Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	divine_a	faith_n	truth_n	2,294	5	6.3960	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78447	The censures of the church revived. In the defence of a short paper published by the first classis within the province of Lancaster ... but since printed without their privity or consent, after it had been assaulted by some gentlemen and others within their bounds ... under the title of Ex-communicatio excommunicata, or a Censure of the presbyterian censures and proceedings, in the classis at Manchester. Wherein 1. The dangerousness of admitting moderate episcopacy is shewed. ... 6. The presbyterian government vindicated from severall aspersions cast upon it, ... In three full answers ... Together with a full narrative, of the occasion and grounds, of publishing in the congregations, the above mentioned short paper, and of the whole proceedings since, from first to last.	Harrison, John, 1613?-1670.; Allen, Isaac, 17th cent.	1659 (1659)	Wing C1669; Thomason E980_22; ESTC R207784	289,546	380

Comment thereon for the better helping us to understand what was Gods will revealed there touching Church Government and Discipline but denied them to be our sure guid and further asserted the Word of God alone to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religion and which are the words we used in that part of our Answer to which you here reply as it is a received rule amongst Protestant Divines that the onely sure rule or guid for the interpreting of Scripture is not Fathers Councils or the practice of the Church and wherein we must further oppose you anon giving you our reasons for that also but the Scripture it self that is the onely infallible comment or sure guide or as we spake interpreter And now we leave it to the Reader to judge how true it was said by you that we seemed to submit to our Provinciall what we will hardly grant to a Generall Council But you hitherto having no otherwise then thus opposed what we had intimated to you was to be the onely rule and sole judge of controversies in matters of Religion sc the Word of God alone we shall now proceed to give you our Reasons according to what we promised for this assertion And however this pains to some may seem needless considering how full our Divines are in this point in their writings against the Papists yet we judge it necessary to say something though it be but what hath been said before that so we may neither seem to sleight any means we are obliged to use to reduce you from your errour nor neglect the souls of those that are committed to our charge in not laying before them some grounds for the better establishing them in the present truth Our Reasons then for making the Scriptures the only rule of faith and life and sole supreme judge of all controversies in matters of Religion are briefly these Argument 1. Because it is the Scripture onely or Word of God contained there that begets divine faith and full assurance in matters of Religion so as to remove all doubts and scruples and hence it is that faith is said to come by hearing Rom. 10. 17. i. e. from the sense of Scripture truely perceived and rightly understood Timothy is also said to have gained the assurance of what he had learned from the Scriptures 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. neither is there any other firm foundation whereon we can build but the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. and therefore it is the Scripture onely that is the sole judge of controversies removing all doubts and scruples and so determining the matters in difference touching Religion in whose sentence onely we can rest and to whose determination we must stand Argument 2. If the Scriptures must be refused as the sole and supreme judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion then it is because they are either imperfect and so not reaching to all cases and matters in controversie or else because they are obscure and so not sufficiently plain for the resolving of all doubts whereupon there is a necessity supposed of appeal to some other judge But the Scriptures are not imperfect for the Law and Scripture of the Old Testament is said to be perfect Psal 19. 7. And therefore there was nothing wanting in it that was necessary for the instruction of the people of God under the Old Testament in matters of Religion that concerned them to know integrum or that which is perfect being that according to the description of the Philosopher Cui nihil deest extra quod nihil eorum quae sunt ejus accipi potest i. e. that to which nothing is wanting and without which nothing of those things that belong unto it can be taken And hence it is that God did so strictly prohibit his people of old that they should not either adde any thing to or detract any thing from his Law Deut. 4. 2. and therefore much more are the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament perfect neither is there any case in matters of Religion needfull to be resolved but the determination thereof is to be found there especially considering all Scripture is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. And as the Scriptures are not to be accused of imperfection so neither of obscurity The word of God is a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths Psal 119. 105. and hereupon our only sure guid as a torch or lanthorne in the night that so we may be guided in the way we should walk and thereby be cautioned against errours on all hands The Apostle Peter also speaking of the Scripture calls it a more sure word of 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 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

