Scriptures and that the Word of God alone should determine this controversie c. Who can forbear laughter to see Scripturists under the Gospel as these under the Law Templum Domini Templum Domini crie Verbum Domini Verbum Domiui nothing but Scripture the Word of God being there the onely rule of faith and manners Take to your Bibles then and burn all other Books as the Anabaptists of old did who when they and their Bibles were left together what strange and Phantastical opinion soever came into their brain Their usual manner was to say The spirit taught it them as Mr Hooker in his preface to his Eccles Pol. The determination of Councils and Fathers and the Churches Universal practise for matters of Church Government must all be abandoned and then to that old Question of the Papists Where was your Church before Lutber or that of ours to you Where was your Church before Calvin Just like the Arguing of the Samaritanes with the Jeâ—â—s about the Antiquity of their Church on Mount Gerizim recorded by Joseplus per Saltum by a high Jump over all the Universal practise and successions of the Church you can make your Church and Church Government as ancient as you list by saying it is to be found in the Scriptures referring it to Christ and the Apostles nay higher yet if you please to the Jewish Sanhedrim 1500. years at least before Christ Mr Henderson will assist you much in thâ—s who in his dispute with his Majesty averring that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvins time replyeth Your Majesty knows the Cammon Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches Where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luthers time One part of the Common Answer is it is to be sound in the Scriptures the same I affirm of Presbyterian Government Thus he Make you such defence in behalf of your Church but thanks be to God the Protestant cause hath not doth not nor we hope will ever want far abler Disputants and Champions in her defence against her adversaries then he or you be For though we grant and shall ever pay that reverence to the sacred Scriptures that it is an unsallible unerring rule yet may we not crie up Scripture to the contempt and neglect of the Church which the Scripture it self teacheth men both to honour and obey We will indeavour therefore to give either their due according to Christs institution that the Scripture where it is plain should guide the Church and the Church where there 's doubt or difficulty should expound the Scriptures as saith a Bishop And you your selves may remember what you affirm of General Councils the Churches Representative nay more of your Provincial Assemblies even in your Answer to that you call the preface to our Paper That there is in them invested an Authoritative juridicall power to whose Authority you profess your selves to be subject and to which all ought to submit alledging 1 Cor. 14. 32. Matth. 18. and Acts 15. for proof hereof to Inquire into Trie Examine Censure and judge of Matters of Doctrine as well as of Discipline And tax us as if we refused to submit in such matters to the Judgement of a General Council Though here you retract and eat your own words casting it out as unsound and Hetrodox what was before a Christians duty to practise You still own subjection in matters of Doctrine and discipline to the Judgement and determination of your Provincial Assemblies though you deny the Authority of General Councils and the Catholique Church That those should be our guide and rule and comment upon the Word of God to tell us what is his will revealed there touching Church Government and discipline Said we not truely that you seem to submit to your Provincial what you will hardly grant to a General Council But the Church as we have said where there 's doubt or difficulty may expound the Scripture though it be tied as you have said to the rule of Gods Words in such proceedings as Judges to the Law and we are concluded and bound up by that as we are to those cases in the Law which are the Judgement and Exposition of the Judges upon the dark places of the same The Churches exposition and practise is our rule in such cases and the best rule too As our late King affirmeth viz. Where the Scripture is not so clear and punctuall in precepts there the constant and Vniversal practise of the Church in things not contrary to reason faith good manners or any positive command is the best rule that Christians can follow So when there is a difference about â—nterpretation of Scripture that we may not seem to abound in our own sense or give way to private interpretation Dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others we are not to utter our own phansies or desires to be believed upon our bare word but to deliver that sense which hath been a foretime given by our fore-Fathers and fore-runners in the Christian saith and so we necessarily make another Judge and rule for interpretation of Scripture or else we prove nothing Thus have the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists out of the Word of God too but not according to their own but the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the primitive Church and Councils gave See Mr Philpot that glorious Martyr in Queen Maries dayes to the like Question propounded viz. How long hath your Church stood Answereth from the beginning from Christ from the Apostles and their Immediate Successors And for proof thereof desires no better rule then what the Papists many times bring in on their side to wit Antiquity Universality and Unity And Calvin acknowledgeth as in our last Paper we shewed you there can be no better nor surer remedy for Interpretation of Scripture then what the Fathers in the primitive Churches gave especially in the first four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon which contain nothing saith he but the pure and genuine Interpretation of Scripture and which he professeth to embrace and reverence as hallowed and inviolable So they rest not in private interpretation but willingly submit to a judg and rule besides the Scriptures even such as the Papists themselves cannot except against viz. the primitive Churches practise and Universal and unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils By these our Church is content to be tryed and to this rule we bring the Church Government to be tried thereby And on this score your Presbytery is quite our of doors being of examples and practise of the Church and Testimonies of the Fathers wholly destitute wherein as the King hath it the whole stream runs so for Episcopacy that that there 's not the least rivulet for any others Which you being sensible of have no way to evade this rule but una liturâ to blot out all records and monuments
times and so their interpretations of Scriptures often more difficult to be understood then the Scriptures that they interpret this also is very considerable that it will be out of the compass and reach of the most persons of ordinary rank to procure all the writings of the Fathers and Councils that are yet extant as we do not beleeve that any of you are so well stored as that you have such a Library wherein all the Fathers or most of them might be consulted which yet were necessary to be procured if their unanimous consent must be the rule for interpretation of Scripture when there is a doubt or difficulty And if some persons might be found of that ability as to procure the Works of all the Fathers yet it is not easie to imagin how even the Learned though Divines much less the simple and ignorant could ever be able to reade over all their Works compare all the Fathers together and their interpretations that so they might when there was a doubt or difficulty gather what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers touching the interpretation of a Text the sense whereof we questioned And hereupon it will follow that what you propound as the rule yea and the best rule too for interpreting of Scripture is so farre from being such that it is a very unfit and unmeet rule being such as few or none if any at all are able in all cases or the most to make use of But by this time we doubt not notwithstanding your great confidence touching the sureness of your rule that it is manifest from the reasons we have given unto which we might add many more if there were need that your rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures participates not of the nature of what is to be a rule and therefore however the exposition of the Church Fathers and Councils is not to be despised yet it is not to be made a rule but that the onely sure rule for the interpreting of the Scriptures is the Scripture it self But because you alledge something for your assertion we shall now in the last place examine it of what nature and strength it is And â— You quote the late King in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although his assertion is more limited then yours as from the words you cite is clear and manifest And as touching that which his words are alledged for we must say that such a Church Government as is not found instituted in Scripture in regard of the substantials of it is therefore contrary to the commands of Scripture because not found instituted there and this we affirm touching that Episcopall Government that you plead for that superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter in regard of order and jurisdiction being a meer device of man without and against Scripturall warrant as it was that that was unknown to the primitive Church in the more ancient and purer times and of which afterward 2. But you further add and say that except your rule for interpreting of Scripture be admitted of we shall seem to abound in our own sense and to utter our own fancies or desires to be believed on our bare word and so to give way to private interpretation whereas we should deliver that sense which hath been aforetime given by our forefathers and forerunners in the Christian faith unto which we say that whether it be the interpretation that we ourselves shall give of Scripture or it be the interpretation of others however Fathers or Councils and forerunners in the Christian faith yet if it be an interpretation inferred or brought to the Scripture and not found in the Scripture the uttering of that interpretation is the uttering our own or other mens fancies and so is that private interpretation of Scripture which the Apostle Peter 2d Epist ch 1. ver 20. condemns and to whose words there you do here point it being the Holy Ghost the author of Scripture whose interpretation is that publike interpretation that the whole Church and every member thereof is to give heed to and is that which is opposed to the private interpretation mentioned as the Apostle shews ver 21. in the words following But seeing you do here urge the very popish argument and that text which they quote touching the rule they make for interpretation of Scripture in direct opposition to our Protestant Divines it is hence very clear that your opinion touching the rule of interpreting of the Scriptures and judg of controversies in matters of Religion which you make to be the Churches exposition and consent of Fathers and Councils is