matters of faith, that the factum is not to prescribe against the jus, the practice against the right, or what ought to be done.

We have been the larger, in making this representation of what we had answered, because yours is here so short; and also because you come not at all afterward, to answer any of our reasons, but fall upon us with foule language, as if that were sufficient to answer an argument; but upon this repre­sentation that we have made, and the Reader his perusing, what he may find in our answer more fully, and what you here reply unto it; comparing all together, he will be better able to judge concerning the whole matter; as we doubt not, but he will conceive, the arguments we urged, against the rule you had laid down, for the deciding of controversies in matters of Religion, standing still in their full strength, it will not be necessary for us, to urge any more to that purpose, till these, that we have already urged, be an­swered.

2. Yet because you say something, against what we insi­nuated, [Page 249] touching making the word of God alone, the deter­miner, and so be judge concerning all controversies in Reli­gion, and particularly concerning that betwixt you and us, touching Church Government, we shall first examine what you oppose thereunto, and then shall give our reasons for this assertion. We cannot call, what you oppose us with, Ar­guments; but what you say, such as it is, we shall speak to. 1. And first, For our laying down this rule, you cannot (it seems) your selves forbear laughter, and think it strange, if there be any, that can forbear laughing hereat with you; and then you rail upon us, calling us Scripturists, and such as cry, verbum Domini, verbum Domini, nothing but Scripture, the word of God being there, the only rule of faith and man­ners. If these words had been belched out by some railing Rabshakeh, a stranger to the true God and the true Religion, we should have held our peace, and not answered you a word, according to the Commandment that was given by Hezekiah, say­ing, answer him not: or had they been uttered by some Papist, or Popish Priest, we should not much have wondered; but when they come out of the mouths of such, as profess them­selves to be Protestants, and dissenting Christians (though in the principle here laid down, touching the judge of contro­versies, you are downright Popish, and that Mr. Allen, an ancient Protestant Minister, hath put his hand to such stuff as this, who should not have reproached his fellow brethren upon this account; it being no wayes allowable, that Mi­nisters should press any thing upon the consciences of their people, but what they do bring verbum Domini, the word of the Lord for. We cannot here be silent, but must needs tell you, that seeing now your Papers are published to the world, we must expect a publike retractation, of what you have thereby so much dishonoured God, and justly offended and grieved the Church of God, and not us onely: and had the intended treaty gone on, we should have insisted on satisfaction (as we hinted to you in discourse) for that distemper of spirit, that you do here and elswhere in your Paper let forth (though then the more private might have served the turn) before we could have closed with you in any way of accommodation. 2. But in [Page 250] the next place you paralell us with those under the Law, that cried Templum Domini, Templum Domini; though we are sure that you cry the Church, the Church, that is Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, to the prejudice of the Scriptures, that are verbum Domini, the word of the Lord. 3. Then you come to compare us with the Anabaptists of old, of whom you say, when they and their Bibles were left together, what strange phantasticall opinion soever came in their brain, their usuall manner was to say, the spirit taught it them, quoting Mr. Hooker. And yet in the beginning of your second Paper, we were your dear friends, (nay more) brethren, dearly beloved to you in the Lord, to whom you returned hearty thanks, for our Answer full of civility towards you; and thus we might have continued in your esteem of us, if we could have come up to your termes, in admitting of Episcopacy, and casting out the ruling Elders. 4. In the next place you proceed to misrepresent our asser­tion, and to father that upon us which is not true; and whe­ther that be not slandering, we leave it to you to judge; for, as upon our asserting the Word of God alone, to be the judge of all controversies in matters of Religion, it followes not that then we must take to our Bibles, and burn all other books, as you say; but rather being the Scriptures are the onely judge, and these are profound and deep, we must use the greatest di­ligence and best helps we can, to come to understand what is the will and mind of God revealed there; so upon this ac­count, though we dare not build our faith upon such an un­sure foundation, as the determination of Councils and Fathers, and the Churches practice, for matters of Church Govern­ment, or any other matter in Religion; yet we are farre from abandoning or despising them, which yet is that, you here charge us with: But it is you (who attribute more unto them, then ever the great Champions for the Protestant cause did) that will be found joyning hands in this point with the Papists, (enquiring where was our Church before Luther? and whom, our Divines answering sufficiently from the Scriptures, do yet ex superabundanti prove the main points of the Prote­stant Religion, wherein they differ from them, both from Councils and Fathers) and making that plea, for that Church [Page 251] Government for which you contend, and against that, which we, from the Scriptures argue for, which the Papists did a­gainst our Protestant Divines, for their unwritten traditions and superstitious ceremonies, and devotion. For you ask of us, where was our Church (you here sure mean, where was our Presbyterian Government? else you take not the Church of England, to which you belong, to be the Church you are mem­bers of) before Calvin? But we answer you, though we need not take such an high jumpe, over all the practice and successions of the Church, as you talk of; being able, ex superabundanti, to evidence it from antiquity, in the purer times of the Primitive Church after Christ and his Apostles (whereof we have gi­ven some account already, and shall anon give some further) yet it will be sufficient for us, and all sound Protestants, if we can prove it to be as ancient, not as we list, but as the Scriptures of the old and new Testament, wherein it is to be found, and whereof we have given some account also, out of what we have in our second Paper urged out of the Vindication of the Presbyterian Government by the Provinciall Assembly of London; and the Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, by some London Ministers; and of which the Reader (and you also, if you would take the pains to peruse them) may see more at large, not onely in Mr. Rutherford's works, but also in Aarons Rod blossoming, written by Mr. George Gillespi, and in the Assertions of the Government of Scotland (conceived by some to be penned by the same M. Gillespi, yet therein assisted by Mr. Henderson) wherein the jus Divinum of the ruling Elders office is proved, not onely from the new Testament, but also from the ould; and which books (proving the Presbyterian Government, as from Christ and his Apostles, so also from the Jewish ju­dicatories, (to which some conceive Christ alludes, Matth. 18. when he saith, tell the Chutch,) which were appointed many hundred years before Christ, and answering the opposers of this Government in all the materiall points, that ever were objected against it, by the greatest Champions for Episcopa­cy) were never yet answered, that we have seen to this day. And for this assistance (however you contemn it) yet we bless God; neither are we ashamed of Mr. Hendersons answer [Page 252] to his late Majesty, telling him, that the Presbyterian Govern­ment was to be found in the Scriptures, as our Divines have answered the Papists sufficiently, after the same manner, touch­ing other matters; as we are not ashamed neither to make this defence on the behalf of our Church. And though we thank God heartily, for those farre abler disputants and Cham­pions of the Protestant cause, then we or any of us, have ever pretended to be (not thinking our selves worthy to be men­tioned for any abilities, amongst them) yet we desire to know which of those Champions (though they refused not to fight against the Papists with their own weapons, sc. the testimo­nies of Fathers and Councils) did ever refuse the Scriptures, as the sole judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion, as you do? or did they not rather stoutly and ir­refragably maintain and defend this main point of faith, against the adversary? 5. But now you come to tell us, what re­verence you pay to the sacred Scripture; for you say, you acknow­ledg it to be an infallible and unerring rule. And will not a Papist say so too? But let us enquire of you, will you acknowledge the Scripture to be the sole supreme judge of controversies in matters of faith? Except you come up to this, you are as yet, in regard of any reverence you pay to the Scriptures, no fur­ther then a Papist; nay you joyn hands with them; for they say, as you do; we may not cry up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church, which the Scripture it self teacheth men to honour and obey; and sano sensu, in a right and sound sense, we shall say so too. But you further declare your selves touching this matter, and say, that the Scripture where it is plain should guid the Church, and the Church, where there is doubt or difficulty, should expound the Scriptures, as saith a Bishop; and you quote in your margent BP Laud's Preface, that is not against Usher but Fisher *. The Jesuite.

But here 1. You mistake the Question, for it is not, Whe­ther to the Church belongeth not a Ministry, for the expound­ing of the Scriptures? This is readily granted to her by us, as it is by our Protestant Divines; and that the Texts you cite in the margent will prove. 2. You plainly discover your opinion to be no other, then what in this point is held by the Papists; and is abundantly refuted by our Protestant Divines [Page 253] in their writings. The matter is plainly thus, and no other­wise; for when you say, where the Scripture is plain, it must guid the Church, but where there is a doubt or difficulty, the Church is to expound the Scriptures; you plainly insinuate, that the Scriptute is not to be the sole and supreme judge, touching controversies in Religion; for there is no controversie in Re­ligion, but the Adversaries (be they Antitrinitarians, Ar­rians, Papists or whomsoever) may say as you here do, in such and such points in controversie, the Scripture is not plain, here is a doubt and difficulty, and we must stand to the Churches determination, who is in such cases to expound the Scripture; neither is the Scripture in such cases, to be the onely sure infallible interpreter of it self, to which all parties are to stand, and in whose determination alone they are to rest, and into which our faith must be resolved; which yet is that which is maintained by our Protestant Divines against the Papists, and of which we shall speak more fully anon. Onely for the present we must mind you, that this assertion is fetcht out of the dreggs of Popery, and is such an opinion as all sound Protestants will disclaim; neither do the Texts you cite in your margent, prove any such a thing, Not 1 Tim. 3. 15. that is usually urged by the Papists, for that very opinion which you maintain, but is sufficiently vindicated by our Divines; shewing, that the Church is there called, the Pillar and ground of Truth, in regard of her Ministry onely, by her preaching, publishing and defending the truth, and thereby transmitting it to posterity; but not to intimate, that the Scripture in any point, where there is doubt or difficulty. did borrow authority from the Church, no more then the Edicts of Princes do from the publishers of them, or from the pillars and posts to which they are affixed, that they might be the more generally known. The other Text, sc. Cant. 1. 8. proves indeed, that the Church hath a Ministry committed to her, for the feeding of babes in Christ, as well as stronger men, which is not denied; but if you will stretch it further, its plain you wrest it. 6. In the last place you urge us, with what we our selves granted unto Synods and Councils, acknowledging, they were invested with an authoritative juridicall power, to en­quire [Page 254] into, try, examine, censure and judge of matters of Doctrine, as well as of Discipline, and to whose authority we professed our selves to be subject, and to which all ought to submit; urging Scrip­ture for it, &c. nothing whereof we do here retract, or eat our own words, casting that out as unsound and hetrodox, as you say we do, which before we acknowledged was a Christians duty to pra­ctise. For here you do not distinguish, betwixt the submission of our faith to the determination of Synods and Councils, and the submission of our persons to their censure, in regard of any matter of Doctrine, held forth by us, or any practice. This latter submission we still do readily yeeld unto them, and that in regard of the juridicall authority, they are invested with by the Ordinance of God; and this submission was that, we professed before to yeeld unto them; and was that we ar­gued for. But as touching the submission of our faith to their determinations, or so as to resolve it into any other princi­ples then the Word of God alone, or to build it on any other foundation, was not that reverence we ever acknowledged was to be paid to Synods and Councils, and is that which here we do professedly deny. And therefore you do here again no less then slander us, when you say, we still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and Discipline, to the judgment and determination of our Provinciall Assembly, and yet deny the Authority of General Councils, and the Catholique Church; whom neither we ever denied to be a guide, or their Expositions of Scripture to be an usefull Comment thereon, for the better helping us to understand, what was Gods will revealed there, touching Church Government and Disci­pline; but denied them to be our sure guid: and further asserted, the Word of God alone to be the onely rule to judge by in this, or any other controversies in matters of Religion, (and which are the words we used, in that part of our Answer, to which you here reply) as it is a received rule amongst Protestant Divines, that the onely sure rule or guid for the interpreting of Scripture, is not Fathers, Councils, or the practice of the Church (and wherein we must further oppose you anon, giving you our reasons for that also) but the Scripture it self, that is the onely infallible comment or sure guide, or (as we spake) interpreter. And now we leave it to the Reader to judge, how true it was [Page 255] said by you, that we seemed to submit to our Provinciall, what we will hardly grant to a Generall Council.