sonable and fit in respect of their people to desire the Assistance of some godly and discreet Persons of their respective Congregations c. And therefore as touching ruling Elders as there was a submission in the dayes of Episcopacy to Chancellours and Commissaries we conceive that moderate Episcopall men might admit these upon prudentiall grounds though they did not acknowledge the Jus divinum of their Office and which opinion of them notwithstanding our own perswasion we are far from imposing upon others and we do also hope that such as would make tryall of them would have occasion to bless God for those great helps that might be offered unto them by them both for the better acquainting them with the Conversations of their people as also for the guiding and governing of them As we do also further humbly conceive there might be such a proportioning of them for the number of them in the higher Assemblies that neither it might be burthensome to the Elders that might be delegated to such Assemblies when they are over many nor the Assemblies be disappointed for want of a Quorum of ruling Elders as sometimes they have been nor any occasion of fear given unto any that the Ministers might be over-voted by the Elders in matters of greatest weight and concernment which yet supposes a division betwixt the Ministers and Elders which in our own experience we have never met with And as touching a standing Moderator that some moderate Episcopall men are for we think their Consciences might he satisfied in the way of Moderators as they are in use with us we not discerning what can be urged by them as necessary to be transacted by him from Gods Word but it may be safely transacted by the Moderators of our Assemblies And as touching our Brethren of the Congregationall way we are sure moderate Episcopacy will be no expedient to bring them and us unto neerer Union but conceive that as the Assembly of Divines did long agon enter upon that Work of Accommodation with them so if that Work were re● assumed by the appointment and interposition of the Civil Magistrate through the blessing of God we hope it might be brought to such a conclusion not onely with them but also with those that are godly and moderate Spirited that are of the Episcopall way that without admittance of moderate Episcopacy that would not further it there might be an happy closure of breaches in this rent and torne Church all parties that have soundness and savour in them seeming to be weary of their Divisions and to earnestly thirst and pant after Union But we hope by this time the sober and judicious Reader is satisfied that we had some reason to caution against moderate Episcopacy as we did even where we profess our selves earnest for peace and that If you had considered things well you had no reason fully to expect that we should admit of that expedient which you propounded for an Accommodation which we for severall weighty reasons had expresly cautioned against But we have now done with what you propounded as the way wherein you expected fully we should have closed with you and shall now go on with you unto what follows wherein you declare your selves That they who disturb this closure and conjunction are the ruling Elders that yet were not only chosen out of the people but at the first constitution of the Congregational Elderships were examined and approved by this Class as fit to joyn with the Ministers of the Word in the governing of the Church and solemnly set a part with exhortation and Prayer for that Work although not ordained for to preach the Gospel or administer the Sacraments and so not meer Lay-men as you apprehend them to be Now of these you say you wish not with the Apostle that they were cut off but that they were taken away that trouble you for you say speaking of these onely they let that will let untill they be taken out of the away Indeed the Apostle unto whose words you allude speaks of something that letted and would let the revelation of Antichrist untill he were taken away and if after Antichrist hath been cast out of this Land the retaining of the ruling Elders were likely to be a let to his setting foot again in it it would be very ill upon that account to part with them but we do not discern how the retaining of the ruling Elders should have hindred your closure and conjunction with us if you had been cordiall for Peace and Union for though you could not admit them upon the divine right of their Office yet you who excepted not against the lawfulness of retaining of High Commissioners Chancellours and Commissaries and of which we shall speak more fully in our answer to your last Paper under the Prelaticall Government might have admitted of ruling Elders on prudentiall grounds upon the Principles of sundry moderate Episcopall men and as they have done of which before and as you may see one zealous enough against the Jus divinum of ruling Elders Office is not against them as an expedient and behoovefull Order in the Church and where the right Governours of State any where moving upon prudentiall grounds shall find the conveniency of them See Velitationes Polemicae by J. D. quaest 3. Touching Lay-Presbyters Sect. 30. But you now mind us of what we had said in our Answer scil That we could not consent to part with the ruling Elders except we should betray the truth of Christ Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. and for further testimony you say we refer you to some modern Authors all of