the very same with theirs and wherein you approve not your selves to be either sound Protestants or to own the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Papists in this particular 3. Yet you go on and urge another argument for when there is a difference about interpretation of Scripture not to admit for a rule the exposition of the Church consent of Fathers and Councils you say that is dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of others but we say as we have shewed before that to impose a necessity of admitting the interpretation given by the Church Fathers Councils when it is not evident from the Text so expounded either the words of it scope or other circumstances of it the things going before or following after or from some other Texts with which it is compared this is certainly dominari fidei to Lord it over the faith of Gods people and which Paul though so great an Apostle and immediately and infallibly inspired would not presume to do 2 Cor. 1. â—4 The Church having onely a Ministery committed to her which is onely to propound that sense of Scripture which the Scripture it self gives and no more 4. But thus say you the best and ablest defenders of our Protestant Religion defended it against the Papists though out of the word of God too giving the sense which the Fathers unanimously in the Primitive Church and Councils gave But this is not the question whether our Divines defended the Protestant Religion against the Papists not onely out of the Word of God but from the testimonie also of Fathers and Councils but whether they did ever make the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Councils the judg of controversies or rule for interpreting of Scripture He that shall hold the affirmative here doth plainly shew he is a stranger to the writings of the best and ablest defenders of the Protestant Religion We shall readily grant that our Divines do ex super abundanti defend the truth against the Papists from the testimony of Fathers and Councils but did never assert that the defence of it from the Scriptures alone was not sufficient as they would never have quarrelled with the Papists touching the judg of controversies and the rule for interpretation of Scripture if they would have been contented to have stood to its determination It s true Mr. Philpot that glorious
there hath been occasion But here we must further acquaint the Reader that the errours and depravations of this Paper which we found in it as it had been by them Printed we have rectified as we well might according to the Originall and now exhibit it to the Readers view as it was when it passed from us We have Printed their first Paper as we found it Printed by themselves only we have added the rest of the Names that were subscribed to it when it was presented unto us that so those that were represented to us as the subscribers of it may own it or disown it as they see cause We have divided our Answer to their first Paper into eleaven Sections as also the last Paper of theirs on which we Animadvert into the like number that so by comparing all together it may be the better discerned how they have dealt with us what they reply to and what they omit and we leave the whole together with our Animadversions on the severall Sections of theirs to be judged of by the Reader We have also Printed their two last Papers as we found them Printed by themselves and have noted in the Margents of them both the variations which yet are not great from the Copies that were presented unto us and whereof the letters Cl. and Cop. prefixed to those variations and intimating how it was in those Copies that were exhibited to the Class are an indicium or the sign We confess our Answers to their two last Papers are now grown to a greater bulke then we first intended or then what some perhaps may judge necessary but we wish it might be considered that if some things that fall into debate betwixt them and us be not of generall concernement yet the discussion of them being of use for our vindication and the discovering unto them their errours and faults we conceive that in those respects it was requisite although the Reader may find severall things spoken to that be of common use and whereof we give him some account at the end of this Epistle as also where they may be found that such as have not either leisure or will to peruse the whole may take a view more speedily of what they may chiefly desire to read When we were to give our reasons why we could not consent to admit of Episcopacy moderated we considered that the point touching Episcopacy having been so fully discussed by farre abler Pens we thought it might be the fittest for us to insist chiefly upon the inconveniency and dangerousnesse of that Government and what we in this Land and the Neighbour Nation had experienced in those respects In another place we urge some Arguments to prove a Bishop and a Presbyter to be in a Scripture sense of those words all one What is spoken touching the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office was occasioned from the Texts we had urged though it was but by the way in our Answer to their first Paper and their excepting in their second against our alledging those Texts for that purpose But we do here professe that we do not discusse that point our selves we only transcribe what is solidly and fully done concerning it to our hands by other Reverend and Learned Brethren and therefore when in our Title we mention the clearing up of the Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office the Reader is so to understand that branch of it as when we come to speak of that point particularly we there give him our reasons of that transcription We have now no more to acquaint the Reader with and therefore shall leave the whole to his perusall not much mattering the censures of loose and prophane spirits though we hope with such as are unprejudiced and zealous for reformation our endeavours shall find some acceptance And having the Testimonie of our consciences that in the uprightness of our hearts we have aimed at the Glory of God and the good of his Church in what we now send abroad into the world we do not question but that God who is the trier of the hearts and reines and the God of truth will not only own that good old cause of his in the defence whereof so many of his faithfull Servants have suffered in former times but us also the meanest and unworthiest of his Servants in this our standing up for it and so bless our labours herein that they may be of some use for the publique good The Father of Lights and God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace give unto us all and to all His the spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of his Will guide our feet in the waies of Peace and after our manifold and great shakings settle the Affairs both of Church and State upon some sure foundations to the Glory of his own great Name and the everlasting Comfort Peace and Wellfare of all his People Amen AN ACCOUNT Of some of the principall things in the ensuing Discourses 1. THe dangerousness of admitting moderate Episcopacy shewed pag. 85. 2. The Jus divinum of the ruling Elders Office is cleared pag. 103. 3. The nature of Schisme opened and the imputation thereof taken off those that disown Episcopacy pag. 121. 4. The being of a Church and lawfully Ordained Ministery secured in the want of Episcopacy pag. 130. 5. The imputation of Perjury taken off from such as do not again admit of Episcopacy pag. 204. 6. The claim of the Presbyterian Government to the civill Sanction made good in the fourth Section of our Answer to the Gentlemens first Paper and further in our Animadversions on their last pag. 219. 7. The Scriptures proved to be the sole supreme Judg in all matters of Religion pag. 255. 8. Councils and the unanimous consent of Fathers not to the rule of the interpretation of the Scriptures pag. 260. 9. Civill penalties not freeing from Ecclesiasticall censures cleared pag. 290. The Title of the Papers as they were Printed by the Gentlemen together with their PREFACE Excommunicatio Excommunicata OR A CENSURE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CENSURES And proceedings of the Classis at Manchester Wherein is modestly examined what Ecclesiasticall or Civill Sanction they pretend for their new usurped power In a discourse betwixt the Ministers of that Classis and some dissenting Christians THE PREFACE IN such an age as this when the heat of vaine and unprofitable controversies has bred more Scriblers than a hot Summer in the Comedians simile does Flies it might seem more rationall according to Solomons rule for prudent men to keep silence then to vex themselves and disquiet others with such empty discourses as rather enlarge then compose the differences of Gods People It was a sad age that of Domitian of which the Historian affirmeth that then Inertia pro sapientiâ erat Ignorance was the best knowledge laziness and servility was the best diligence and we could wish this age did not too much resemble that But when we see
Committee unto the next Classe and Mr Mosely consented thereunto promising that he would desire Mr. Allen and some others of the Gentlemen to be at the next Classe to conclude about the same May 11. 1658. Mr Allen Mr. Mosely and others came according to their promise upon their motion that they might have liberty to take some out of the bounds of the Class to treat on their part with us the Class condescended thereunto and before they departed the men were nominated on both sides that should treat of the matters aforesaid The time place for the meeting was referred by their consent till Mr. Heyrick should return from London he being one nominated on our part and they professing a desire that he should be one in the business If they had such a report to make of what concerned us as we have of them they would not stick to say that the words of our mouths were peace while warre was in our hearts but we leave God and the Reader to judge with what hearts they could agree upon an accommodation and do as they forthwith did While matters stood just thus between us the next Class Mr. Heyricke not being returned before the Class after in July we found the Papers in Print Upon this we appointed a Committee that time to take the matter into consideration and they sent a Letter to Mr. Allen to desire to know of him under his hand whether he owned the Printing or no The Letter you have in the other Columne Which Letter was taken to him forthwith He told the Messenger he would wait upon Mr. Heyricke to whom the Answer was to be returned the next day which he accordingly did and brought Mr. Mosely with him He said he knew not of the Printing of the Papers and therefore had brought Mr. Mosely who could give the account of this amicable Office of Printing all the Papers whilst an accommodation was on foot Mr Mosely said something to Mr. Heyricke that it should be reported that he should say that he could wish all the Papers were burnt and so to vindicate themselves that they distrusted not their Papers they Printed them to the world Which Answer of his if it had come or the like from us it should have been called silly and poore if