But you hitherto having no otherwise, then thus, opposed, what we had intimated to you, was to be the onely rule and sole judge of controversies in matters of Religion, sc. the Word of God alone; we shall now proceed to give you our Reasons (according to what we promised) for this asser­tion. And however, this pains to some may seem needless, considering how full our Divines are in this point in their writings against the Papists, yet we judge it necessary to say something (though it be but what hath been said before) that so we may neither seem to sleight any means, we are ob­liged to use to reduce you from your errour; nor neglect the souls of those that are committed to our charge; in not laying before them some grounds for the better establishing them in the present truth. Our Reasons then for making the Scriptures the only rule of faith and life, and sole supreme judge of all controversies in matters of Religion are briefly these:

Argument 1. Because it is the Scripture onely, or Word of God contained there, that begets divine faith and full assu­rance The Scriptures the sole su­preme judge of all matters in Religion. in matters of Religion, so as to remove all doubts and scruples; and hence it is that faith is said to come by hearing, Rom. 10. 17. i. e. from the sense of Scripture truely perceived and rightly understood. Timothy is also said to have gained the assurance of what he had learned from the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. neither is there any other firm foundation, whereon we can build, but the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Ephes. 2. 20. and therefore it is the Scripture onely that is the sole judge of controversies, removing all doubts and scruples, and so determining the matters in difference touch­ing Religion, in whose sentence onely we can rest, and to whose determination we must stand.

Argument 2. If the Scriptures must be refused, as the sole and supreme judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion; then it is, because they are either imperfect, and so not reaching to all cases and matters in controversie, or else because they are obscure, and so not sufficiently plain for the resolving of all doubts, whereupon there is a necessity supposed of appeal to some other judge.

[Page 256] But the Scriptures are not imperfect; for the Law and Scripture of the Old Testament is said to be perfect, Psal. 19. 7. And therefore there was nothing wanting in it, that was necessary for the instruction of the people of God, under the Old Testament, in matters of Religion that concerned them to know; integrum, or that which is perfect; being that, ac­cording to the description of the Philosopher, Cui nihil deest, & extra quod nihil eorum quae sunt ejus accipi potest, i. e. that to which nothing is wanting, and without which, nothing of those things that belong unto it, can be taken. And hence it is that God did so strictly prohibit his people of old, that they should not, either adde any thing to, or detract any thing from his Law, Deut. 4. 2. and therefore much more are the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament perfect; neither is there any case in matters of Religion needfull to be resolved, but the determination thereof is to be found there; especially considering, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17.

And as the Scriptures are not to be accused of imperfection, so neither of obscurity. The word of God is a lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths, Psal. 119. 105. and hereupon our only sure guid, as a torch or lanthorne in the night, that so we may be guided in the way we should walk, and thereby be cautioned against errours on all hands. The Apostle Peter also, speaking of the Scripture, calls it a more sure word of pro­phe [...]sie, whereunto we should do well to take heed, as to a light shine­ing in a dark place, 2 Pet. 1. 19. and therefore the Scripture is sufficiently plain, for the resolving of all doubts, and determi­ning of all controversies in Religion. Although if in some things the Scripture be obscure, yet this is no sufficient rea­son for the refusal of it, as the sole determiner of controver­sies; perspicuity not being of the essence and nature of a rule, but certainty and authority; the Laws of men being often obscure, as Lawyers know, and yet not thereupon ceasing to be a rule.

Argument 3. God is the author of Scripture, all Scripture [Page 257] being given by inspiration from him, 2 Tim. 3. 16. received by im­mediate divine revelation, 2 Pet. 1. 21. and is the word of Christ, Col. 3. 16. and therefore is the testimony, and sentence of God himself the supreme Judge, and therefore is to be acknow­ledged by all, to be the only sure guid and determiner of all controversies in Religion.

Argument 4. Nothing is to be believed in matters of Re­ligion, and to be received as from God, or to be taught in the Church, but what is confirmed by the testimony of Scrip­ture; whence it was, that in the old time, the people were sent to the Law and to the Testimonies, Isa. 8. 20. Paul taught nothing but what was to be found in the Prophets and Moses, Act. 26. 22. and hence it was also, that the Bereans were com­mended for trying by the touchstone of the Scriptures, what they heard from Paul, Act. 17. 11. And therefore the Scrip­tures are the only rule and supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion.

Argument 5. The people of God are commanded, that they turn not aside, either to the right hand or to the left, from that path that is chalked forth in the Scriptures for them to walk in, Deut. 5. 32. and Chap. 17. 20. Josh. 1. 7. and there­fore the Scripture is the only sure rule in matters of Religion, to which we must exactly keep, and from which we must not in the least thing turn aside.

Many more reasons might be here urged, but we judge these sufficient, and so, having dispatcht what we promised, we shall now proceed.

3. For you, having not urged Arguments, against the rule by us propounded, for the determining controversies in mat­ters of Religion, but only vented against us the distemper of your spirit for that proposal, do now further declare your selves, touching what you would have to be the judge, and rule for interpretation of the Scripture; and do adde unto the universal [...]ractice of the Church, mentioned in your first Paper, the Churches exposition, meaning the exposition of Councils, and unanimous consent of Fathers, as you here declare your selves: concerning which we shall, 1. Propound the true state of the Question betwixt you and us; 2. And then [Page 258] urge some Arguments against the rule by you here made; 3. and lastly, We shall answer what you have here to say for your opinion. As touching the first; we do here declare our selves, that we do readily grant, the Church may expound the Scripture, though (as we said in our answer, which you here acknowledge) it be tied to the rule of Gods word in such pro­ceedings, as Judges to the Law; and so therefore the Churches exposition may and is to be made use of, as a meanes appoint­ed by God, that we might understand the word, where there is a doubt or difficulty, but we must not allow what you further adde, sc. that we are bound up by the Churches exposition, as we are (according to what you say) to those cases in the Law, which are the judgement and exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same: neither must we close with you, when you say, the Churches exposition and practice is our rule in such cases, and the best rule too; or that when there is a difference about interpreta­tion of Scripture, we must necessarily make another judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture, besides Scripture, as you speak, the Scripture it self being in such a case, the only sure inter­preter of it self; the doubtfull and hard places thereof being to be expounded by the more plain. Further we do here declare, that we grant, the Church is a judge, touching matters of Religion in controversie, or touching the interpre­tation of doubtfull or difficult places of Scripture, but a ministe­rial Judge only; and not the rule for its interpretation, as you speak; or such a judge from which there is no appeal, no not to the Scriptureit self, as you intimate. Again the Church is such a judge, to which all parties ought to submit, in regard of her juridical authority, to be censured by her in regard of opini­ons or practices; but not such a judge, to whose determina­tion we must submit our faith, or resolve it into her sentence. In a word, we grant unto the Church a Ministry, but not a dominion over our faith, nor make her interpretation of the Scripture, where there is a doubt or difficulty, the rule of faith or practice. And if you had given to the Church no more, nor had ascribed to the Scriptures in this case too little, we should not have had this for a controversie, that is now a great matter in difference betwixt you and us. For whereas [Page 259] you reject the rule propounded by us in our answer, touching the determining of controversies in Religion, sc. the word of God alone, and notwithstanding our reasons there urged, a­gainst your adding the universal and constant practice of the Church, unto the word of God, to make up the rule to judge by in matters of this nature, yet do here professedly adhere, to what you did but seem to insinuate, in your first Paper: and because we had propounded the Scripture only, as the only sure rule to walk by, you hereupon (as hath been said) rail upon us, calling us Scripturists, and scorn and scoff at us, for making the word of God alone the rule of faith and man­ners; we hereupon cannot but conceive, you ascribe a deal more to the Church, then a meer Ministery, setting up her determination, for the rule of interpreting Scripture, and issuing of controversies, and take away from the Scripture, that which you should yeild unto it, even to be the only sure rule for the interpreting it self: for though you here acknow­ledge, that the Church in expounding Scripture, is tied to the rule of Gods word in such proceedings, as Judges to the Law, yet you say, we were concluded and bound up by her exposition, and therefore though she be tyed in her expounding of Scripture; according to this concession, yet by this assertion it will fol­low, that we are bound to believe, she hath rightly expound­ed the Scripture, according to her duty: for you say, her ex­position and practice is our rule and best rule too, and that we necessa­rily make another judge, and rule for interpretation of Scripture, or else we prove nothing, and that else we give way to private interpre­tation, (which is the Popish false gloss, upon the Text point­ed at in that expression) and anon you tell of another judge and rule, besides the Scripture, that is to be submitted unto, even such as the Papists themselves cannot ex [...], viz. the Primitive Churches practice, and universal and [...]nimous consent of Fathers and general Councils, and which though you would father upon Mr. Philpot, and Calvin, yet is that [...] they, together with all other sound Protestants in their w [...]s against the Papists have unanimously disclaimed; [...] as the Papists more anciently, seeing if they mu [...] the determinati­on of Scriptures they were cast, [...]ly to Councils [Page 260] and the unanimous consent of Fathers, as to the rule, whereby they would be tryed; so you with them, betake your selves to these, and refuse to be tryed by the Scriptures, as the sole judg, because thence it is manifest, that that Episcopacy, that you are for, is quite cashiered, the whole current of the Scripture of the New Testament, making a Bishop and a Presbyter all one.

But the Question betwixt us being thus stated; as we gave our reasons even now, why the Scriptures were to be the only judge of controversies, and rule of faith and life; so we shall now give our reasons, why the Churches exposition, the u­nanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils, are not to be the rule of its interpretation, much less the best rule, where there is a doubt or difficulty, as you assert.

Argument, 1. Because it is God only, that is the author of Councils and Fathers not the rule of the Scriptures in­terpretation. Scripture; all Scripture being given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 16. It is he only that is the chief Law-giver and Doctor of the Church, Jam. 4. 12. Mat. 22. 10. and therefore he only, speaking in the Scripture, and in the hearts of his people by his Spirit, is the supream and infallible interpreter of Scrip­ture, every one being the best interpreter of his own words, and the Law-giver best understanding the meaning of the Law he makes; and being the Scriptures cannot be interpre­ted and understood, but by that same Spirit whereby they are written, whence that of Bernard, Nunquam 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 [Page 261] 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. [Page 262] 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, Fru [...]ra inquit circumcursitantes prae­te [...]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 interpretin [...] 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 [Page 263] corrupted. This is clear, because there have been many writers heretofore, that have been publikely adorned with the title of the Fathers, that are now rejected as heterodox, and unworthy to be called by the names they go under, and where­of if you doubt, learned Voetius doth afford you a catalogue. That there are also many suppositious and spurious works attributed to the genuine and true Fathers, and published with their works, which some receive, others reject, others do doubt concerning; is so cleare and manifest, that it will not be questioned by any, that ever saluted the Fathers writings, and had either sound judgement of his own, or would believe the censures of the Learn­ed concerning them, as of Rivet, Erasmus, Perkins and others; and which is so clear, that the Papists themselves, as Bellar­mine, Cajetan and others will not deny it; and, as if it were to our purpose might be particularly proved, by instancing in the suppositious writings attributed to Ignatius, Cyprian, Basil, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine, and others of the most approved Fathers; and from all which it will follow, that the unanimous consent of the Fathers, cannot be a rule for the interpreting of Scripture; it being that which will be dis­puted concerning some, whether they be not meer feigned Fathers; and concerning sundry of the works, that are attri­buted to the genuine Fathers, (and in which such Scriptures may be interpreted, where there is doubt and difficulty) whe­ther they be not suppositious.