Yesterday Here we shall desire you to take notice of two things 1. That being the Authors we referred you unto were reverend learned and able Divines such as was the Synod or Assembly of Divines that met at Westminster by Authority of Parliament and the Provinciall Synod of London besides the Divines that we did particularly nominate they should not have been slighted by you who profess you reverence Synods and Councels in regard of their testimony because they were but of Yesterday For upon this account all Synods and Councels that shall hereafter be convened must be rejected 2. That it was not their meer testimony or authority that we pressed you with We referred you to them in regard of their Arguments and Reasons they urged for what they assert And we think both you and we may learn much from the learned and elaborate Labours of modern Authors And that we are not to disdain to weigh what they present because they are but of Yesterday Else you must neither consult Doctor Vsher Doctor Andrews nor Doctor Hammond whom you mention nor any other moderate Writers that yet we judge are in some esteem with you but betake your selves to the Fathers onely And because you took not notice of what the Authors we referred you to have touching the Jus divinum of the Presbyterian Government and which

defective in Government for want of Bishops yet he neither upon this account doth unchurch them nor would have refused Communion with them as you by what you do here hold forth must needs do 5. Nay lastly hence it will follow that when all the Bishops in these Lands and those that were Ordained by them shall be dead if there be no Bishops to be found in any other reformed Churches nor Ministers that were Ordained by them a retreat back againe to Rome must be sounded that so we might have a lawfull Ordained Ministry and a Church which yet cannot be but by owning the Pope as the Head of the Church and renouncing the Protestant Religion as in the mean season great advantage is given to the Popish Emissaries to ensnare the weak by such a dangerous Insinuation as this is sc That for want of Bishops or that when all the Bishops are dead and those that were Ordained by them we have amongst us neither Church nor Ministery nor Ordinances and thus must continue to the end of the World except we returne to Rome and which they will not be wanting to tell them But if you had consulted Bishop Jewell Bishop Downame Doctor Feild Bishop Davenant Mr. Mason and other Orthodox Episcopall Divines in this Point and weighed their Defences of the reformed Churches and Ministry against the Papists you would have found they would never have owned such a dangerous and unsound Position as the Argument you here urge us with to admit againe of Episcopacy doth imply Neither do we believe that they if they were now alive would judge that you had here argued well for your Mother the Church of England that hath her selfe also ever since the Reformation even during the time of Episcopacy acknowledged the reformed Churches of France Scotland Low-countries Geneva to be true Churches of Christ and hath given them the right hand of Fellowship as Sister Churches and owned their Ministers Ordained without Bishops by Presbyters onely to be true Ministers 2. We now come to the second thing implyed in this your second Argument with which you would perswade us to admit of Episcopacy which is as we have sayd before that if it be not restored there cannot be a succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry Which succession yet you seem to judge to be necessary unto the continuance of the Church of God amongst us Here two things are implyed 1. The first whereof is that a Succession is necessary to the very being of the Church and of a lawfully Ordained Ministry And so 1. You do hereby strengthen the hands of the Papists who make the Succession of Bishops and Pastors without any interruption from the Apostles to be a Mark of the true Church although they are therein opposed generally by our Protestant Divines The Condition of the Church being many times such that the Succession of publick Teachers and Pastors is interrupted Doctor Sutlive saith well In externa successione quam haeretici saepe habent Orthodoxi non habent nihil est momenti 2. You do also hereby Minister occasion of such scruples unto private Christians as you will never be able satisfactorily to resolve For suppose one on this ground questions the truth of his Baptisme sc Because he doth not know whether he was baptized by one that was Ordained by a Bishop who himselfe also was Ordained by a former true Bishop and he by a former untill the Succession be carried on as high as that we are brought to such a Bishop that was ordained by one of the Apostles How will you be able making this Succession necessary to the continuing of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry to resolve the scruples of such an one What Church-Story shall be able to resolve the doubts that may be moved on this occasion Or on what grounds holding the necessity of this Succession for the continuance of the Church and a lawfully Ordained Ministry will you be able to satisfie the Conscience of such as may be stumbled 3. Nay will not this Assertion give occasion to sundry to question all Churches Ministry and Ordinances and so to turn Seekers the Grounds you lay down giving them occasion to question the truth of our Churches Ministry and Ordinances 4. Neither shall the best and ablest Ministers that are already entred into that Calling or such as are to enter into it be able on your Principles in