not worse But for those words which he spake we know none that ever repeated them or that commonly did it or that ever took them in the sense he himself puts upon them We only took notice of them as a zealous expression of his hearty forwardness for peace which it seems we wronged him in and we must desire him to forgive us this wrong and not as in any distrust on their part of their Papers for they never wanted confidence and a conceit to the utmost of the validity of all they did and do not yet so that we could never knowing their whole carriage in the business mistake their words so far to favour of any retraction on their part of any thing they had written But for this to be the occasion of their Printing we account it a poor shift to alledge it they might sure have enquired of us when upon tearmes of Peace especially whether any of us would have owned any such words in such a sense before they had Printed the Papers upon them and what was the occasion before these words were spoken that many of their Party did so frequently talke of Printing the Papers if they had not been Printed but for them But the truth is these men the only men acquainted with Religion Learning and Antiquity conceit some great advantage they have gotten by their Papers against the Government and nothing shall perswade them to keep that under though they accommodate never so with the Congregations where it is practised or rather that it was a meere pretence in them to an accommodation when they deal thus underhand in open hostility is but too manifest But Mr Heyricke moved that he might have their Answer in writing that he might return it to the Class as appointed by them to receive it They promised they would within a fortnight Within that time Mr Allen came and denied to return any Answer in writing though he had promised it and though he did not know of the Printing of the Papers as he saies with the Preface yet now it is done they must own it to prevent a breach amongst themselves resolved they are to keep Peace amongst themselves though with us they deal according to the Tenent of keeping no faith with Hereticks whilst they cry up themselves as the only Patrons of the Protestant Cause and all others but as Punies to them What iniquity humane infirmity set aside can any find in this or in our actings If in any thing we have transgressed it is that our actings did not succeed our purposes forgive us this wrong and for the future we engage our selves all Bug-beares set aside to act according to our representation not spending more time in perswading them that will not be perswaded Having thus given a faithfull account of the rise and manner of these proceedings which is all we shall say by way of Preface on our part we shall take leave after a word upon the Title under which they have Printed the Papers to make some brief Animadversions upon some passages in the Preface which they have prefixed For the Title they give to the Papers as Printed by them and what they further say in their Title Page 1. First they call it Excommunicatio excommunieata Here is flat Erastianisme in the Front though it is but a Maske to to cover Prelacy under For though they seem to be against all excommunication unless it be the totall excommunication of that Ordinance out of the Church yet after we finde them willing that the Diocesan Bishops should excommunicate Besides this contradiction it is wonder how this comes to be the Title of the Book for unless they had done more in their Papers which might appear to be of unquestionable strength and directly against that Ordinance though as Administred according to the Presbyterian Government they do seem to set up the Gates of Mindas in this great Title 2. They say Wherein is modestly examined Let the Reader judg whether what they offer be worthy to be called an examination of what we have at first published or since Answered to theirs or to the matter in the whole For their modesty sure they either have another notion of modesty then is ordinary or else they soon forget what they here assert if untruths reproaches revilings c. savour of modesty let the Reader judg to call our's an usurped power and to determine so peremptorily upon the matter of the whole Controversie savours not of over much modesty in the very next Lines and if they have carried the matter like dissenting Christians we desire the Reader to believe as he finds reason to judge upon the
Surplice c. by any authority in our Government they bring in something Prelaticall to our charge but not when we only press to the utmost against ignorance and scandall which was the least thing that Government was ordinarily known by We take the Parochiall Diocesan as a meere scoffe the very Officer they strive against in our Congregations make it apparent how farre our Government is from a Parochiall Prelacy If they would be understood besides this flourish to meane our inforceing our way upon men of other perswasions we have manifested by what we have said before and by our frequent practice how unjust this charge is 13. The second thing is That we contradict our selves to inveigh against the Donatists and Schismaticks and yet espouse their quarrels And here by the by the great Diana of this Party is brought in viz. mixt Communion A fearfull errour we are guilty of in opposing this c. That this was the great errour of the Donatists the world must believe and yet we Preach against them and this greatly troubles these Gentlemen We have contended against the Donatists of our times that pretend to separate from true Churches as many have done and we understand not that St Augustine ever strove against Donatus or his followers in any other sense But that prophane and scandalous persons should not be debarred the Sacrament sure is a thing men so much for antiquity and the Church of England should never take as Donatisme The separation which we make is no other then what Chrysostome Cyprian and Augustine himselfe will appeare by their writings to have led us in and what our Church of England in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer did enjoyn and should have practised 14. We know not any secular power we ever exercised or desired to do over any which any Parliament or his late Highness hath blunted the edge of If they meane the civill Sanction for our Government we constantly deny that either the Parliament or his late Highness hath done any such thing as by our Papers may appeare 15. And for the hurt they speake of by our secular power or by the Goliah's Sword they jeere to have taken up they might do well to consider that of Rom. 13. 3. Ecclesiasticall as well as civill Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill wilt thou then not be afraid of the power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same For our requiring a Sibboleth for admission it is none other then a blamelesse life and competent knowledge and this we are able to shew it one of the chief of these Subscribers hath consented to under his hand in his own case we hope they will none of them own it that they have not this Shibboleth ready And for our requiring all Men to fall down and worship the Idoll we have set up we might as well call their endeavouring to set up Episcopacy to be the fond attempt of rearing of Dagon to his place again when he fallen and broken before the Arke of God It is a small matter to make us like the Egyptians when a little before as bad as Nebuchadnezzar For the Taskmasters dilemma we urge them with sure it wight have sufficed what was said in our Answer which they have Printed to have cleared out Text from that glosse they put upon it that the matter of excommunication was to be understood in case of scandall and obstinacy only If the first construction would not have born it which that it would and doth we must with men that stand upon nicities endeavour to prove yet they having our express meaning declared vve vvonder how yet to fasten an aspersion upon us they dare in this place take the thing for granted in their own sense We desire to put men in no other straits then God himselfe declares them to be in and yet hath left a sufficient way-out Men that are scandalous sinne if they come to the Sacrament and sinne if they come not in the one for a mission of known duty in the other for an undue and sinfull performance of it men may eate and drinke unworthily and abstaine from eating and drinking unworthily too but they are under a necessity of mending that they may both come and come worthily 16. For the third contradiction they are grieved with it is that men that impropriate the name of Saints c. should not carry more tenderly then we do truly to this we may Answer that they may charge that on us in malice which we cannot make it our business to vindicate our selves from with modesty we know neither when we impropriated the names of Saints or Christians to our selves nor yet wherein in the particular they mention we have walked contrary we presume the thing they charge us with they acquit themselves from we will go no further for appeale then the Papers in hand let the impartiall Reader view what he can find savouring of so much sweetnesse and candor in their first and last Papers and what there is of provocation in ours and by that let the matter be judged wherever the profession of Saintship is where the contrary practice is most apparent We thinke it not strange to be counted legall and bitter for speaking against sinne when the Apostle was counted an enemy for telling the truth It is sadly suspiscious the controversie lies on another principle then yet is in view We know not any thing we are guilty of like censoriousnesse unless it be free speaking upon all occasions against gross wickednesse we would hope those men would not patronize that cause which we profess our selves only against If this be it that makes us so censorious in private and severe in publique we must profess we dare not be Ministers to sooth up men in their sinnes unless they can finde us a Christ that will save them in their sinnes yet we hope that such of our people as have had occasion to be conversant with us even in this businesse of the Sacrament do finde some of that Gospell tendernesse which these men would perswade the world we are so utterly destitute of and will Answer more for us herein then we thinke fit to say for our selves 17. They now conclude their Preface which ushers these Papers into the world and declare how much they were forced against their dispositions to Print we hope they will not say we forced them for they know we knew nothing of it They protest it is sine ullo studio contentionis without any pleasure or delight in contention whenas they were upon tearmes of accommodation with us according to our Narrative and the truth and yet Print the Papers and they professedly hereby fire their Beacons to raise up others to the like opposition or a stronger where there is ability and occasion For the success of their cause we know not what God in his wise judgement may permit it to be the reception of what