Argument 6. To say nothing of the difficulties or obscuri­ties in the genuine Fathers and their genuine writings, by reason of phrases now grown out of use, Idiotisms, Histories and Antiquities, that make them the more hard to us of these times, and so their interpretations of Scriptures often more difficult to be understood, then the Scriptures that they inter­pret: this also is very considerable, that it will be out of the compass and reach of the most persons of ordinary rank, to procure all the writings of the Fathers and Councils, that are yet extant: as we do not beleeve, that any of you are so well stored, as that you have such a Library, wherein all the Fa­thers or most of them might be consulted: which yet were [Page 264] necessary to be procured, if their unanimous consent must be the rule for interpretation of Scripture, when there is a doubt or difficulty. And if some persons might be found of that a­bility, as to procure the Works of all the Fathers, yet it is not easie to imagin, how even the Learned, though Divines, much less the simple and ignorant, could ever be able to reade over all their Works, compare all the Fathers together, and their interpretations, that so they might, when there was a doubt or difficulty, gather what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers, touching the interpretation of a Text, the sense where­of we questioned. And hereupon it will follow, that what you propound as the rule, yea and the best rule too, for inter­preting of Scripture, is so farre from being such, that it is a very unfit and unmeet rule, being such, as few or none, if any at all, are able in all cases or the most to make use of.

But by this time, we doubt not, notwithstanding your great confidence touching the sureness of your rule, that it is ma­nifest, from the reasons we have given, (unto which we might add many more, if there were need) that your rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures, participates not of the nature, of what is to be a rule: and therefore, however the ex­position of the Church, Fathers and Councils, is not to be des­pised, yet it is not to be made a rule; but that the onely sure rule for the interpreting of the Scriptures, is the Scripture it self.

But because you alledge something for your assertion, we shall now in the last place, examine it, of what nature and strength it is. And [...]. You quote the late King in the [...], although his assertion is more limited then yours, as from the words you cite is clear and manifest. And as touching that, which his words are alledged for, we must say, that such a Church Government, as is not found instituted in Scripture, in regard of the substantials of it, is therefore contrary to the commands of Scripture, because not found instituted there: and this we affirm, touching that Episcopall Government that you plead for; that superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter, in regard of order and jurisdiction, being a meer device of man, without and against Scripturall war­rant, [Page 265] as it was that, that was unknown to the primitive Church in the more ancient and purer times, and of which afterward. 2. But you further add and say, that except your rule for interpreting of Scripture, be admitted of, we shall seem to abound in our own sense, and to utter our own fancies or desires, to be believed on our bare word, and so to give way to private inter­pretation; whereas we should deliver that sense, which hath been a­foretime given by our forefathers and forerunners in the Christian faith: unto which we say, that whether it be the interpreta­tion that we ourselves shall give of Scripture, or it be the in­terpretation of others, however Fathers or Councils, and fore­runners in the Christian faith; yet if it be an interpretation inferred, or brought to the Scripture, and not found in the Scripture; the uttering of that interpretation, is the uttering our own, or other mens fancies, and so is that private inter­pretation of Scripture, which the Apostle Peter, 2 ^d Epist. ch. 1. ver. 20. condemns, and to whose words there, you do here point; it being the Holy Ghost the author of Scripture, whose interpretation is that publike interpretation that the whole Church and every member thereof is to give heed to, and is that which is opposed to the private interpretation mentioned, as the Apostle shews, ver. 21. in the words following. But seeing you do here urge the very popish argument, and that text which they quote, touching the rule they make for inter­pretation of Scripture, in direct opposition to our Protestant Divines; it is hence very clear, that your opinion, touching the rule of interpreting of the Scriptures and judg of controversies in matters of Religion (which you make to be the Churches exposition, and consent of Fathers and Councils) is the very same with theirs, and wherein, you approve not your selves to be either sound Protestants, or to own the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Papists in this particular. 3. Yet you go on, and urge another argument: for when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture, not to admit for a rule, the exposition of the Church, consent of Fathers and Councils, you say that is dominari fidei, to Lord it over the faith of others: but we say, (as we have shewed before) that to impose a necessity of admitting the interpretation given by [Page 266] the Church, Fathers, Councils; when it is not evident from the Text so expounded, either the words of it, scope or other cir­cumstances of it, the things going before, or following after, or from some other Texts, with which it is compared; this is certainly dominari fidei, to Lord it over the faith of Gods peo­ple: and which Paul, though so great an Apostle, and imme­diately and infallibly inspired, would not presume to do, 2 Cor. 1. [...]4. The Church having onely a Ministery committed to her, which is onely to propound that sense of Scripture, which the Scripture it self gives, and no more. 4. But thus say you, the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists, though out of the word of God too, giving the sense, which the Fathers unanimously in the Primitive Church and Councils gave. But this is not the question, whether our Di­vines defended the Protestant Religion against the Papists, not onely out of the Word of God, but from the testimonie also of Fathers and Councils; but whether they did ever make the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Councils, the judg of controversies or rule for interpreting of Scripture? He that shall hold the affirmative here, doth plainly shew, he is a stran­ger to the writings of the best and ablest defenders of the Pro­testant Religion. We shall readily grant that our Divines do ex super abundanti defend the truth against the Papists, from the testimony of Fathers and Councils; but did never assert, that the defence of it from the Scriptures alone was not suf­ficient, as they would never have quarrelled with the Papists, touching the judg of controversies, and the rule for interpreta­tion of Scripture, if they would have been contented to have stood to its determination. Its true Mr. Philpot that glorious Martyr, might be willing to fight with the Papists, with those weapons they so o [...]ten call for, Antiquity, Ʋniversality, Ʋnity; but where did he ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies, and the onely rule for interpretation of the Scriptures, as you do? Besides it is to be observed, that it was matters of Doctrine that he and other Protestant writers did offer to defend against the Papists, from the testimony of Fathers and Councils, not matters touching Church Government and discipline, which began sooner to be [Page 267] corrupted; the mystery of iniquity working even in the Apo­stles dayes, and the godly Fathers in the Primitive times, sundry of them laying a foundation (though unwillingly) for Antichrists getting up into his seat, when the Doctrine was kept pure and inviolable: in respect whereof it is, that Calvin, whom you cite; when he acknowledgeth, that the first four generall Councils did contain nothing, but the pure and native interpretation of the Scriptures, doth expresly limit his words, and saith, quantum attinet ad f [...]dei dogmata, so forre as concerns the doctrines of faith, and as we have noted before in our Answer to your second Paper: where also we have shew­ed you, how those words of his are to be understood, when he saith, nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium, quam si vero­rum Episcoporum Synodus conveniat, ubi controversum dogma ex­cutiatur: If there be a disputation or difference touching any Doctrine, there is no better nor more certain remed [...], then if a Synod of true Bishops do convene, where the controve [...]t [...]d Do [...]riae may be discussed: but he concludes, hoc autem perpetuum esse nego, ut vera & certa sit Scripturae interpretatio, quae Concilii suffragiis fu­erit recepta; i. e. but this I deny to be perpetuall, that that is a true and certain interpretation of Scripture, which hath been received by the suffrages or determination of a Council. And therefore you wrong Calvin and Mr. Philpot, and the best and ablest of our Protestant Divines, when you say, they willingly submit to a judge and rule, besides the Scriptures, however they refuse no [...], to try the Doctrines of the adversaries, by that which they themselves, sc. the Papists cannot except against; it being their own rule, they propound to be tried by, sc. the exposition of the Fathers and Councils, and whose interpretation is not by them acknowledged, to be that publike interpretation, in oppo­sition to the private, wherein they professed to rest, any farther then it appeareth to be the true sense of the Scripture, or holy Ghost, the only publike inter [...]reter. But it is you, and not they, that are so willing to submit to a judge and rule, besides the Scrip­tures, sc. the primitive Churches practice, and universall and una­uimous consent of Fathers, and generall Councils, and to this rule you bring the Church Government, to be tried thereby; because your plea from Scripture, for that kind of Episcopacy, which [Page 268] you so earnestly contend for, is but weak: and the most you have to say for it, is from Fathers and Councils, and practice of the Church, since the Canon of the Scripture hath been per­fected: although we must tell you, that that Episcopacy, which the Fathers, you would be tried by, speak of, was no­thing like that Episcopal Government of later times. Neither will upon this score (as you say) our Presbytery be quite out of doors, or be found to be wholly destitute of Examples and practice of the Church, and testimonies of the Fathers: neither can you prove, that therein the whole stream runs so for Episcopacy, that there is not the least rivulet for any others; and as you from the late King affirm, by which we are now brought unto what we put you upon in the first place to prove, sc. what that Church Government is, which is so consonant to the will God and universall practice of primitive Churches.

4. And therefore having fully discussed, whatever you have urged, against the Scriptures being the rule to judge by in this controversie; we shall now not refuse to try, what strength there is, in what you alleadge for to prove, what was the universal and constant practice of Primitive Churches in this matter. But 1. We must remove that aspersion, that you cast upon us, when you say, that we being sensible, that the whole streame of the examples and practice of the Church, and testimonies of the Fathers, runs for Episcopacy, have not way to evade this rule, but unâ liturâ, to blot out all records and monuments of Antiquity for the space of three hundred yeares after Christ as imperf [...]ct. But the words that we used in our answer to your first Paper will speak for us, which we shall here therefore recite, because you do not. Having put you to prove, what that Church Government is, which is so con­sonant to the will of God, and universal practice of Primitive Churches, we thus declared our selves. For our parts, we said, we think it will be very hard for you, or any others, to demon­strate out of any records of antiquity, what was the universal pract­ice of Primitive Churches, for the whole space of the first three hun­dred yeares after Christ, or the greatest part thereof, (excepting so much as is left upon record, in the Scriptures of the new Testament) the monuments of Antiquity that concerne these times, (for the great­est [Page 269] part of them) being both imperfect, and far from shewing us what was the universal practice of the Church then, (though the practices of some Churches may be mentioned) and likewise very questionable. At least it will not be easie to assure us, that some of those that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times, are nei­ther spurious nor corrupted. From the words of our answer thus recited, it is manifest, we did not unâ liturâ, blot out all records and monuments of Antiquity, for the space of three hundred yeares after Christ: we only said, they were imper­fect; and said it would be hard for you, or any others, to de­monstrate out of any records of Antiquity, what was the u­niversal practice of Primitive Churches, for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ, or the greatest part thereof. And is not this manifest to him that is conver­sant in Ecclesiastical story? Doth not Baronius himself despair of making up any perfect story of a good part of this time next unto the Apostles dayes? And if it had been easie for you to have demonstrated, what was the universal practice of the Church for the whole or greatest part of this time, why did you not begin your demonstration hereof sooner, then from the Council of Nice?