this particular either to satisfie their owne Consciences touching the lawfulness of their calling or be able to justifie and defend it against those that shall call it in question But our Protestant Divines have more sure Grounds on which to justifie our Churches Ministry and Ordinances and to satisfie their own and their peoples Consciences concerning them then what you insinuate 2. The second thing that is further implyed in this Argument is that the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry to the end of the World doth depend upon Episcopacy which is not true There was a time when Bishops had no Superiority above Presbyters a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture sense being all one as hath been proved before And though this Superiority should never be restored unto them yet the Succession of a lawfully Ordained Ministry might be by the means of Presbyters Ordaining Presbyters And thus we say it was continued not onely in the dayes of Episcopacy though not without the mixture of some corruption cleaving to the Ordination then in use the Bishops notwithstanding their usurped Superiority above their fellow Brethren being themselves also Presbyters and so their Ordination valid in that respect and which we have constantly maintained against those of the separation but also in the darkest times of Popery and that our Ministry descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome as our reverend Brethren of the Province of London do well express it in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici where they do solidly and learnedly prove That the Ministry which is an Institution of Christ passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church And concerning which if any one do doubt we referre him unto the Book for his satisfaction Part 2. cap. 3. where as they well say this great truth so necessary to be knowne in these dayes is fully discussed and made out We have now at length done with both those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly with which you urged us to accept of the Proposall touching the taking in the Bishops wherein we have been the longer though perhaps this Discourse may by you be accounted tedious that so we might wipe off the foule aspersion of Schisme that we are therein charged with and likewise shew that the Church of God and a lawfully Ordained

Testament but also from the ould and which books proving the Presbyterian Government as from Christ and his Apostles so also from the Jewish judicatories to which some conceive Christ alludes Matth. 18. when he saith tell the Chutch which were appointed many hundred years before Christ and answering the opposers of this Government in all the materiall points that ever were objected against it by the greatest Champions for Episcopacy were never yet answered that we have seen to this day And for this assistance however you contemn it yet we bless God neither are we ashamed of Mr. Hendersons answer to his late Majesty telling him that the Presbyterian Government was to be found in the Scriptures as our Divines have answered the Papists sufficiently after the same manner touching other matters as we are not ashamed neither to make this defence on the behalf of our Church And though we thank God heartily for those farre abler disputants and Champions of the Protestant cause then we or any of us have ever pretended to be not thinking our selves worthy to be mentioned for any abilities amongst them yet we desire to know which of those Champions though they refused not to fight against the Papists with their own weapons sc the testimonies of Fathers and Councils did ever refuse the Scriptures as the sole judge and determiner of controversies in matters of Religion as you do or did they not rather stoutly and irrefragably maintain and defend this main point of faith against the adversary 5. But now you come to tell us what reverence you pay to the sacred Scripture for you say you acknowledg it to be an infallible and unerring rule And will not a Papist say so too But let us enquire of you will you acknowledge the Scripture to be the sole supreme judge of controversies in matters of faith Except you come up to this you are as yet in regard of any reverence you pay to the Scriptures no further then a Papist nay you joyn hands with them for they say as you do we may not cry up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men to honour and obey and sano sensu in a right and sound sense we shall say so too But you further declare your selves touching this matter and say that the Scripture where it is plain should guid the Church and the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop and you quote in your margent BP Laud's Preface that is not against Usher but Fisher * But here 1. You mistake the Question for it is not Whether to the Church belongeth not a Ministry for the expounding of the Scriptures This is readily granted to her by us as it is by our Protestant Divines and that the Texts you cite in the margent will prove 2. You plainly discover your opinion to be no other then what in this point is held by the Papists and is abundantly refuted by our Protestant Divines in their writings The matter is plainly thus and no otherwise for when you say where the Scripture is plain it must guid the Church but where there is a doubt or difficulty the Church is to expound the Scriptures you plainly insinuate that the Scriptute is not to be the sole and supreme judge touching controversies in Religion for there is no controversie in Religion but the Adversaries