to exercise the power that Christ hath committed to us for edification and not for destruction that these are but so many waste Papers wherein Presbytery is wrapped up to make it look more handsomely and passe more currantly We do earnestly desire That in the examination of your consciences you would seriously consider whether you have not both transgressed the rules of Charity in passing such hard censures upon us and also usurped that which belongs not to you in making your selves judges of what fals not under your cognizance The things you mention belonging only to be tried by your and our Master to whom we must all stand or fall But we are heartily sorry that Presbytery which stands in no need of any painting or cover to make it look more handsomely and passe more currantly should be accounted by you the anguis in herba whereof you had need to beware it having never given that offence to any as to merit such language SECT VI. BUt now you frame an objection out of our Paper and return your Answer professing That you pray for the establishment of such Church Government throughout his Highnesse Dominions as is consonant to the will of God and universal practice of primitive Churches c. In that you do here joyn the will of God and the universal practice of primitive Churches together as you joyned the Word of God and the constant practise of the Catholique Church before you seem to us to make up the rule whereby we must judge what Government it is that you pray might be established of these two viz. the will of God and the universal practise of primitive Churches Or that it is the universal practise of primitive Churches that must be our sure guide and comment upon the Word of God to tell us what is his will revealed there touching Church Government and discipline If this be your sense as we apprehend it is we must needs professe that herein we greatly differ from you as not conceiving it to be sound and orthodox It being the Word of God alone and the approved practise of the Church recorded there whether it was the universal and constant practise of the Church or no that is to be the onely rule to judge by in this or any other controversies in matters of Religion But yet admitting for the present the rule you seem to make we should desire to know from you what that Church Government is which is so consonant to the will of God and universal practise of primitive Churches For our own parts we think it will be very hard for you or any others to demonstrate out of any Records of Antiquity what was the universal practise of primitive Churches for the whole space of the first 300. yeares after Christ or the greatest part thereof excepting so much as is left upon record in the Scriptures of the new Testament the Monuments of Antiquity that concern those times for the greatest part of them being both imperfect and far from shewing us what was the universal practise of the Church then though the practises of some Churches may be mentioned and likewise very questionable At least it will not be easie to assure us that some of those that goe under the names of the most approved Authors of those times are neither spurious nor corrupted And hereupon it will unavoidably follow that we shall be left very doubtful what Government it is that is most consonant to the universal and constant practise of primitive Churches for that time But as touching the rule it self which you seem here to lay down we cannot close with it We do much honour and reverence the Primitive Churches But yet we believe we owe more reverence to the Scriptures then to judge them either imperfect or not to have light enough in themselves for the resolving all doubts touching matters of faith or practise except it be first resolved what was either the concurrent interpretation of the Fathers or the universal and constant practise of the Churches of those times Besides that admitting this for a rule that the universal and constant practise of the primitive Churches must be that which must assure us what is the will of God revealed in Scripture concerning the Government which he hath appointed in the Church our faith is hereupon resolved into a most uncertain ground and so made fallible and turned into opinion For what monuments of Antiquity besides the Scriptures can assure us touching the matters of fact therein contained that they were such indeed as they are there reported to be the Authors of them themselves being men that were not infallibly guided by the Spirit But yet supposing we could be infallibly assured which yet never can be what was the universal and constant practise of the primitive Churches how shall that be a rule to assure us what is most consonant to the will of God When as we see not especially in such matters as are not absolutely necessary to salvation but that the universal practise of the Churches might in some things be dissonant to the will of God revealed in Scriptures And so the universal practise of primitive Churches can be no certain rule to judge by what Church Government is most consonant to the will of God revealed in his Word We know there are corruptions in the best of men There was such hot contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas as caused them to part asunder Peter so failed in his practise as that though before some came from James he did eat with the Gentiles yet when they were come he withdrew himself fearing them of the Circumcision And hereupon not only other Jews likewise dissembled with him but Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation Whence it 's clear that the examples of the best men even in those things wherein they went contrary to the rule of Gods Word are of a spreading nature and the better the Persons that give the bad examples are the greater the danger of the more universal leavening Nay we finde that not onely some few Apostolical men had their failings but even Apostolical primitive Churches did in the very face of the Apostles they being yet alive make great defection both in regard of opinions and practises As from the examples of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the Churches of Asia is manifest The Apostle also tels us that even in his time the mystery of iniquity began to work And in after times we know how the Doctrine was corrupted what grosse superstition crept into the Church what domination was striven for amongst the Pastors and Bishops of the Churches till at length Antichrist was got up into his seat unto which height yet he came not all at once but by steps and degrees Besides it is of fresh remembrance that notwithstanding the reformation happily brought about in our own Church in regard of Doctrine and worship after those dismal Marian times yet the corruption in regard of
And but that we see you are possessed with too much perjudice against the Eldership we should much have wondred that you who in the beginning of your Paper tell us you had seriously weighed ours should here in the close have run into such a great mistake as not to have distinguished betwixt the Persons that were to be admonished in order to further censure if they hearkened not thereunto and the Persons that were to be exhorted onely If that which led you into this mistake was the consideration that they were both joyned together in the same order and therefore were both to be dealt with after the same manner your argument was very weak there being nothing more frequent in Scripture and all other Authors then to couple together in one and the same verse and sentence things of a different nature But if that had been your ground of doubting yet if you had attended to what presently followed there had been no place for stumbling in so plaine a matter For that which follows is so limited that it could not with any colour be applyed to those that being exhorted by the Minister to present themselves to the Eldership should still refuse For it speaks expressely of such that should neither hearken to pritate Admonition nor the Admonition of the Eldership that their names should be published openly in the Congregation and therefore of those onely who had been appointed to be admonished according to Christs rule Mat. 18. in the fourth Order Now the Persons that were to be admonished according to the rule of Christ Mat. 18. and spoken of in the fourth Order were onely such as had been mentioned immediately before viz. Such as should forsake the publique Assemblies and such as were scandalous Persons But yet to make the matter still more plain let it be considered that it could not with any shew of reason be construed to be our meaning that such Persons who were found to be of competent knowledge and blameless in life if not harkening to the Minister exhorting them to present themselves before the Eldership were to have their names published and if still refusing then to be excommunicated For the Persons that were to be thus dealt with were to be admonished by the Eldershid and reject that admonition before there were to be those further proceedings But how could such Persons that being exhorted by the Minister to present themselves to the Eldership and refused to come before them be admonished by them But if you say the Persons that the Minister is to exhort to present themselves before the Eldership are mentioned immediately before this order made touching the publishing of mens names and therefore must needs be included in this order and the relative they be referred to these as well as to the other This Argument also is very weak For those amongst you that are Scholers do well know That the Relative is often referred to the remoter Antecedent and must be so of necessity when the subject matter spoken of doth necessarily require it as in this case it is clear it doth For the Relative They in the fifth order is limited to such as should neither hearken to private Admonition nor to the Admonition of the Eldership and these were onely the scandalous and the forsakers of poblique Assemblies that were to be admonished according to Christs rule Mat. 18. and which was that which was appointed by the former branch of the fourth order But you will parhaps say if this was our meaning why is the Ministers exhorting of knowing and blameless Persons to present themselves before the Eldership mentioned in the same order with those that are to be admonished in order to further censure in case the Admonition be not hearkened to if the same rule be not to be held with them as with the others in case of refusall To which we say The Admonition spoken of in the fourth order is said expressely should be according to the rule of Christ Mat. 18. Now that mentions not onely an Admonition to be given by the Church when the case is brought thither but also an Admonition once or twice by private Persons And therefore as when the fittest opportunity is offered to private Persons to perform this duty of Admonition toward an offending Brother they are to lay hold upon it and not let it slip so we judged it a fit opportunity offered to the Minister when he Catechizeth the Families to exhort such amongst them whom he found to be of competent knowledg and were blamless in life to present themselves before the Eldership in order to their Admission to the Sacrament And the rather because haveing the opportunity of conference with them at this time if they had any doubts about this