Again we said, that it would not be easie for to assure us, that some of the works, that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times, are neither spurious nor corrupted; but we did not, as you charge u [...], brand the most approved Authors of those times, as spurious and corrupted. The workes that may be attributed to some approved Authors, may be spurious or corrupted, when yet the Authors them­selves are not branded. And therefore this is but another of your wonted slanders, and which through out your Paper are but too common with you. But as to the thing it self, who knowes not, but in the Primitive times there were many spu­rious works put forth, under the names even of the Apostles, (as appears from 2 Thes. 2. 2.) and blessed Martyrs, that yet are generally rejected, as none of theirs, and of which sort were those many false Gospels, that we read of, as of Thomas, Andrew, Nicodemus, and S ^t Peter, and S ^t Markes Mass: of this sort also are, the Apostles constitutions, held for Apocry­phal [Page 270] (as Mr. Perkins shewes) in the Decretals, and were con­demned by the sixth Council of Constantinople. The works al­so of Dionysius Areopagita, are by many learned men absolute­ly denyed to be the works of that Dionysius, mentioned, Act. 17. for which they do in their Comments upon that Chapter and elsewhere, give many reasons. We might instance in many others, as we shall come anon to speak, touching the Epistles that go under the name of Ignatius, and unto which we had special reference in the passages we used, that you here except against, but yet without the least reflection upon so glorious a Confessor of the faith of Christ, as he was. And such as are equal judges, and who know, what were the practices of Impostors in the Primitive times, in putting out their own corrupt writings, under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs of those times, that thereby they might gain belief to their errors, will be farre from censuring us, to be void of all modesty, and shewing thereby no great store either of judgement or honesty, as you here do, because we said some of the workes, that go under the names of the most approved Authors of those times, were spurious or corrupted, considering what Rivet, Cocus in his censur a patrum, and Perkins in his preparatives to the demonstration of the probleme, and other learned men do say touching this matter: and we may here well say to you, that you had shewed more judgement and honesty your selves, if you had not censured us, as persons destitute of both, and also all modesty, for that, which all those, that read the Fathers with any measure of judgement, will readily ac­knowledge.

2. Having vindicated our selves from what you aspersed us with, we now come to examine, what you cite for the antiquity of Episcopacy, which is the Government you plead for. And here we observe you take a very high jumpe (to use your own expression) over all that is to be found in the wri­tings of the Fathers, who lived in the three first Centuries of the Church; and only pitch upon the Council of Nice, that which you find there, making (as you apprehend) most for your purpose, and (as you say) shewing the practice of the Church in its forme of Church Government, by Patriarch, Metropolitan, [Page 271] Archbishop, Bishop, &c. Although you having a little before insisted upon the exposition and practice of the Church, and the unanimous consent of Fathers, as well as general Councils, as the rule, to which you would bring Church Governement to be tried; and in your first Paper and this also, telling of the universal and constant practice of the Church, should not so quickly have forgot your own rule, and mentioned nothing at all before the Council of Nice, out of the writings of the Fathers, to evidence what was the universal and constant practice of the Church, for the whole space of the first three hundred yeares after Christ, or the greatest part thereof, touching Church Government; especially considering that this was that, which in our answer to your first Paper, we had put you to prove But you think (may be) this you do sufficiently by citing the Council of Nice, generall Councils shewing us (as you say) what the Churches practice was, considering also that this Coun­cil did ratifie and confirme, what had been anciently practi­sed by the Church before, the sixth Canon mentioning an an­cient custome, which by it is established. Unto this and what further you do here urge, for the proving from this Council, that which you cite it for, we have severall things to say.

1. And first, though we do most readily yeild, all due re­verence and esteem unto this Council, that was and will be famous for the condemning of Arrius, together with his dam­nable heresie, yet we shall mind you, of what Augustine (quoted by Calvin and alleadged in our answer to your second Paper) saith touching insisting on the testimony of this Coun­cil. He in his Book against Maximinius, when he would silence that Heretick, contending with him touching the de­crees of Synods, saith; that neither he would object to him the Synod of Nice, nor he ought to object to him the Synod of Ariminum, but would have them both to contend, not by the authority of either of these Synods, but by the authority of Scriptures. It is also clear from Ecclesiastical story, that Constantine did admonish this Council after they were assembled, that in the determining and judging of heavenly Doctrine (seeing they had in readiness the Evan­gelical, Apostolical, and Prophetical Bookes) they should fetch from [Page 272] thence their formes of censure, and so determine controversies of Religion from the Scriptures; and according unto which religious and worthy counsel they proceeded, disputing with Arrius from the Scriptures, and by the testimonies thereof condemning his heresie.

2. Seeing you will have it, that the forme of Church Go­vernement by Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Bishop, &c. was established by this Council, and that this Council esta­blished nothing herein, but what had been defined and asserted (as you say afterward) by the ancient Canons, yea the most ancient, even immemorial Apostolical tradition, and custome, and that the customes which this Council speakes of, were deduced down to those times from S ^t Mark the Evangelist; We do here enquire of you, whether the Church Governement that you would prove from this Council, be jure divino, or by divine right? If it be (as we suppose, you will and must say it is, for which purpose you say it is defined and asserted by immemorial A­postolical tradition, and deduced from Mark the Evange­list) we do then again enquire of you, whether the Governe­ment of the Church by Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archbishop, &c. be to be found in Scripture? If you say it be, we desire you to prove it, and make it to appear, that it is there found. If you say, it is not to be found in Scripture, it is in vain to urge the authority of the Council of Nice, or any other Coun­cils, for to prove the divine right of that, which is not to be found in Scripture. Further you should consider, that you alleadging for it immemorial Apostolical traditions and customes, (of which the Scripture is silent) do again joyn hands with the Papists, pleading for the authority of unwritten traditions, and 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 [Page 273] 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 [Page 274] 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 See the Pro­vincial Assem­bly of London in their Jus di­vinum Ministe­rij Evangelici, part 2. pag. 107. See also Mr. Baxter in his desence of the Worcesteshire a­greement, pag. 61, 62., 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 [Page 275] 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 [Page 276] 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 See his Com­mentary upon the Epistle to Titus. 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 part. 2. cap 4. Jus [Page 277] 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 [Page 278] set up. Others that conceive any of them to be genuine, yet do not receive them all. Mr. Perkins in his Preparatives to the demonstration of the Probleme, observes that seaven Epistles of his, Hierome and Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 35, & 36. rec­kon for true; but now they are increased unto twelve; five whereof he judges to be counterfeit, and these to be, 1. ad Ma­riam; 2. ad Tarsenses; 3. ad Hieron; 4. ad Antiochenos; 5. ad Philippenses. Dr. Usher, that Reverend and Learned Antiqua­ry, acknowledgeth onely six of these Epistles to be genuine, and saith, the other six are spurious; and of those six that he acknowledgeth, he saith, they are depraved and corrupted. Nay Mr. Perkins observes, that Bellarmine himself confesseth of these Epistles, that the Greek copies are corrupted. And to evidence this, we wish you to consider two passages onely, that we shall instance in. In his Epistle to the Trallians, he boasteth of his knowledg; for he saith, [...] &c. I am able to understand heavenly things, the orders of Angels, the differences of Archangels, and of the hea­venly Hoast: the differences between powers and dominations: the distances of thrones and powers:—yea as followes a little after, the Kingdom of the Lord, and the incomparable Divinity of the Lord God Almighty. These expressions savour not of that humility that was in that faithfull servant of Christ, the true Ignatius. And in his Epistle ad Smyrnenses, he takes upon him to correct, if not to contradict Solomon: [...], &c. He saith, my son honour God and the King, but I say, honour God as the Author and Lord of all things, and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests, &c. and after him it behoveth you to honour the King. More here might be urged: but these and other passages, that might be instanced in, do shew plainly, that these Epistles are either counterfeit, or corrupted. And this was the reason of those expressions, we used in our Answer, when we said, it would not be easie to assure us, that some Works, that go under the Names of the most approved Authors of the Primitive times (referring there­in after a more especiall manner to the Epistles of Ignatius) are neither spurious nor corrupted. But hence it will follow, that what is alleadged by you out of Ignatius, for the support of the Episcopall cause, is not of that waight, as to prove, what [Page 279] 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 [Page 082] 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 See quest. 2. p. 29., 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 [Page 281] 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 wi [...]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 [Page 282] 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 [...]arissimi [...]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 [Page 283] 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 zel [...], 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 [Page 284] when you call him that earnest patron of Presbyterian discipline, you should not, by stretching his words beyond their scope, have represented him, to have approved of that, which the Presbyterian discipline doth not own.

8. And thus having answered fully to what you have said, for that Government which you are for, and pray might be esta­blished in this Nation; we must still mind you, that, what­ever you here again say to the contrary, as yet you have not proved this Church Government to be agreeable, either to the will of God (which was not as yet attempted to be made out by you) or to the universal practice of Primitive Churches, your proof for this falling far short; and that however now you would mince the matter (speaking of the rule, whereby we are to judge, touching Church Government, or other mat­ters of Religion) in saying, you put both together, not the word of God alone, nor the Churches practice alone, but both together, (and which is not to be disallowed of, when it is clear, that the Churches practice is agreeable to the word of God) yet by what you have discovered to be your opinion in this Section (and of which we have fully spoken) it is manifest, you have given that to the Church, Councils and Fathers, and their exposition, which is proper to the Scripture, sc. to be the only sure interpreter of it self, and judge in all contro­versies of Religion; and which is that, which we have assert­ed and defended against you in this answer, and by giving of which unto the Scripture, we have detracted nothing from the credit, that is due unto the Church, or her lawfull and lauda­ble customes; which we are so farre from any wayes invalida­ting, that we do assert and defend the same, as also her au­thority against all heretical and schismatical persons, that seek her overthrow; although we see no reason to count those he­retical and schismatical persons, that seek to overthrow the Church, that cannot either believe, that the Church is the only iudge of coutroversies in matters of Religion, or her ex­position the best and surest rule for interpreting of Scripture, or that judging the Government of the Church by Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, then Chancellours, and Commissaries, Deanes, Deanes and Chapters, Arcadeac [...]ns, and [Page 285] other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchie, not to be a Government agreeable o the will of God, and uni­versall practice of Primitive Churches, do therefore cast it off, which yet w fear are Articles in fome mens Creeds.

5. But having spoken, what we judge sufficient, unto what you have alleadged out of the Council of Nice, and to what you further have urged, for the proving of that, which you do here cite it for; we shall now proceed, to consider what you have to say against our Government, as not being that, which is most consonant to the will of God revealed in Scripture; and to prove, that the ruling Elders are not jure divino, nor any such Officers appointed by Christ in his word, but that they may be parted with, without any danger of betraying the truth of Christ, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5.