be they Antitrinitarians Arrians Papists or whomsoever may say as you here do in such and such points in controversie the Scripture is not plain here is a doubt and difficulty and we must stand to the Churches determination who is in such cases to expound the Scripture neither is the Scripture in such cases to be the onely sure infallible interpreter of it self to which all parties are to stand and in whose determination alone they are to rest and into which our faith must be resolved which yet is that which is maintained by our Protestant Divines against the Papists and of which we shall speak more fully anon Onely for the present we must mind you that this assertion is fetcht out of the dreggs of Popery and is such an opinion as all sound Protestants will disclaim neither do the Texts you cite in your margent prove any such a thing Not 1 Tim. 3. 15. that is usually urged by the Papists for that very opinion which you maintain but is sufficiently vindicated by our Divines shewing that the Church is there called the Pillar and ground of Truth in regard of her Ministry onely by her preaching publishing and defending the truth and thereby transmitting it to posterity but not to intimate that the Scripture in any point where there is doubt or difficulty did borrow authority from the Church no more then the Edicts of Princes do from the publishers of them or from the pillars and posts to which they are affixed that they might be the more generally known The other Text sc Cant. 1. 8. proves indeed that the Church hath a Ministry committed to her for the feeding of babes in Christ as well as stronger men which is not denied but if you will stretch it further its plain you wrest it 6. In the last place you urge us with what we our selves granted unto Synods and Councils acknowledging they were invested with an authoritative juridicall power to enquire into try examine censure and judge of matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline and to whose authority we professed our selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit urging Scripture for it c. nothing whereof we do here retract or eat our own words casting that out as unsound and hetrodox as you say we do which before we acknowledged was a Christians duty to practise For here you do not distinguish betwixt the submission of our faith to the determination of Synods and Councils and the submission of our persons to their censure in regard of any matter of Doctrine held forth by us or any practice This latter submission we still do readily yeeld unto them and that in regard of the juridicall authority they are invested with by the Ordinance of God and this submission was that we professed before to yeeld unto them and was that we argued for But as touching the submission of our faith to their determinations or so as to resolve it into any other principles then the Word of God alone or to build it on any other foundation was not that reverence we ever acknowledged was to be paid to Synods and Councils and is that which here we do professedly deny And therefore you do here again no less then slander us when you say we still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and Discipline to the judgment and determination of our Provinciall Assembly and yet deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church whom neither we ever denied to be a guide or their Expositions of Scripture to be an usefull

Brethren of one and the same Church and Fellowship And we know not what other Church you mean but the Church of England some of you that are the Subscribers of this Paper not being Members of the particular Church at Manchester nor any of you acknowledging or owning our Presbyterian Classicall Church or Association And therefore you here take us to be of the same Church of England with your selves and confess that we are in fellowship with it notwithstanding Episcopacy be taken away and which is that which we our selves do constantly profess 2. That that Episcopacy that was submitted to by the Ministers of this Land of later times was burthensome and grievous It spoyled the Pastors of that power which of right did belong unto them and which they did not onely anciently exercise as Doctor Vsher shews in his Reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church Pag. 3 4 5. but which also by the order of the Church of England as the same Author out of the Book of Ordination shews did belong unto them For he there saith By the Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received and that they might better understand what the Lord hath commanded them the Exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock among whom the Holy-ghost hath made you Overseers to rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood All which power the Pastors were deprived of during the prevalency of Episcopacy the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven being taken out of their hands they having neither power to cast out of the Church the vilest of Offenders that were often kept in against their minds nor any power to restore into the Churches Communion such as had been never so unjustly excommunicated though of the best of their Flock And so that Episcopacy that formerly was submitted unto was a plain and manifest usurpation upon the Pastors Office and Authority was very oppressive and grievous unto the Church and injurious to her Communion and whereupon it will follow that there is no breach of that Union which ought to be maintained in the Church by not admitting of it again but rather the