matter or he saw that it was prejudice onely in them against the Elders that hindered them and as it is in most he might indeavour to remove them And this might have been easily conceived was the reason thereof by any that had but seriously weighed what we had expressed in our Paper if there had been that candor that we could have desired And therefore we cannot imagine what there should be in our Paper that should give the least just occasion for such a strange sense as you would herein put upon us And we hope all indifferent and unprejudiced Persons will say we have given as little occasion by our Carriages as there is given by our words We have studied all wayes of condescension for the gaining of all That neither the weak might be discoraged nor any that can with any colour pretend to tenderness of Conscience in the matter of presenting themselves before the Eldership have any bar put in the way of their Communicating with us at the Lords Table in regard of that order that is observed for their Admission But we finde that the Eldership is that great stumbling-block with many And we are sorry that we have reason to complain that Let us do what can yet some will be satisfied with nothing but pulling down the hedg and laying all common But we dare not thus far seek to please men though we desire to please our neighbour for his good to edification We have thus far removed all imaginable grounds in our apprehensions for this your groundless charge That our purpose was to excommunicate all knowing and blameless Persons if they presented not themselves before the Eldership We shall now proceed to examine what you produce for the supporting of your selves in it And that which we finde in the first place is besides your omitting to take any notice of the first branch of this fourth order something in your comment upon our words which was not in our Text. For you say What if after the Minister hath exhorted them they shall not present themselves before the Eldership The Minister say you must exhort and admonish them But this as we have told you is wholly your own and none of ours For first
espouse their Quarrell emboldned them to these intolerable Exorbitances Now except it could be proved that the Superiority of a Bishop above a Presbyter were an Institution of Jesus Christ prudence teacheth to fly from that as far as we may with a good Conscience that heretofore hath proved so burthensome and grievous Especially considering that 2. If moderate Episcopacy should once have footing in this Land there is very great danger it would presently incroach upon the Pastors right and in time grow up to the full height that it was in heretofore Sad experience for Ages together hath shewed how through the Ambition pride of the Bishops that loved with Diotrephes to have the preheminence the Pastors as to the governing of their Flocks were spoiled of all power Out of what we quoted even now you might take notice that moderate Episcopacy brought in at the first upon prudentiall grounds yet became a Stirrop for Antichrist to get up into the Saddle that first Ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his Chair and brought the Yoke of Bondage upon the Church for so Dr. Whitaker expressed himself concerning it And 1. Are there not still in the hearts of the Sons of men the same Seeds of Pride and Ambition as in former times And is there not hereupon cause to fear if there should be a tempting of God so far as to admit of that which would cherish and warm those Corruptions the same bitter Fruit would appear as heretofore Is it to be wondred that the same cause upon the same occasion being still like it self and ever for kind one and the same should produce the like effects as heretofore it hath done But 2. Yet further If moderate Episopacy be no Plant of Gods planting as if it be not Jure divino and yet an Officer introduced into Gods House there is no reason why it should lay claim to him as to its Author may it be thought strange if like unto a wild Vine it should grow luxuriant Or like a Weed that is set in a fat Soil it should grow as rank as ever especially if warmed by the Favour of Princes and great Ones that might be induced out of respect to their own Interests to smile upon it yea to countenance it so far as to discountenance the most faithfull Pastors in the Land that would not dance after their Pipe even to the outing them of their places and spoiling them of all Rule that so the Darling of Episcopy that might be charmed might grow the greater But 3. if yet we should not be so wise as to hearken to reason should not the experience of those that thereby purchased their after wisdome at a dear rate lesson us sufficiently to beware how we meddle with moderate Episcopacy that will hardly be moderated but would be found to the cost of those that would be so foolish as to make further triall to break all Bonds and limitations though never so many and strong and never so wisely made Little is propounded for the moderating of Episcopacy by Doctor Vsher in his Reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodicall Government received in the ancient Church although we believe his Design in the Proposals there was very pious and proceeded as well from a sense of the great Exorbitancy that Prelacy was grown to of late times and its great unlikeness to what it was in the purer times of the Church when it was first admitted as out of a desire to tender some expedient for the prevention of those troubles which did afterwards arise about the matter of Church-government unto those strickt Bands nay Shackles and Fetters that so far as mans wisdome could foresee were layd upon it by the Church of Scotland and yet it burst them all and which shews that it is of that nature that it cannot easily be tamed In his Proposals so far as we can discern the Suffragans that were to be constant Moderators in the Assemblies oâ— rurall Deaneries as the Bishops and Archbishops in the higheâ— Assemblies were all of them to have Negative Votes These as from the Plat-form it self is manifest were to do all and conclude matters according to the major part of Voices in these Assemblies But it is not said that if the Suffragan or Bishop or Archbishop were dissenting any thing might pass according to the major part of the Voyces in the severall Assemblies notwithwanding And hereupon if these constant Moderators were corrupt they might propound matters or not propound them to the Assemblies as they pleased And when they were propounded yet not concurring with the Assemblies obstruct all their proceedings Besides if all persons that were admitted into any Pastorall Charges and having cure of Soules were to come in onely at their Doore how soon might the Ministry be so farre corrupted as that it were easie for them to procure the major part in those Assemblies to Vote according to their mindes to over-sway and over-ballance the rest of the Members of these Assemblies that though godly and able yet might not be so favoured by the times as to be admitted into any Benefices as they have been called of any considerable value and so might be like to be for outward estate poor and in that respect the more contemptible But yet further if the Suffragans must come into their places by the Bishops and the Bishops into theirs as in former times if there should be corruption here where there is more danger then in any in the higher Assemblies which yet should be the freest from corruption and should still be the better the higher we go in regard of the greater number of persons of the choicest and best Abilities there were danger of far greater corruption then in the lower For all the Suffragans are expresly by these Proposals to be Members of the Diocesan Synod and of the Rectors or incumbent Pastors besides the Suffragans it is said the rest or a select number out of every Deanry as appears from the third Proposall And as touching the Provinciall Synod it is sayd it might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans and such other of the Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocess within the Province as is clear from the fourth Proposall And so if the Bishops and Suffragans should be corrupted that were to be as constant Moderators in these Assemblies so constant Members of the highest Assemblies by their Power and Dignity and greater port in the World and through the neglgence of the times it might easily come to pass that these might be so biassed that less good were to be expected from the higher Assemblies where yet the remedy should lye and whither Appeals were to be made then in the lower To say nothing that through the Favour of great ones if they should side with the Suffragans or Bishops that might be corrupted the meetings of these Assemblies though appointed by Law as well as Parliaments might
actuall existence in the Church whereas neither then nor some hundred years after was there any Christian Magistrate 3. That this Church-Governour is seated by God in his Church and so is a Plant of Gods one planting 4. That this Church Governour is a Church Officer For though it be a question amongst the Learned whether some of the persons here named as the Workers of Miracles and those that had the Gift ef Healing and of Tongues were seated by God as Officers in the Church and not rather only as eminent Members endued with these eminent Gifts yet it is most certain that whosoever is seated by God in his Church as a Church-Governour must needs be a Church Officer For the nature of the Gift doth necessarily imply an Office which they do further shew from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred Governments being a Metaphor taken from Pilots or Ship-masters governing their Ships 5. That this Church-Governour is an ordinary and perpetuall Officer in his Church as they shew does appear from the perpetuall necessity of him in the Church a Church without Government being as a Ship without a Pilot as a Kingdome without a Magistrate as a World without a Sun 6. That this Church-governour is an Officer contradistinguished in the Text from the Apostles Prophets Teachers and all other Officers in the Church This they prove 1. By the Apostles manner of expressing their Offices in an enumerative form first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then Gifts of Healing c. 2. By the Recapitulation V. 29. 30. Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers Are all Workers of Miracles c. 3. By the scope of the whole Chapter which is to set down different Gifts and Offices in different Subjects as they do more at large shew answering an Objection and then shewing that this Interpretation which they have given is not onely the Interpretation of reformed Divines both Lutherans and Calvenists but of the ancient Fathers and even the Papists themselves And here they quote Gerhardus de ministerio ecclesiastico Calvin in locum P. Martyr in locum Beza in locum Piscator in locum Ambrose in locum Chrysost in locum Salmer in loc Septimo loco ponit gubernatores i. e. eos qui praesunt aliis gubernant plebemque in Offici◠continent Et Ecclesia Christi habet suam politiam cum pastor per se omnia praestare non posset adjungebantur duo Presbyteri de quibus dixit qui bene praesunt presbyteri duplici honore digni habeantur maxime qui laborant verbo doctrina qui una cum pastore deliberabant de ecclesiae cura instauratione qui etiam fidei atque honestae vitae consortes erant Thus far the Provinciall Assembly of London The London Ministers in their Jus divinum do urge the Argument hence thus Major Whatsoever Officers God himself now under the new Testament hath set in the Church as Governours therein distinct from all other Church-governours whether extraordinary or ordinary they are the ruling Elders we enquire after and that Jure divine Minor But the Governments named in 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Officers which God himself now under the new Testament hath set in the Church as Governours therein distinct from all other Church-governours whether extraordinary or ordinary The Major being in it self cleer they prove the Minor in the severall Branches of it proving 1. That the Church here spoken of is the Church of Christ now under the N. T. 2. That the Governments here mentioned are Officers set in this Church not out of the Church as Rulers governing therein 3. That they are set not by man but by God himself 4. That these Governments thus set in the Church are distinct not onely from all Governours out of the Church but also from all governing Officers within the Church Whence the Conclusion is inferred Therefore these Governments in 1 Cor. 12. 28. are the ruling Elders enquired after and that Jure divino This Argument thus urged is confirmed in the severall Branches of it from Pag. 136. to Pag. 144. And after they vindicate the urging of this Text for this purpose from the severall exceptions made against the same by Dr. Feild Sutlive Whitgift Mr. Coleman and Bilson from Pag. 144. to Pag. 150. 3. The third and last Text we urged for the Divine right of ruling Elders Office was 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy double honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine For the understanding of whichwords the Provinciall Assembly of London lay down this Rule That every Text of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the literall and Grammaticall construction unless it be contrary to the Analogy of Faith or the Rule of Life or the circumstances of the Text. Otherwise say they we shall make a Nose of Wax of the Scriptures and draw quidlibet ex quolibet And then they add Now according to the Grammaticall Construction there are plainly held forth two sorts of Elders The one only ruling and the other also labouring in the Word and Doctrine Then they give the true Analysis of the words thus 1. Here is a Genus a General and that is Elders 2. Two distinct Species or kinds of Elders Those that rule well and those that labour in Word and Doctrine as Pastor and Doctor 3. We have two Particles expressing these two kinds of Elders Ruling Labouring The first do onely rule the second do also labour in Word and Doctrine 4 Here are two distinct Articles distinctly annexed to these two Participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that rule they that labour 5. Here is an eminent discretive Particle set before these two kinds of Elders these two Participles these two Articles evidently distinguishing one from the other Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially they that labour c. They do urge out of Dr. Whitaker That it is absurd to say that this Text is to be understood of one and the same Elder If a man should say All the Students in the University are worthy of double honour especially they that are Professors of Divinity he must necessarily understand it of two sorts of Students Or if a man should say All Gentlemen that do Service for the Kingdomes in their Counties are worthy of double honour especially they that do Service in the Parliament this must needs be understood of different persons And however they do take notice that Archbishop Whilgift Bishop King Bishop Bilson Bishop Downame and others labour to fasten divers other Interpretations upon these words yet they observe that all other senses that are given of these words are either such as are disagreeing from the literall and Grammaticall Construction or such as fall into one of these two absurdities either to maintain a Non preaching Ministry or a lazy preaching Ministry to deserve double honour and which they make to appear particularly as
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 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 Gentlemens Paper Sect. II. To that mistake you charge us withall in the Preface of our Paper concerning the Title of yours we answer We finde in the close of that your â—aper these words This presentation is approved by this Provincial Assembly Tho. Johnson Moderator Edw. Gee Scribe So it is approved by the Provincial Assembly under that title of a presentation as we call it in all the Copies we have seen But this as you say might be the mistake of your Scribe and not to be insisted on It is of greater weight and moment you say to take notice of what we publish as our sense and apprehension of it viz. The matter contained in your Paper Not resting in the judgement or determination of any general Council contrary thereto If any such should be much less to one of your Provincial Assemblies c. And here you tell us of a publique and authoritative Judgement that is in Councils concerning matters of Doctrine and Discipline though tied to the rule of Gods Word in such proceedings as Judges to the Law to which we ought to be subject And how far is that viz. They have the power of expounding and explaining the difficult places of Scripture as the Judges have of the exposition of the Law And in this sense we ought to subject to the sense and determination of a general Council And therefore you say Questionless if in the time of S. Augustine who was no conâ—emner of Synods and Councils any in this sense had declared That they would not have submitted their apprehensions to their Judgement he would have cried out against them as well as against the Donatists O Impudentem Vocem And you hope when we have weighed the matter better we will not in this sense see any reason to refuse to submit either our sense and apprehension of your Paper or what we may publish as our own private judgements in other matters about Religion to the judgement of a generall Council supposing it might be had God forbid but we should submit neither need we for this to weigh the matter better for in this sense we have done and yet shall submit to any shall come hereafter Neither had you any reason so to judge your selves or induce others to that perswasion of us that we should in this sense refuse to submit our Judgements to the Judgement of any general Council Our words are plain We publish this our sense and apprehension of it as far as it is plain to us Which words you omitting deale not fairely with us and which words carry another sense with them For so far as the matter conteined in your Paper is plain to us we close and joyn with you Being as we explain our selves afterwards so fully warranted thereto by the Word of God and constant practise of the Catholique Church that therein so far as it is made thus plain unto us we shall not submit our Apprehensions to the Judgement of a general Council But by this Aposiopesis of yours you would make the World believe we refuse to submit our Judgements to the Judgement of a general Council not onely touching matters of faith and such Articles of Religion which are plainly warranted by Gods Word and constant practice of the Catholique Church But also touching matters which are not so plainly set forth in the word of God Touching which last we prosess our willing submission to the Judgement of a general Council and are glad to hear you of the same minde though we fear as we shall hear you declaring anon you will hardly grant that to a general Council which you seem to grant to your Provincial In which we dissent from you as we have said 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 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
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 shâ—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 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 examined judged and determined against you and for us by a reverend and learned Synod and Assembly of Divines against vvhomâ— 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 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
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 Church-discipline 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 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 But the persons who hold other errours in judgment about points wherein learned and godly men possibly may or do differ and which subvert not the faith nor are destructive to godliness or that be guilty of such sins of infirmity as are commonly found in the children of God or being otherwise sound in the faith and holy in life and so not falling under censure by the former rules endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and do yet 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 the sentence of excommunication for these causes shall not be denounced against them 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 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 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 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 Gentlemens Paper Sect. V. And thus having proved your Presbyterian Government to have the civil Sanction just thus and no otherwise you come now to answer more particularly to that which follows And first you explicate what was before dark unto us who are meant by the many persons of all sorts that are Members of Congregations c. And you tell us all persons are within your verge none without except they will renounce Christianity and their Baptisme but are within the verge of your Presbyterian Government their not associating with you in regard of Government doth not exempt them from censure by it c. Independents Anabaptists and others all are subject and censured by your Government if they should be such Offenders as by the Rule thereof are justly censurable it being not a matter arbitrary for private persons at their own will and pleasure to exempt themselves from under that Ecclesiasticall Government that is setled by authority Here Gentlemen you may do well to consider whether you do not subject your selves to the contempt and scorn of all other parties who conceit they have as full power by their Rules of Church Discipline to censure you as you have them jam sumus ergo pares yet they dare not censure or punish any out of their Church Membership contrary to the severall Acts made for Toleration To the Act of the 27. September 1650. and to the express Article in the humble Advice above mentioned If you be so bold we have told you before and tell you again an Ordinance of Lords and Commons for setling of your Fresbyterian Government will be no sufficient plea for your Actings contrary to the known Laws since made but will prove you Contemners of all Civil power and may run you upon a Premunire But here