Now here we might have reasonably expected, that you should have urged some arguments, to have proved, that ruling Elders are not meant in these Texts, considering what more large satisfaction you promised in your second Paper afterward, if what was comprehended therein was not judg­ed satisfactory. But we find that (notwistanding your large promises and confident and high undertakings) you discover barrenness in arguing, though what is wanting in reasons, you make out in foul language; yet we shall consider the ut­most that you say. First in answer to these Texts you say, they are too generall to prove a ruling Presbytery out of; But this you should have made good, and not magisterially have asserted it, as you do, without all proof. But you think it is enough that we have been often told so, by many more learned Doctors of our Church. And we must tell you (who it seems reckon your selves in the number of these learned Doctors) that it is a greater part of learning, to prove these Texts to be too general to prove a ruling Presbytery out of, then only to say so much; as by that account which we have given you, in our second Paper, we have there shewed, that both the Provincial Assembly of London, in their vindication of the Presby­terian Government, and the London Ministers, in their Jus divi­num regiminis Ecclesiastici, do more then say, that these Texts do hold forth such an Officer in the Church, as the ru­ling [Page 286] Elder; for they do also prove it, yea and that he is there particularly mentioned, and distinguished from all other Officers of the Church; they also, together with the Asser­tors of the Government of the Church of Scotland (to whom with other reverend and learned men of our own and other re­formed Churches, we have referred you) do answer what­ever we have heard alleadged by those many more learned Doctors of our English Church, that you here speak of, to prove these Texts to be too generall, to prove a ruling Pres­bytery out of. And therefore it is not according to our will, or what we are resolved on, that the ruling Elders are found there, but according to the clear evidence of strong and good reason, shewing (notwithstanding your scoff) that the sense we have given of these Texts, is the true sense and meaning of them. But though you urge no argument to convince us of so great a fault, yet you can readily enough accuse us of wresting the Scriptures with expositions and glosses, to make them speak what they never meant; and which you think is sufficient­ly made forth by telling us, that we put such strange senses to places of Scripture, as the Church of Christ never heard of till of late yeares; as if nothing were to be received, that is contain­ed in Scripture, as the true sense and meaning thereof, but what can be confirmed to be so, by the testimony of Fathers and Councils; or as if all the expositions that had been given of these and other Texts of Scripture, by the Church of Christ till of late yeares, were now to be made evident from the writings of the Fathers, that are extant, shewing what the expositions given by the Church were; or as if the expositi­ons of reverend and learned Synods and Assemblies of Di­vines, of our own or other reformed Churches (having had the help of all the labours of those, that had been in the Church of Christ before them) backed with the evidence of Scripture reason, and the circumstances of the Texts, were all to be sleighted, and to be had in no account, both by us and you, who yet profess (though in your practice you shew but little of it) to reverence Synods, and to be ready to sub­mit to their determination, although we have also told you in our answer to your second Paper, that (however it being [Page 287] no controversie in the purest Primitive times of the Church, whether ruling Elders were understood in those Texts, nor this case brought before the Synods of those times, that ever we have read of; and so not that occasion given to the Fa­thers, to discuss this matter upon their expositions of those Texts) we are not wholly destitute of the testimony of the Fathers, for the being of such an Officer, as the ruling Elder in the Church; and do herein referre you and the Reader, to what we have said to this purpose, in our answer to your se­cond Paper. But yet for all this, we must with you be esteemed wresters of the Scriptures; and to brand us the more, you apply unto us (yea to all Presbyters) what Dr. Andrews taxed the Papists withall, whereby you shew the esteem we are in with you, in that you herein parallel us with the Po­pish Cardinals; which is also the charity you have towards us, who in your second Paper, whilest you had hopes by courting us, to have brought us on to a compliance with you, were your dear friends (nay more) brethren, dearly beloved to you in the Lord; and this also is that more large satisfaction that you now give us, in performance of your promise there made, if what was comprehended in that Paper, was not sufficient. But having here said nothing, that can have any shew of this promised satisfaction; you do well to referre us, to what in your second Paper, you say, you had further spoken of it; for the Reader hence may be ready to think, though he find here little but flouts and uncharitable censures; yet there you had said something to the purpose, which yet when it is summed up, will be found to be only this, sc. your sending us to the Fa­thers, to consult what interpretation they gave, and telling us none of them expound these Texts as we do; which yet is that you say over again here, and to which there is no need to return any further answer, then what hath been already made: only we cannot but take notice, that your way of gi­ving satisfaction is very easie, sc. by ridding your hands quickly of the work, and it is only in one way, which is briefly this, sc. what exposition the Fathers unanimously give of any Text of Scripture, that must be received; and what exposiition cannot be backed with their concurrent testi­mony, [Page 288] that is to be rejected, and this ought to satisfie. But unto this, one answer doth serve the turn, sc. that your prin­ciple is unsound and very corrupt; and which hath been al­ready in our answer to this Section so fully evidenced, that it is needless here to add any more. And this for answer to what you present in this Section, may be sufficient.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

1. IF we went on to maintain our power of censuring the scandalous, according to what (as we told you) both God and the civil Authority had entrusted us with, it con­cerned you the more to have made good what you undertook. But herein you have fallen short, as we have sufficiently pro­ved, by what we have said in answer to the fourth Section of this Paper, whereby also we doubt not, but it will appear, that we are backt by the Authority of the civil Magistrate, and that this Authority is not taken off by any subsequent Acts of Parliament, that you have instanced in; and that therefore our Church Government and censures are still of force, and that it doth not depend on the voluntariness of the members of our severall Congregations being subject thereunto, but upon the Parliaments appointing them to this subjection, that any persons within the bounds of this Association are sub­ject to this Government.

2. We do readily grant the Civil Sword, doth and can reach, as those offendors against the Laws of the Lands, that submit to the Churches censures; so also those, that are un­willing to be subject thereunto. But your Argument is very inconsequent, when you would inferre, that the Act or Acts of Parliament inflict a civil punishment, whether corporall or pecuniary, upon all lawless persons, whether such as con­temn Gods Laws or mans, and not a spirituall, therefore such offenders are not censurable by us. For except there had been some late Act, that had repealed the Ordinance of 1648, for Church Government, that appoints the inflicting of spirituall censures; such offendors, as are justly censurable by that Ordi­nance, are still censurable by us. Neither do we yet see, how it is our mistake, to think, that, notwithstanding the pu­nishment inflicted upon the offendor by the Civil Magistrate, we may, for the same offence, proceed, to execute Church cen­sures also: or that it is either sound Divinity, or good Law, that a man may not be punished twice for one offence; which [Page 290] yet is the argument whereby you would prove us therein for to mistake. Indeed we hold it not just, that one and the same person, should be punished twice for one and the same offence, with one and the same kinde of punishment; but that such offendors, as are punishable by the civil Magistrate with civil punishments, may be proceeded against by the Church with Church censures, is manifest, 1. From your Civil penalties do not free from Ecclesi­astical cen­sure. own concessions. You had granted in your first Paper, that such as are scandalous and wicked in their lives, were to be admonished, both publikely and privately; and that if not­withstanding, they continue still in their scandalous courses, and would not reform, the Churches lawfull Pastors had power to excommunicate such. And in your second Paper, it was one of the Arguments you urged to bring us to a com­pliance with your Proposals there, that, by that means the lives and manners of dissolute persons, might with brotherly admonition and exhortation be reclaimed, or by due censures be corrected and amended. But now you eat your own words, and flatly contra­dict what there you had granted: for now you say, such of­fendors as are punishable by the civil Magisttate, according to the Acts, that inflict civil punishment, are not censurable at all by the Churches lawfull Pastors; nor by us, since we have refused to comply with your Proposals; for then a man may come to be punished twice for one offence. 2. From the ju­stice and equity that is in so doing, considering the different nature of Civil punishments, and Ecclesiasticall censures; the one being only corporall, or respecting the outward man, the other being spirituall and respecting the soul. And therefore seeing men consist not only of bodies, but have souls also; such as are offenders against the Laws both of God and men, may and ought to be punished, as with civil punishment, appointed by the civl Magistrate, to be inflicted on the outward man; so also with Ecclesiasticall censures, appointed by Jesus Christ, to be inflicted on the soul, in case of impenitency. 3. This also further appears, by the necessity and usefullness that there may be of this double punishment. The Magistrate may have punished the offendor in his purse or body, and yet he conti­nue in an insensible and impenitent state, in which respect [Page 291] there may be a necessity, why he should be noted with the censure of Excommunication, that he might be ashamed, 2 Thes. 3. 14. be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Je­sus, 1 Cor. 5. 5. The Magistrate also may have punished him to the satisfaction of the Law, and yet the Church remain unsatisfied, and there be danger also of leavening others by his unreformedness, except this old leaven be purged out, 1 Cor. 5. 6. Civil punishments are necessary to be inflicted, for the restraining from publike disorders, not fit to be tolerated in a Christian state: But if there be not repentance for such offences, the souls of such offenders, notwithstanding the Law be satisfied, may be damned for their impeniteney; for the preventing whereof Church censures are necessary and use­full. Both Magistracy and Ministry are Ordinances of God, the power of both are necessary and usefull, a blessing from God may be expected on the due punishment and censures that are inflicted by both. And therefore the asserting of the one doth not take away or destroy the other. But if your do­ctrine be good; if there be an appointment of civil punish­ments, to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate, and the civil Magistrate proceed to do his duty, all the power of the Church is vacated, neither must she inflict any censures or spi­rituall punishments, that she is intrusted with the dispensing of, though she see her members to be incorrigible, impenitent and in danger to perish (if her physick, that is for the soul, be not applied, after the civil Magistrate hath gone as farre as he can) because then one and the same person should be punish­ed twice for one offence; which you say, is against Law, but we are sure, is against the rules of sound and good Divinity.

3. But seeing you say, that for a man to be punished twice for one offence is against Law, and to make this out do urge two Statutes, 1. Mar. chap. 3. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. unto this we say, that however it doth not properly belong to us to expound the Laws of the Land, we hope we may have leave to say, what upon the perusall of those Statutes, common reason doth di­ctate to us. And therefore we answer, 1. Your assertion is too generall to be made out by these Statutes. ‘That of the [Page 292] first of Mary, speaking only of the penalties to be infficted on those that should disturb by word or deed Preachers in their Sermons, or should molest a Priest, preparing or ce­lebrating Masse, or other Service; or abuse the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, or should break any Altar or Crucifix: and providing in the close of it, that the per­sons offending in the premises, should be but once punished for one offence:’ as there had been reason, for some of those things, that are there mentioned as offences, why the trans­gressors of that Act, should not have been so much as once pu­nished. The other Statute of the first of Elizabeth, cap. 2. (for so your quotation is, in the Copy you presented unto us, and which we judg to be the Statute you here mean, there be­ing nothing to this purpose to be found cap. 12.) is likewise as expresly limited, as the former. ‘For it entreats only of the penalties to be inflicted on those, that should use any other Service then the Book of Common Prayer, or should de­prave the same Book; or should do any thing, or speak in the derogation of it, or cause other Prayer to be said or sung, or should not resort to the Church on the Sundays, or other Holy days: and then after the appointment of the punish­ment to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate in such cases, and the other punishment to be inflicted by the Ordinary, doth provide, that whatsoever persons shall offend in the premises, shall be but once punished for one offence, provid­ing particularly as you mention.’ But you might have taken notice, that the book of Common Prayer is taken away, and so are Holy dayes, by the Ordinance appointing the Dire­ctory; and we could never see, there was reason for that severi­ty, either of Ecclesiasticall censures, or civil punishments to be inflicted upon all those that might be found punishable at any time by this Act. However, the provisions mentioned in these Acts, refering only to the particular cases mentioned in them, your proof from them falls short, to make out your assertion, that is generall, that it is against Law for a man to be punished twice for one offence. 2. But yet we further an­swer, that when the Parliament passed the Ordinance of 1648, whereby the offendors there mentioned, are made censurable [Page 293] by us with the Church censures, as there may be occasion, according to the rules layd down in the form of Church Go­vernment, there were sundry penall Statutes in force, in­flicting civil punishments on severall of the offendors, men­tioned in that Ordinance, and yet there is no proviso in this Ordinance (that was passed after those Statutes) to the purpose you speak of, and restraining the Church from in­flicting Church censures, in case the civil Magistrate had pu­nished them by civil punishments; but it gives the Church full liberty to proceed, without the least hint of any such a limitation. 3. You also (who pretend to be so expert in the Laws) might have taken notice, that in the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. cap. 23. there is an appointment of the order of awarding and returning the Writ de Excommunicato capien­do: See the [...]ction Statut [...] Fardin Pulton. and also what was to be done upon the appearance of the offeudor, and what if he could not be found: and by which Statute, it is most clear, that the civil Magistrate was to inflict a civil punishment upon the same offendor, that had been excommunicated by the Ordinary; as it is there provided, that upon the Bishops receiving the submission and satisfacti­on of the person excommunicated, and certifying the same, the party was to be released from the Sheriffs custody or pri­son. By which, we think, it is manifest, that you (who would appear to be men so well skilled in all Laws, both of God and men) have laid down such a generall assertion, as can be made out by neither; it being cleer by that Act, that a civil punishment was to be inflicted on the person, that by his offence had incurred the censure of Excommunication.