Churches peace the power that of right belongs unto the Pastors and the Priviledges of the Members are all better secured in the absence then in the presence of it 3. That however both godly Conformists as well as Nonconformists did groan under the burthensomness of it yet in licitis honest is they submitted and yielded Obedience to it whilst it continued established by the Laws of the Land And that out of respect to the peace of the Church although they did not thereby take themselves obliged to forbeare the use of any lawfull means for their deliverance from that bondage as opportunity was offered And hereupon they petitioned the Parliament of late for an abolition of it as had been formerly desired in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James as when other Laws have been found to be inconvenient and mischievous it was never accounted any disturbance of the civil peace to remonstrate the grievousness of such Laws to the Parliament that they might be abolished 4. Let it also be further weighed that that Episcopacy to which you would perswade us by this Argument to return is now abolished and taken away by the Authority of Parliament as appears by the Acts and Ordinances for that purpose See them cited in our Animadversions on your next Paper Sect. 4. And therefore both the Bishops as such and that Superiority which they challenged and exercised over the Ministers in this Land are dead in Law and so there can be no guilt of Schisme lying on the Ministers in this Land for not returning to that Canonicall Obedience that is not hereupon any longer due or for not submitting themselves to that power and jurisdiction that is extinct There is the greater strength in this consideration if it be observed 1. That whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops did exercise over Presbyters they did obtain onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church 2. That the Parliament did lawfully take away that Jurisdiction from them and had therein the concurrence of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines The first of these Propositions is clear upon this consideration that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter all one This is clear from Titus 1. Ver. 5. compared with the seventh whence it appears that those whom the Apostle had called Elders or Presbyters Ver. 5. he calls Bishops Ver. 7. And indeed otherwise he had reasoned very inconsequently when laying down the qualifications of Elders Ver. 6. he saith Ver. 7. For a Bishop c. For a Bishop must be blameless Whereunto may be added that other known place Act. 20. 17. compared with Ver. 28. For the Apostle saith to those Elders that the Holy-ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers of the Church Besides what Office the Bishops had that the Elders had Both are charged to feed the Flock of Christ Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 12. and which is both by Doctrine and Government The Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven were committed to them Mat. 16. 19. both the Key of Doctrine and the Key of Discipline The former is not denyed and for the other it is proved from 1 Thes 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 7 17 24. where we see they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are over them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that rule And for power to Ordain we may see its plain from 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is charged not to neglect the Gift that was in him which was given him by Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This Text you your selves tell us in your next Paper Sect. 5. is understood by the Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also Of the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests But from these several Texts thus urged it is very manifest that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter both one or one and the same order of Ministry And hereupon it follows that whatever Jurisdiction the Diocesan Bishops exercised over Presbyters they had it not by Divine Right but obtained it onely by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church And thus the first Proposition is clear We now come to make good the second And that the Parliament did lawfully take away the Jurisdiction and whole Office of Diocesan Bishops

is proved from the grounds already layd For this Jurisdiction of theirs above Presbyters did not belong unto them by Divine Right we having proved that the Scripture makes a Bishop and a Presbyter to be both one And therefore the Parliament that by Law gave them their power might seeing just cause for it by Law take it away They had also just reason for to take it away in regard of the oppressiveness and burthensomness of it both to Ministers and People to this whole Church and Nation as hath been proved before And therefore what they herein did was justly yea piously and prudently done and for which the Church of God in this Land both Ministers and People do for the present and will for the future see great cause to bless God for many Generations And that they had the concurrence herein of a reverend and learned Assembly of Divines is clear from their Exhortation annexed to the Ordinance of Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament with Instructions for taking the League and Covenant in the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales In this Exhortation of the Assembly of Divines in answer to some Objections they apprehended might be made against the taking