you seem offended at us for calling Presbytery a common fold What Presbytery a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been before declared to be tearmed a common fold You might have used a more civil expression What Presbytery interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as you do How is that We shall tell you the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of this word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latine Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselm and others taking this word Presbytery for the Function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest and thus Calvin takes it in his Institutes Quod de impositione manuum Presbyterii dicitur â—non ità accipio quasi Paulus de Seniorum collegio loquatur sedhoc nomine ordinationem ipsam intelligo The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests and in this sense likewise in his Comment upon this place it is interpreted by Calvin saying Presbyterium qui hic collectivum nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sâ—nâ—iunt meo judicio Although he is here as flat opposite to his former Judgement as high noon is to midnight And we fear we shall find you as wavering and unsetled in yours when it comes to scanning For divers of the Fathers you say interpret this word as you do and as you have before declared Now how you interpret it and where to find this place where it is before declared That your Interpretation agreeth with sundry of the Fathers we have not yet discovered Indeed we find you quoting Dr Vsher that Learned and Reverend Antiquary to prove the antiquity of Synods and Assemblies and thereby you think he vindicates your Assemblies in our thoughts from all suspition of Novelty We find also by you out of him there quoted certain Fathers as first Ignatius who by Presbytery mentioned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. 14. did understand the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders And for further proof Tertullian is alledged in his generall Apologie for Christians that old-beaten saying by you and your party praesident probati quique Seniores c. Now do these interpret as you do Is Presbytery such as you pretend to be established by Ordinance of Parliament and such as you stand for in your sense is it we say so understood by Dr Vsher and doth he bring in these Fathers speaking in this sense If we press you to stand to their opinion and sense you will run back how may you then for shame assert that their Interpretation is the same with yours Dr Vshers Judgement of Assemblies agreeth with yours and his proposals of Assemblies are the same in substance with yours Whom you quote you say as more likely to sway with us in case we do differ from you in this point And here these Fathers are brought in giving the same Interpretation as you do will you thus confidently assert
setling a Government in the Church we did not judg you to be so irrationall as to be for a Government and yet deny subjection to it whence also it was clear that that was not to be condemned in us which you would justifie in your selves yet about this also in this your Reply there is deep silence But thus we have shewed how you are pleased to severall things in our Answer to say nothing as it will be evident to the Reader you say as good as nothing in sundry places where you would seem to say something and yet you would be thought to say what might be sufficient to give us satisfaction For in your second Paper speaking to one head of our Answer sc that about ruleing Elders you said you would proceed to shew us that lay-Elders as you call them are not meant in the Texts by us alledged briefly thus but more largely hereafter if what is comprehended in this Paper be not judged satisfactory and yet when you should come in this Reply in the next Section to make this appear more fully you say nothing to the Texts we urged but only that they are too generall to prove our ruling Presbytery out of and tell us of wresting the Scriptures with such like expressions suitable to your way of replying all along and which we doubt not but the wise Reader will of himself observe onely we thought it requisite upon the occasion you here give us to mind him of it that he might the better observe you through your whole Reply But we shall now examine whether we had not just cause to be offended at you for your calling Presbytery a common fould One of the reasons which we gâ—ve you mention and that indeed which was the chief yet there was another given in that parenthesis which you touch not on sc That out of respect to the authority ordaining it you might have used a more civil expression But this it seems you had no minde to meddle with the authority of that Parliament that setled the Presbyterian Government being of little esteem with those of you that were either actually engaged with or friends unto the party that fought against it and whereupon it is no great wonder that you omit this reason of our offence But the other you speak to and that with some more freedom then doth become you as we shall shew anon This other reason was this Considering the word Presbytery is a known Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. and interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do as hath been declared before you might have used a more civil expression In answer unto this 1. You tell us the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of this word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. And we must tell you that of what low and cheap abilities soever we may be accounted with you yet this different interpretation of this place whereof you would seem to inform us out of the Fathers we have been long since acquainted with onely when you alledg the Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilacâ— Oecumenius and others and some few of the Latines also taking the word Presbytery for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hand on the new made Bishops or Priests you must hereupon 1. Acknowledg that these Fathers held Bishops and Presbyters to be all one else how could they understand by Presbyters the Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests you do here represent them to explain the word Presbyters by Bishops and the word Bishops by Priests which word is the same in sense with Presbyters which is manifestly to make Bishops and Presbyters all one This we desire to be took notice of because when you may come hereafter to be pressed with it we fear you that are so ready to charge us therewith will your selveâ— run back and eat your own words 2. You confess that they expound this word touching the company of Presbyters which is enough for our vindication when we said that 1 Tim 4 was interpreted by sundry of the Fathers as we do 3. And whereas you say they take it for the company of Presbyters i. e. Bishops who lay hands on the new made Bishops or Priests explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops and again the word Bishops by Priests that is a quipollent to the word Presbyters you must hence be forced to confess that these Fathers acknowledged the Ordination by Presbyters only to be valid they by their explication of themselves by you alleadged making Bishops and Presbyters who without controversie laid on hands all one And therefore if you here be of the mind of these Fathers by your selves produced you must retract your opinion formerly declared with much confidence against the Ordination by Presbyters only There is no place for you here to evade except you shall say that the Fathers by you alleadged and explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops or you expounding them so by Bishops understand such Bishops as were superiour to Presbyters either in Order and Jurisdiction or at least in degree and whom you will have to concurre at the least and preside in the Ordination or it is null and void but this is to say that the Fathers expounding the Scripture do make it a nose of wax and in effect to assert that quidlibet may be drawn ex quolibet For if by Presbyters that are expresly mentioned not Presbyters themselves but another and distinct sort of persons are to be understood never called in Scripture by that name may we not by this rule of exposition make the Scripture speak what we please according to our own fancies and contrary to the express words of the Text To say nothing that this evasion if admitted would not help the matter at all feeing you do here represent the Fathers not only explaining the word Presbyters by Bishops but again explaining the word Bâ—shops by Priests the same word in sense with Presbyters and so making them every way one because they make these words Bishops and Presbyters mutually to explain one another 2. We have done with the different interpretation of the Fathers upon the Text 1 Tim. 4. and now we come to Calvin whom you bring in here as contrary to himself in that Exposition that he gives upon it But we see you have a mind to asperse him though he be so farre above you in regard of that deserved praise that he hath throughout the Churches that it is not your biting at him that can detract any thing from him else you would not have said that in his Comment upon this place he is as farre opposite to his judgement delivered in his institutions as high noon is to midnight For however in his Comment upon this place he first saith Presbyterium qui hic collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum recté sentiunt meo judicio yet he addes Tametsi omnibus