Further you might have observed, that by the Statute See C [...] on of t [...] tutes [...] dinanaton. 10 Caroli, cap. 1. there is a forfeiture appointed, to be levyed on every person using any unlawfull pastimes on the Lords day, and yet in the close thereof, there is a proviso in these words; that the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within this Realm, or any the dominions thereof, by vertue of this Act, or any thing therein con­tained, shall not be abridged, but that the Ecclesiasticall Court may punish the said offences, as if this Act had not been made. The like proviso we also find, in the Statute 30 Caroli, cap. 1. which yet appoints fofeitures, in case of prophanation of the Lords [Page 294] 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 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 [Page 296] 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 y ^e 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 all Churches & Congregations in their own way) to all, and all alike; though you might have observed, that the way of Prelacy was ever in the number of those wayes particularly cautioned against; and that those of the Presbyterian way have that prerogative, above all those of other wayes, to whom any indulgence is granted; that their way of Govern­ment is owned and established by the Parliament, as the Go­vernment of the Nation, which is not to be said for any of the other. And therefore neither the Church at Manchester, nor our Classical Presbytery meeting there, are protected meer­ly upon the account of possession of that place, as you imagine, but because being awarranted thereunto by Authority of Par­liament, they set up that Government, which the Parlia­ment appointed and established as the Government of the [Page 297] Nation; and who also in their approval of the division of this County into nine Classical Presbyteryes, appointed Prest­wich (wherein the Government was set up and exercised for along while, although since Mr. Allen's return thither, the Eldership of that Congregation could do little) to be within the bounds of this Classical Association; and Middleton and Burie (in the latter of which Congregations, the Presbyterian Government according to Ordinance of Parliament was also set up, though the present Minister joyn not in it) are appoint­ed to be within the bounds of the second Class. And so these Congregations, that you would suggest, have a liberty for some way of worship and different Government from the Presbyterian, granted unto them and exercised by them, (though they are not any of them under any character of in­dulgence granted to others other wayes) are all of them under the power of the Provincial Assembly of this County, and one of them under the power of this; and two of them under the power of the neighbour Classical Association. And here­upon we are certain, we are not mistaken, when we say, that there is no other Government but the Presbyterian, that was owned by the Parliament, they establishing this Government only, as the Government of the Nation; and which we do not see, but is also acknowledged by the humble Advice, assent­ed unto by his Late Highness, as we have said before.

2. But now (you say) leaving the civil Sanction, we come to the divine right of Pres ytery, and prove it to be the only Govern­ment in singulari, because it is that only Government, which Christ hath preser bed in his Word. But here we have cause to complain, you do us manifest wrong, in that you would re­present us either absurdly proving idem per idem, or that Pres­bytery is of divine right, because it is so; or to argue very weakly in saying it is of divine right, because it is prescribed by Christ in his Word, and so leave the matter without any further proof, nothing whereof at all, is any where to be found in our answer; only we find the same in that chime­rical fancy, which you had first conceivd your selves, and then were pleased to impute unto us. Then you adde, and what Christ hath thus prescribed, must needs be de jure, one and the [Page 298] same in every Church, which words did not here follow, where­by you render, what we had plainly expressed, not intelligi­ble to what purpose it was uttered. But because we desire the matter might be judged of, neither according to your re­presentation of it, or what we say of it, we shall give the Reader a full account, of all that was here expressed by us, and which he will find upon the perusal of our answer, where­by he will perceive, that we were not at all reasoning (as you represent us) but only declaring our judgement, and that in plain expressions, without any ambiguity. Our words speaking of the Presbyterian Government were these. And as it is that which we judge to be most agreeable to the will of God, so also we conceive, that whatever is of Christs prescribing in any other different Government (whether Episeopal or Congregational) is to be found here, as we do apprehend the redundancies of them both, to be taken away in this, and the defects of them both to be bere supplied; and however there may be differences amongst godly ment, concerning Church Government, which it is in particular, that Christ hath prescribed in his Word, yet we judg that the Govern­ment which Christ hath prescribed in his Word is but one, as all those must say so too, that not being Erastians, do bold that one Church Go­vernment or other is of divine right. The Reader will hereby perceive, that we did without any manner of reasoning at all, only declare our judgements; but you represent us as argu­ing, and that absurdly; and then you mangle our words, breaking them off, from what they had immediate and ne­cessary dependance on, and reference to; for having thus farre declared our selves, we came to answer to what you had urged in your first Paper, out of Calvin, saying, Scimusenim unicuique Ecclesiae, &c. to which we said, the circum­stantials of Government (of which we told you, we did be­lieve, if you had quoted the place, where Calvin used those words, it would appear he speakes) being variable, and so but the accidentals of Government, may not be one and the same in all Churches. And then we added the words, you in part mention; but if Christ have prescribed a Government in his Word, for the substantials of it, it must be de jure, one and the same in every Church. And then further said; and that the [Page 992] Presbyterian Government is that in particular, which is there pre­scribed, in Calvin' s judgement, is so manifest by his workes, to the whole Christian world, that it needs no proof. Whereby it is very manifest to any ordinary understanding, that the ex­pressions we here use (and which you mention) have reference to what you had cited out of Calvin, in your first Paper, shew­ing, that however he might say, that every Church might have their different formes of Government, in regard of the circumstantials of it, yet seeing the Government prescribed by Christ in his Word, for the substantials of it, is but one, and in Calvin's judgement the Presbyterian Government is that Government; when Calvin saith, Scimus enim unieuique Ecclesiae, &c. he was to be understood, to speak concerning the circumstantials of Government only, and not of the sub­stantials thereof. Hence also it is clear, that we were not here neither, arguing for the divine right of Presbytery; but only declaring and proving, how Calvin was to be under­stood in the expressions you quoted. But as we have said, you mangle our words, and break them off from what im­mediately went before; whereby from your representation, it is not conceivable to what they referred; but then, you joyning them to other words going before, to which they had no reference, represent them to have been used by us, to have patched up such a poor argument for the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government, as before hath been declared; but whether 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. [Page 300] 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 unaquae (que) Ecclesia suum Senatum conscriptum ex viris piis, gravibus & sanctis; penes quem er at illa, de quâ posteà lo­quemur, jurisdictio in corrigendis vitiis. Porro e [...]usmodi ordinem non unius saeculi fuisse, experientia ipsa declarat. Est igitur hoc gubernationis munus saecu [...]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. [Page 301] 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 [Page 302] 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 there, which you doing but partially, and catching only at some passages, that you think makes for your purpose, do most grosly wrong him, by your misrepresentation. And if we should deal by other Authors, even such as are for the Epis­copal Government, as you deal by Calvin, which of them al­most, but we might make to appear Patronizers of the Pres­byterian Government? But you will have Calvin to say, that in the ancient Church, the Bishops did all, viz. make and publish Canons, a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church. Thus you represent him, to hold forth the Bishops exercising solitary power of jurisdiction in those times, which as it is in it self as contrary to truth, as light is to darkeness, so it is ex­presly contrary to what Calvin saith in the very next Section to that which you cite. For in the former Section he saith, that they to whom the Office of preaching was enjoyned, [Page] (speaking still of the ancient Church) they called all those Pres­byters. These (saith he) did in every City chcose out one out of their own number, to whom they gave more specially the title of Bishop, lest dissentions should arise from equality, as oft it comes to pass. But yet he presently adds, and saith, Neque tamen honore & dignitate superior er at Episcopus, ut domi­nium in Collegas haberet; sed quas partes habet Consul in Sena­tu, ut referret de negotijs, sententtias roget; consulendo, monendo, hor­tando, alijs praeeat, authoritate suâ totam actionem regat, & quod de­cretum communi consilio fuerit, exequatur: id muneris sustinebat Episcopus in Presbyterorum caetu; atque id ipsum pro temporum necessitate fuisse humano consensu inductum fatentur ipsi veteres. And then he quotes Hierome, asserting a Bishop and a Presby­ter to be all one. We wonder very much, where your modesty and ingenuity, nay common honesty was, when (being you could not but take notice of these things in Calvin in this se­cond Section, else you read him very negligently) yet you say, as you here do, that according to Calvin's representation of the Government of the ancient Church, the Bishops did all; make and publish Canons, a note certainly of rule and jurisdiction in the Church. Whereas you see Calvin saith; the Bishop had no dominion over the rest of the Presbyters, whom he here calls his Colleagues; that he had but only that Office, which the Consul had in the Senate, and is no more then what the Mo­derators have in our Assemblies, as is clear from what he here particularly recites, and further shews, that he was only to execute what was decreed by common counsell: and fur­ther saith, that even this that did belong unto him, the An­cients themselves confess was introduced by humane consent, and that in regard of the necessity of the times. And as touch­ing what was appointed by the Council of Nice, touching Archbishops and Patriarchs, and whereof he makes mention in Section fourth, we have told you before, what you may find in Calvin himself in that place, where he saith, they were rarissimi usus, of very seldome use, and that their use was chiefly for the assembling of Synods. But thus we be­lieve all men will see, that Calvin is so express and full for the Presbyterian Government, and no patronizer of the Epis­copall, [Page 304] that they will conclude, such as represent him other­wise, are either very weak, or make little conscience of falsi­fying the Authors which they cite; and that you have taken off our Calvin no otherwise, then by misinterpreting and grosly wronging him, as after the same manner you took off Beza before; and both whom, however you in scorn call Mo­dern Doctors, yet are such Doctors as both you and we may learn much from.

4. And thus we are brought to the Authors, which we quo­ted; for Fathers (you say) we have none, though that also is not true; we having, in our Answer to your second Paper, produced clear testimonies out of Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Optatus, giving in clear evidence for the being of the ruling Elders office in their times. But as touching our modern Au­thors, the Assembly of Divines, the London Ministers in their Jus divinum, the Provinciall Synod of London in their Vindi­cation, Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gillespie, however you despise them again, as before, as being but of yesterday; yet they are such, who as in regard of their known and approved piety and learning, as they are deservedly in high esteem in the Church, so they are such as we reverence, and are not ashamed to cite, though this you count but a painting of our margent with them; and further say of them, they may serve our turn amongst the ignorant and vulgar sort, who measure all by tale and not by weight: whereby you pour forth such scorn and contempt upon so many reverend and glorious lights, as we beleeve all moderate spirited men, though in their judgments for the cause which you profess to love, will be ashamed of, and will disown in you. And however you say, that others, that know what, and who, many of them are, will (sc. for our referring you to them) conclude, we draw very near the dreggs; yet you had approved your selves to have been farre more profound per­sons, if, being sent by us, to consider what arguments they urged for the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government, you had in your reply to our Answer answered them, and so rather discovered their weakness, then by such expressions as you here use, to have branded, either us, for referring you to them; or them, by saying, that others know what, and who they [Page 305] are; who yet, do neither know any thing by them, nor can by their detracting pens, publish any thing touching them to the world, that will ever lessen their esteem with learned, godly, sober and judicious persons, that are acquainted with their learned Labours. And however you may please your selves in your v [...]lifying them, and us for referring you to them, yet this is that, which you should have remembred, must be ac­counted for one day. But why did not you (who tell us of drawing very near the dregs) here take notice, of what in our an­swer immediately followed, you having in your first Paper enquired of us, why we had called our Government, the present Government; and then demanded, is there no present Govern­ment in any Church or assembly of Saints, but where our dis­cipline is erected? are all the rest at present without Government? or where hath ours been this fifteen hundred years past till this pre­sent? &c. unto all which, and that which followed there in your Paper, we returned you our Answer: yet you take not notice of it: though if we had dealt thus by you, and yet had made a shew to have answered you, as you do pretend to an­swer us, we should not have thought you had wronged us, in your telling us here of drawing near the dreggs.