of the Covenant they thus express themselves If it be sayd for the extirpation of Prelacy to wit the whole Hierarchiall Government standing as yet by the known Laws of the Kingdome is new and unwarrantable This will appear to all impartiall understandings though new to be not onely warrantable but necessary if they consider to omit what some say that this Government was never formally established by any Laws of this Kingdome at all that the very life and soul thereof is already taken from it by an Act passed this present Parliament so as like Jezabels Carkass of which no more was left but the Skull the Feet and the Palmes of her hands nothing of Jurisdiction remains but what is precarious in them and voluntary in those who submit unto them That their whole Government is at best but a humane Constitution and such as is found and adjudged by both Houses of Parliament in which the Judgment of the whole Kingdome is involved and declared not onely very perjudicial to the civil State but a great hinderance also to the perfect reformation of Religion Yea who knoweth it not to be too much an Enemy thereunto and destructive to the power of Godliness and pure administration of the Ordinances of Christ which moved the well-affected almost throughout this Kingdome long since to petition this Parliament as hath been desired before in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James for a total abolition of the same And then a little after And as for these Clergy-men who pretend that they above all other cannot covenant to extirpate that Government because they have as they say taken a solemn Oath to obey the Bishops in licitis honestis they can tell if they please that they that have sworne Obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all lawfull means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous And yet if there should any Oath be found into which any Ministers or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God and the Land in this case they must teach themselves and others that such Oathes call for repentance not pertinacy in them Thus far the Assembly of Divines in their Exhortation for the taking the solemne League and Covenant and which we have thought requisite to transcribe that so it may appear how fully they concurred with the Parliament in what they did touching the abolition of Episcopacy as it doth also confirme by their Testimony severall things that have been mentioned by us wherein the Reader may perceive their concurrence in Judgment with us From all which it is clear that seeing Diocesan Bishops did but obtaine that Jurisdiction they exercised over Presbyters by the Law of the Land and Canon of the Church The Parliament finding this Government of Episcopacy to be very oppressive to this Church A great hinderance to the perfect Reformation of Religion and prejudiciall to the civill State they might both lawsully and laudably being therein also backed with the advice of a reverend and learned Synod take it away And hence it will follow that if the Ministers of this Land for severing themselves from the Bishops and with-drawing their Canonicall Obedience from them as some speake the Parliament according to the reverend Synod having before taken away from them all that Jurisdiction over Presbyters that did belong unto them must needs be accused of Schisme It is a good Schisme yea a blessed Schisme to use the words that Gerhard did defending the Protestants with-drawing from the Pope and the Church of Rome that they will be found to be guilty of The blot whereof as it is not to be much regarded so it is easily wiped off and as we think it is already done in the Eyes of all impartiall and unbyassed Readers by these Considerations which we have layd down We have onely one thing more to add which is the third generall Head we offer to the Reader here before we leave this first Argument with which you would perswade us to returne againe to our former Yoke of Bondag 3. For we offer it to the consideration of all impartiall men whether considering what hath been spoken touching the nature of Schisme in the generall and how lawfully and laudably the Parliament did abolish Episcopacy and how they passed by Ordinance the forme of Church-Government Anno 1648. establishing the Presbyterian in roome of the Episcopall and that how it was set up in this County by their Authority If they but observe what your actings have been and what your expressions are in your Papers they will not thereupon see just cause to impute Schisme taken in the worst part and as it is taken most usually unto you who have been so forward though without reason to fasten this blot upon us But we are sure during the prevalency of Episcopacy those that were not guilty of any such disturbance of the peace of the Church by any such boisterous Ventings of the Distempers of their Spirits as you are were counted and called by the Prelates Schismaticks And from which Aspersion though sundry of those being peaceable and godly however Non-conformists were free yet you being very unlike them are not thereby quit But we have now done with the first of those Arguments we promised to speak to particularly whereby you would perswade us to admit againe of Episcopacy and hope we have sayd to it that which is sufficient 2. We therefore now come to the second wherein you still rise higher for therein you insinuate a thing of a farre greater and more dangerous consequence if Episcopacy be not restored For you intimate that it is necessary That the Church of God may be continued amongst us from Age to Age to the