5. And now to conclude this Section: whereas you here again tell us, that as for such lawless persons, whether drunkards, swearers, &c. as will not subject themselves to the present Govern­ment of the Church, they are onely punishable by the civil Magi­strate; and that we cannot exclude them the Church by any of our censures, this is as easily by us denied, as it is by you asserted; and we leave it to be judged of by the Reader, upon his per­usall of what hath been said by both, whether you or we have the better reason for what is herein maintained by us. But we must again mind you, that notwithstanding in our answer we had here told you, that however we did not judg all those to be lawless persons, that do out of conscience not come up to the observa­tion of all those rules, which are or shall be established by Authority for regulating the outward worship of God, and Government of his Church; yet both you and we might well remember, that such as should have refused, to have subjected themselves to the late Prela­ticall Government, would have been accounted in those times law­less [Page 306] persons: yet to this also you do here say nothing, although it was one of your queries in your first Paper, whether all that subjected not themselves to our present Government, must be taken for lawless persons? and which was a matter more considerable to have replied to, then to have put us off, as you do, with that which is not at all here to the purpose: your querie to which we answered, not being about our power to censure the persons, that we counted lawless, but who those lawless persons were.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

1. IF you had weighed what we had answered, you could not with any colour have said, that we answered not your question: you might have observed, that we spake of our Assemblies, as they were parts of the Church of England, and of the same constitution with her; and whom, though those of the separation do un-church, in regard of the mixture, or the scandalous persons in them, denying our Church in that re­spect to be true, or our assemblies to be the assemblies of Saints, yet we justified in our Answer, from the examples of the Church of Corinth, and the Churches of Galatia, to whom the Apostle writes as to Saints, and calls Churches, notwith­standing such corruptions in them: though we did not deny, but the scandalous in our Church and assemblies were the spots thereof. And seeing we acknowledged such assemblies were true Churches, notwithstanding those scandalous persons that were found in them, you had no reason to imagin, that none else besides our selves were by us accounted Saints, none brethren and sisters in Christ, but such as stand for our discipline: which you cannot mention, but you must brand, in calling it pretended: you might from our answer have gathered, that all other as­semblies in our Land, where the word of God and Sacraments are dispensed, were taken into the number of those assemblies we spake of, they being parts also of the Church of England, as well as our own; however they may some of them differ from us in point of discipline. We told you in our Answer particularly, that in the Church of Corinth there were some that denied the resurrection, others made rents and schismes, and sundry grosly scandalous, and yet it was a true Church. And therefore [Page 309] how should we be conceived, to have denied such assemblies in our Land, that are parts of the Church of England, and of the same constitution with her, for the substance, not to be the assemblies of the Saints, if they stand not for our Disci­pline? Yet you would make the world to beleeve, we meant no further in that Answer we gave you, then not to un-Church or un-Saint our selves or assemblies, because of the corruptions of them; which yet we must tell you, might have been the fewer, if you and others, who are members of these assem­blies, had shewed your selves more pliable to good order and discipline, and to have been furtherers and not hinderers of their reformation.

2. We spake in our Answer of some, that had of late rent themselves from our Churches, because of the scandalousness of the corrupt members, and said, that seeing our principles and practises are manifestly known to be utterly against them, as against the opi­nions and practises of the Douatists of old, you had no reason to apply that of Augustine unto us, when he cried out against them, ô impudentem vocem! But now you will not have any to have rent themselves from our Church, excepting such, who having admitted themselves members, or professed themselves of our Association, have rent themselves from us; and who, you say, are but a few, so farre as you have heard. But here you do not approve your selves good disputants, against those of the separation, who being by their birth members of the Church of England (whereof our assemblies are but parts, and of the same constitution with her (as we said before) and have rent themselves from it, or from our Assemblies, that are parts of it, are justly chargeable with schisme; they having hereby rent themselves from a true Church, wherof they were mem­bers, and whose membership is argued from their being born in gremio Ecclesiae, not from their admitting themselves mem­bers of it afterward, or their professing of themselves to be thereof members. We had in our Answer to your first Pa­per, hinted to you this ground of their membership; when in Answer to what you had to the like purpose there suggest­ed, as you do here, we told you that the severall Congregations See S [...] toward [...] te rend [...] within this Land, that make a profession of the true Christian [Page 310] and Apostolike faith, are true Churches of Jesus Christ: that the severall 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, Jews by nature, Gal. 2. that this their membership was sealed to them in their baptisme, that did solemnly admit them, as into the universall Church, so into the particular wherein they were born. But as in this Paper, where you should have replied to these propositions, if you approved not of them, you answered nothing to them: though in your first Paper you would have exempted your selves from being subject to our Government, because you had not admitted your selves members of some one or other of our Congregations, or were any associates of ours, as you there expressed your selves; so here you come over again with the same unsound principle, and yet say no­thing to make it out: intimating, that none are to be account­ed, to have rent themselves from us, but such as have admit­ted themselves members, or professed themselves of our asso­ciation: whereas if being members by their birth of the Church of England, they after rend themselves from any of our assemblies, or others that are parts and members of it, and of the same constitution with it, they are guilty of schisme; and which you must say, or whatever you cry out against it, you do not upon any sure principle, oppose it.

3. But this blot of schisme you would fasten upon us how­ever, though it be neither upon your own principles here laid down, or any other whereby you can prove us guilty. And to make this out you say, that, we or many of us had sworn Ca­nonical obedience to the Government by Bishops, and subscribed the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and hereupon, because we are not now for Episcopacy, you conclude us guilty of a rent indeed, a schisme in the highest. But herein you were contra­dicted by Mr. Allen himself, in the presence of others of you, that subscribed this Paper, in a full Class, to which he and se­verall of you resorted (which makes us the more to wonder, how he could subscribe this Paper) who looking about him upon the Ministers that were present, said they were free from that, with which we are here charged, there being none there, that had sworn Canonicall obedience, &c. although here you [Page] say, we or many of us did so: as hereupon it will follow from your own principle laid down, that we, who according to Mr. Allens own confession, never associated with the Episco­pall Hierarchy, or swore any obedience to them, are quit from that guilt of schisme, with which you here charge us. But be­cause we have already hinted, that you do not argue well against those of the separation; to acquit our selves and all the Ministers of this Land, who now disown Episcopacy, to which they formerly submitted, or to which any of them might have sworne Canonicall obedience, from the guilt of schisme in this respect, we referre the Reader to the grounds we have laid down for that purpose, in our Answer to your second Paper; and which, whosoever will but impartially consider, he will finde, that it is not we, but your selves that do make the rent; although to heighten the charge against us, you here tell us, that our schisme is so great, that it is not satisfied but with the overthrow of the Church (which yet in our Answer to your second Paper we have sufficiently refuted) and rasing out those Articles of Religion, we had formerly confirmed by our own subscription: as if it were an Article of the faith of the Church of England, which all the Ministers thereof had subscribed, that the Prelaticall Government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. must stand for ever; or if it were at any time ta­ken away by the Parliament, and disowned by the Ministers of England, they had rased out those Articles of Religion, that they had once confirmed by their own subscription. But you must pardon us, if we be not so credulous, as to conclude the same with you, who in your great heat for Episcopacy do so farre overshoot.

4. Unto that wherein you were unsatisfied, sc. what we meant by the word publick, our answer was full and home; but either you minded it not, or though you saw your doubt was resolved, yet being desirous to quarrell, you would not take any notice of it: for we did not only tell you, that by pub­lick Assemblies we understood the Assemblies, where the publick Ordinances were dispensed, which we our selves did own, and constantly frequent; but also said expresly (as is to be seen in our answer) that we do not meddle with the censu­ring [Page 312] of those, who, being godly and sound in the faith, in the main points of Religion, do yet differ from us in judgement in matters of Discipline and Government, and have their Assemblies for Gods publick worship distinct from ours; as we are barred from it by the rules of our Government, as we have often said before. These were the very words of our answer, and therefore, but that we see you are resolved to be satisfied with nothing, and find fault with that which is expressed never so plainly, we should have wondred, that you should here have said, that we come not home to your question; whenas it is manifest from the words of our answer, that though these Assemblies own­ed not our Discipline, or we their [...], yet we denyed them not to be the publick Assemblies, or the Assemblies of the Saints; as we expresly professed, we never medled with the censu­ring of them, or to take notice of their members (being sound in the faith and godly) in order unto censure, as the forsa­kers of the publick Assemblies of the Saints. But we here told you, we were heartily sorry, that you understanding our meaning, as was manifest from what you after said, should only move this doubt, to give a lash at our private meetings, which in our answer we justified; but notwithstanding the lash you gave us, you do neither acknowledge your fault, nor reply one word to what we had said for our own defence.

5. Whereas we said in our answer, that seeing in the Paper which we had published in our Congregations, we said notice should be taken of all those that should forsake the publick Assemblies of the Saints, you might thence have gathered, our purpose was to observe and censure, those that did maintain and hold up p [...]i [...]ate meetings in opposition to the publick, that did cry down Ministery and Ordinan­ces, and which we shewed were censurable by the rules of our Go­vernment, and that therefore we were not altogether silen [...], concern­ing either the sin or punishment, of those that did erre in Doctrinals or Discipline, so as to make dangerous rents from the Church, and for which silence you seemed to tax and blame us in your first Paper; yet now you mention this our declared purpose, to take notice of such forsakers of the Assemblies of the Saints, thus characterized, as a fault: and so with you we are worthy of blame, if we be silent touching either the sin, or punishment of [Page 313] such, and censure them not; and we are also worthy of blame and punishment too, as transgressors of the Laws of the Land, (as you will have us to be here) if we shall proceed to censure such. And so let us neglect our duty or performe it, we are either way (as you will have it) blame worthy. Yes and which were yet the more to be wondered at, were it not ma­nifest from what principle it proceeds, you that crie out of schisme and separation, and blame us for our silence, touch­ing either the sin or punishment of those that erre in Doctrinals, or rend themselves from the Church; yet here are become advo­cates to plead the cause of those, that cry down our Church, publick Assemblies, Ministers and Ordinances. For you will have these to do all this out of conscience, these being your own expressions and not ours, we declaring our selves plainly con­cerning those only, that cry down our Churches and publick Assemblies, Ministery and Ordinances, as meant by those persons, that we said, held up private meetings in oppofition to publick, and whom we purposed to observe and censure. But these you will have also to be exempted from being cen­sured by us; as also all those, who out of a principle of careles­ness, sloth, worldliness, or manifest prophaness, do on the Lords day, either idle out the time, or else are worse employed, when they should be at the publick Assemblies, and whom in our answer we said we purposed to take notice of, as such as did forsake the publick Assemblies of the Saints.

6. But seeing you have undertaken to plead the cause of both these sorts, and will have us to be sure mistaken, when we said, we did not transgress any Laws of the Land, which had made no proviso to exempt any of these from being censured by us; we are willing to examine the utmost you have to say for them; which is but only this, that we can no more proceed tocensure such as forsake the publick Assemblies, by vertue of any Ordinance of Parliament, or rule laid down in our forme of Church Government, then they may be punished by an Act of 1. Elizabeth, or an Act of 35. Elizabeth, or an Act of 23. of Elizabeth; all which, with our Ordinance, (as you say) are repealed by an Act made Sep­temb. 37. 1650. The title whereof you give us, as you had done before: By which (you say) the former are not only re­pealed, [Page 314] but tell us what is further enacted. But the strength of this allegation hath been tried before, and found to be as weak as water. This Act of 1650. that you insist on, re­pealing only the Statutes or Ordinance, that inflict civil punishment, upon those that repair not to their respective Parish Churches, &c. and meddles not at all, with repealing of the Ordinance, authorizing the censuring of offendors with Church censures; and which we have in our answer to the fourth Section of this Paper sufficiently demonstrated. And therefore all that you say for those, you here undertook to exempt from being censured by us, is but what hath been discovered before to have no strength, and so therefore is of no force at all; except we must believe, that by your repeat­ing it, and coming over with it again, and paraphrasing upon it, it had gained some new strength, that it never had. And so all that follows now, to the conclusion of this Section, is of no weight. For we cannot, against manifest reason to the contrary, judge it to be any great boldness in us to censure those, as forsakers of the publick Assemblies of the Saints, who falling under the character that we have given of them, are made censurable by the Ordinance, establishing the form of Church Government. Neither can we hereupon be brought, to fear any danger of running thereby into a praemu­nire, which you again mind us of. There are only two things more we desire might be taken notice of, before we pass from this Section. 1. That the Act of 1650. which you quote, doth so farre discountenance those, who out of a prin­ciple of sloth, worldliness, or prophaneness, frequent not the publick Assemblies, that it leaves them to be punished with civil punishments, as offendors against the Law, notwith­standing its taking off the civil penalties from some, that are mentioned in it, and as is manifest from what you recite out of it; and it not speaking one syllable, that may carry any shew of a repeal of the Ordinance for Church Government, doth both leave these, and all other offendors against that Or­dinance, to be censured by the censures of the Church, as there may be cause. 2. That you, having told us, if notwithstand­ing this Act, we should proceed to censure, and might run [Page 315] our selves into a praemunire, and then imputing to us such a gross assertion, as if we should have said, we were not to be blamed, for any mistakes that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris, whether simple or affected, do hereby plainly discover, you matter not much with what you charge us, so you can but render us absurd enough. For our sense is clear, from the whole tenour of our discourse, where we used any such expressions, that we said, we were not to be blamed, for any mistakes in you, that might arise, ab ignorantiâ juris; whether simple or affected we determined not, but left you to examine; and which is so plain, that when you your selves recite our words in the beginning of the fourth Section of this Paper, you re­present that; which doth plainly shew, that there you under­stood us as we have declared, and of which we minded the Reader in our second Animadversion on that Section. But now we are the persons that affirm a thing so absurd, as if we were not to be blamed for our ignorance of the Law, whe­ther simple or affected; and then you cry out, a strange saying, and tell us, that you have heard it said, that ignorantia facti ex­cusat, but ignorantia juris non excusat, &c. But how faith­fully and sincerely you have herein dealt with us, the Reader may judge, and we wish you in the examination of your con­sciences to consider.

The Animadversions of the Class upon it.

1. HEre, you having nothing to object against the reason we had given you in our answer, why, though such as forsake the publick Assemblies of the Saints, being indeed scandalous (and so such as might be comprehended under the latitude of that expression) we did notwithstanding mention them distinctly, in a distinct order, from that wherein the scandalous were mentioned, have no further thing to tell us, but what you had said before, that we were mistaken to think, we might proceed to censure under the notion of scandalous persons, such as forsake the Assemblies of the Saints, for the reasons which, you say, you had before given: whereas all the reasons you gave us (and which here the Reader, if he will take the mat­ter upon trust from you, must think had been several, you telling him here of the reasons you had before given) were but only one, sc. in regard of what you recited out of the Act of 1650. (and which was the only thing insisted on in the fore­going Section) which yet in the examination thereof, we have discovered to be none at all.

2. But it is not sufficient for you to be advocates for those, that forsake the solemn Assemblies of the Saints; but also for such as are the more known scandalous in life, as Drunkards, Swea­rers and Whore-masters. For you would exempt these also, from being censured▪ by any Ecclesiastical censure, whereby [Page 317] you contradict what you had granted, both in your first and second Paper, as we before have noted; and overthrow all Church censures quite, by whomsoever inflicted; and that upon this ground, because these offendors are punishable by the civil Magistrate; the weakness though whereof, we have also fully discovered, as the Reader may see in our Animadver­sions on the seventh Section of this Paper. But hereupon you will much less allow us any power to censure these offendors, with the censure of Excommunication, which in a disgrace­full manner you call [...]ur blunt and sharp sword, though through the blessing of God, a meanes to recover and bring home the lapsed offendors, and which we hope, would not be without its e [...]ficacy, if there should be occasion for us to make use thereof, for the recovery of any obstinate sin­ner.

3. You are not (you say) sensible of the multiplicity of Ca­nons, and burdensome Ceremonies, under which, in the time of E­piscopacy, any truly conscientious did sigh and groan. But herein you suficiently discover your spirit, and that your great zeal for Prelacy hath taken away that sense, that should have been in you, not only as Christians, but as men. For what though you were perswaded in your consciences, touching the lawfullness of all the Canons that were made, and all the Ceremonies that were enjoyned by the Bishops? Yet you might have known, that even the old Ceremonies, the Cross in Baptisme, the Surplice, and kneeling at the Lords Supper, were born as a burden by sundry godly conformable men, Ministers and private Christians, however they judged they might submit unto them, being otherwise not to enjoy their liberty. But as touching the new Ceremonies that vvere imposed, as bowing at the Altar, and at the name of Jesus, if you vvere so unsensible that you savv no evil in them, yet you could not (one vvould think) be ignorant, that some The of Irela Bishop colne, th of Carli Bishops, and generally the godly conformable men through­out the Land, vvere so startled at them, that they chose ra­ther to run the utmost hazards, then to swallow down those things: Besides, the Canon for the taking the Oath to uphold the Government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. did [Page 318] so awaken the Ministers generally throughout the Land (and vve think Mr. Allen vvas in the number of such at that time, and are sorry he should be less sensible of the burdensomenesse of that Canon now, then he vvas then) that they not only complained of it, but appeared against it. And as touching the sufferings of the old Non-conformists, because they could not subscribe, and submit to the old Ceremonies, being for those things suspended, silenced, and excommunicated many of them; it seemes you never had hearts to pity them; else you would have been sensible on their behalf, of the bur­densomenesse of the Canons and Ceremonies, that vvere im­posed on them, during the continuance of Episcopacy, vvhich yet vvere never attempted to be proved by any (that vve have seen or heard of) to be in themselves necessary, (however the lawfullnesse of them vvas defended by sundry) and to vvhich they could not yeeld vvith peace of their consciences, though others could not. But here vve observe, you are guilty of double uncharitablenesse. First, In that you rase out of the number of persons that are truely conscientious, all those that did sigh and groan under the burdensomenesse of the Cere­monies, that vvere imposed in the time of Episcopacy, vvhe­ther new or old. Secondly, In that you expresse your un­sensiblenesse of their sufferings, because they could not yeeld unto those Ceremonies. And by this vve may gather, vvhat might be expected from you, if Episcopacy vvere up again, and it vvere in your power to have all on foot, that vvas im­posed on the Church of God in former times. But you here­by sufficiently lesson, not only us, but all throughout the Land, into vvhose hands your Papers come, for to be­vvare

4. You that here speak of the number of Canons, already made in our Provinciall Assemblies and elsewhere, in that short space since Presbytery hath been set up in the room of Episcopacy, (though you cannot mention Presbytery, but you must give a blow at it, calling it an usurpation, though yet you have not proved it to be so) and many urged necessary de fide, might have done well to have mentioned particularly what those Canons are, that the Reader might have judged, both of the number [Page 319] and burdensomeness of them, if there had been cause of com­plaint in either respect. But because this you could not do, you thought to make a strong accusation, some blot, at the least, being likely to adhere by that meanes (as you might think) though you proved nothing. But it is well known whose rule it was, Fortiter calumniare, aliquid adhaerebit. You should have also told the Reader, what those many Ca­nons are, that you here speak of, that have been urged necessary de fide, we knowing of none that have been so urged, that were Canons, only made by our Provincial Assembly, and not held forth in the Canon of the sacred Scripture. And there­fore till you acquaint the Reader particularly, what these are, we hope he will number this amongst the rest of the slanders, that you have raised of us in this Paper. He may discerne from what we have declared fully to this purpose, that, not­withstanding our own perswasion touching the divine right of the ruling Elders Office, yet we are farre from imposing the necessity of this opinion touching them upon others; and therefore how we should urge any things, as necessary de fide, that are but Ecclesiastical Orders and Constitutions, we leave it to the Reader for to judge; who will hence easily gather, what likelyness there is of any truth in such a charge: whenas he may also further observe, that we have declared our selves concerning these, that they are changeable, and in their own nature variable. But yet you say, if you may judge ex pede Hereulem, (others that had spoken of the multiplicity of Ca­nons and burdensome Ceremonies, imposed in the times of Episcopacy, might have better said, if they might have judg­ed ex ungue Leonem) by the number of Canons already made in our Provincial Assemblies, (you yet particularizing none) since Presbytery was set up, what they would amount to, had we lived the age of Episcopacy, 1 [...]00. yeares and upwards; (though the raign of Episcopacy is, as we have shewed, of a farre younger date, and especially Episcopacy in the height of it) hereby intimating, that they would have farre exceeded in number, all the Canons that ever were made, during the whole space of time, wherein Episcopacy hath been on foot. For answer unto this, we shall here only mind you, of what [Page 320] you, (who are well acquainted with the Book of Common Prayer) may find therein, after the Preface of it, entreating of Ceremonies, why some be abolished, and some retained, where you have these words.

‘Some (speaking of Ceremonies) are put away, because the great excess and multitude of them hath so encreased in these latter dayes, that the burden of them was intollera­ble, whereof St. Augustine in his time complained, that they were grown to such a number, that the state of Chri­stian people was in worse case concerning that matter, then were the Jewes. And he counselled that such yoke and bur­den should be taken away, as time would serve quietly to do it. But what would St. Augustine have said, if he had seen the Ceremonies of late dayes used amongst us? whereunto the multitude used in his time, was not to be compared? This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, then declare and set forth Christs benefits to us.’

And yet all this that is here spoken of, your selves will say, must needs have been during the standing of Episcopacy. When you can bring forth such a testimony as this, complain­ing touching the number and burdensomeness of Canons and Ceremonies, whilest Presbytery hath been on foot any where, by either the friends or enemies to it, (if they will but speak the truth) there may be then some reason to give credit to what you would here suggest; but on this we shall give you leave to breath. And in the mean season we cannot but take notice, that such is the charity that you have towards us, that you compare us with the Papists, for the burdensomenesse of Rites and Ceremonies, imposed by us on the Church (though your first Paper wherein you cried out, Quare oneramini Ri­tibus, referred only to those few orders mentioned in that of ours, that was published in our Congregations, some where­of your selves acknowledge there, to be the orders of Christ) and censure us as Dr. Andrews doth Bellarmine in behalf of our English Church. Nobis non tam articulosa fides, &c. Though if Dr. Andrews had been now alive, he would have been [Page 321] ashamed of those, that should have made use of his words, with such an application of them, as you do here make.