expensis diversum sensum non malé quadrare fateor ut sit nomen officij Ceremoniam pro ipso â—actu posuit and which is the sense that in his Institutions he doth adhere to But Calvin must not have leave from you first to alledg one interpretation as that which in his judgement was probably true and so to approve of it and afterward upon consideration of all things he thought were to be weighed to conclude with another if he do and thus deliver himself in his Comment uâ—on this place he is flat opposite to himself in his institutions as you judge though we believe all equall judges will be more candid toward him then to approve of your censure of him in this particular 3. But it may be this of Calvin was mentioned by you that thence you might take the occasion to have a fling at us For after you had aspersed him you say you fear you shall find us as wavering and unsetled in our judgments when it comes to scanning But wherein For that we said divers of the Fathers did interpret this word Presbytery as we did and as we said had been declared before That which in our answer we said had been declared before referd to what we had before sc in the latter part of the third Section of it alledged out of Dr. Usher in his reduction of Episcopacy unto the forme of Synodicall Government where he proves from several of the Fathers and from the 4th Council of Carthage that Presbyters had a hand in the administration of the Discipline of Christ We produced him alledging the Fathers you here make mention of and you your selves even now alledged many more interpreting the word Presbytery used 1 Tim. 4. in the same sense that we concurre with and which concurrent sense of ours with the Fathers we declared in that short Parenthesis on which you do thus enlarge when we said the Fathers did understand the word Presbytery as we do But now what is it that you lay to our charge or what is it that is our offence with which you here upbraid us You tell us it is because we said the Fathers understood the word Presbytery as we did and because we produce Dr. Usher speaking in this sense But as to the preaching Presbyters and which was all that in the place above-mentioned in our answer we alleadged him to bring in the Fathers to speak for is not this clear and manifest to him that will either peruse what he hath or what you acknowledg we alleadge out of him or shall but consider what Fathers you your selves do say do expound 1 Tim. 4. touching the company of Presbyters i. e. the Bishops that lay on hands And therefore if you press us herein to stand to their sense and interpretation by us alleadged out of Dr. Usher we shall not run back nor have any cause to be ashamed when we assert that their interpretation of the word Presbytery is the same with ours Yes say you we may be ashamed to say so For that Presbytery which we say is established by Ordinance of Parliament and is that which we stand for and which when we speak of the Government of the Church by Presbytery do mean by that word is not the same with that Presbytery which the Fathers understand And this we suppose you say because you judge the Fathers do not comprehend the ruling Elders under the word Presbytery mentioned 1 Tim. 4. To which we answer that where we alledged the Fathers out of Dr. Usher we never produced them for any such purpose as to prove that the ruling Elders were comprehended under the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. only we thought to gain upon you by steps and from what Dr. Usher alledged the Fathers for thence to inferre the antiquity of Assemblies where the Pastors of the Church are members have decisive votes and a right to rule and unto which if you assented we judged then we were so farre agreed and which was the reason why mentioning his proposal of Assemblies we said they were the same in substance with ours and for the reason of which expression we have in this our answer to this your Paper given a full account before and to prevent repetition do referre the Reader thither however the ruling Elders be admitted into them as members although we desire the Reader to take notice and do mind you thereof that we have shewed that it is no novel thing for to admit such to have decisive votes in Synods and Councils that were never ordained to preach and administer the Sacraments and that we have alleadged testimonies of the Ancients for to prove the being of such an Officer as the ruling Elder in their times and consequently that he was a member of the Ecclesiastical consistory But we have thus shewed for what sense of the word Presbytery we alleadged the Fathers out of Dr. Usher as it will be manifest to him that will peruse our answer in that place where we cite them And now we leave it to the Reader to judge whether we have for this merited such language from you as here you give us Do we confidently assert that the Fathers give the same interpretation of the word Presbytery as we dâ— and yet stand to nothing Do we not still own that very sense of the word Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. which you your selves produce sundry of them to give Where then is our wavering or unsetledness in our judgements that you charge us with Or in what do we run back eating our own words as you here say we do But this is but a little matter in comparison for you will have us hereupon to have two hearts and not one ferehead But what were we in your second Paper your dear friends nay more brethren dearly beloved to you in the Lord and are we now become monsters in Christianity having two hearts and have not that common shamefastness that might be found even amongst Heathens having not one forehead We leave it to the Reader to judge how cordial you were in those sugared words you gave us there when you do here thus vent the rancor that was in your hearts and that upon so sseight an occasion doubtless the answer we gave in words to your second Paper could give no just cause for such unchristian and uncivil censures to pass upon us neither was there any thing in that part of our answer to your first Paper which your selves acknowledge was full of civillity towards you unto which you here reply that gave any such occasion the Fathers we quoted out of Dr. Usher being for such a sense of the word Presbytery as we cited them for But your uncharitableness in passing such hard censures upon us is not all for you do also here charge us with sundry manifest untruths For we never quoted Dr. Usher who in his proposals is expresly for moderate Episcopacy which we as expresly cautioned against as our own man whom we declined
Pauli sensum ingredieris nisi Pauli spiritum imbiberis and again Nunquam Davidem intelliges donec ipsâ experientiâ Psalmorum affectus indueris and therefore the exposition of the Church the unanimous consent of Fathers and general Councils are not the best rule for the interpreting of the Scripture Argument 2. Because no men can be sufficient interpreters of the Scripture so as when there is a doubt or difficulty by the interposition of their authority they can remove it and determine the controversie about it because then they should have a dominion over the soul and over faith which the Apostle denies 2 Cor. 1. 24. yea then faith which standeth not in the wisdome of men but in the power of God 1 Cor. 2. 5. should be resolved into the sentence and judgement of men and their sentence be the matter of our faith or the thing that were to be believed and whereon our faith were to be built which were quite to overthrow it and to bring in an humane faith in the room of a divine But on the contrary when there is any controversie about any matter of Religion and so about the interpretation of any Text of Scripture the controversie is to be determined and the doubt and difficulty to be removed not by the authority of any men but by the authority of God and of the Scriptures Whence it was that the Fathers of the Nicene Council disputing with Arrius pressed him with the authority of Scriptures and condemned him by the testimonies thereof And therefore not the unanimous consent of the Fathers and of Councils is to be the rule for the interpreting of Scriptures Argument 3. The unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule for interpreting of the Scriptures because then this should alwayes have been the rule it being of the nature of that which is a rule that it be alwayes one and that sure firme and perpetual but that this was not alwayes a rule is manifest because there was once a time when there were no writings of the Fathers extant nor when there had been any general Councils the Council of Nice that was the first general Council of all other after the death of the Apostles not having been convened till above three hundred yeares after Christ and many of the Fathers having written nothings till four hundred yeares after Christ and some not till five hundred or six hundred yeares after him and so before that time the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils could not be the rule of interpreting Scriptures Besides after the Fathers had written yet there is not in all things an unanimous consent amongst them in their interpreting of Scripture as might be evidenced by several and sundry examples You your selves told us that the Fathers are different in the sense and interpretation of the word Presbytery in the Scripture expression 1 Tim. 4. The Latin Fathers generally as Hierome Ambrose Primasius Anselme and others taking this word Presbytery for the function which Timothy received when he was made Bishop or Priest as you express it The Greek Fathers as Ignatius Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Oecumenius and some others and some few of the Latines also taking it for the company of Presbyters We shall adde only another example Origen Jerome Athanasius Ambrose do so interpret those words of the Apostle Rom. 7. where he saith I am carnal sold under sin c. as that they say Paul doth not there speak concerning himself but in the person of a man not regenerated whereas Augustine will have it to be understood as indeed it ought to be touching a man that is regenerated and so that Paul there speakes of himself as he most certainly doth Many more examples of this kind might be given but by these we may sufficiently conjecture of the rest Argument 4. Adde unto the former that the Fathers have sundry of them erred which is so manifest to him that is conversant in their writings that it will not be denyed as if any should be so impudent as to deny it it is easie to make it good in manifold instances yea some general Councils have erred as that Council held at Ariminum that established the Arrian heresie and the second Council of Ephesus that confirmed the Eutichian heresie and the second Council of Nice that established the worshipping of Images which is forbidden in the Law of God Whereupon the Fathers have acknowledged that the authority of Councils was only so far of force as their determinations are agreeable to Scriptures and that there lyes an appeal from all unto the Scripture Whence that of Athanasius speaking concerning the Arrians of old urging Councils Fruâ—â—ra inquit circumcursitantes praeteâ—unt ob fidem concilia se postulare Divina enim Scriptura perfectior est sufficientior omnibus Conciliis We see he acknowledged the divine Scriptures to be more perfect and sufficient then all Councils But hence it is clear that if both Fathers and Councils have erred the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils cannot be the rule much less the best rule as you speak of interpretinâ— Scriptures Argument 5. Besides sundry of the Fathers and of the writings that go under the names of the most approved Fathers are doubtfull others suppositious and spurious and others corrupted This is clear because there have been many writers heretofore that have been publikely adorned with the title of the Fathers that are now rejected as heterodox and unworthy to be called by the names they go under and whereof if you doubt learned Voetius doth afford you a catalogue That there are also many suppositious and spurious works attributed to the genuine and true Fathers and published with their works which some receive others reject others do doubt concerning is so cleare and manifest that it will not be questioned by any that ever saluted the Fathers writings and had either sound judgement of his own or would believe the censures of the Learned concerning them as of Rivet Erasmus Perkins and others and which is so clear that the Papists themselves as Bellarmine Cajetan and others will not deny it and as if it were to our purpose might be particularly proved by instancing in the suppositious writings attributed to Ignatius Cyprian Basil Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Augustine and others of the most approved Fathers and from all which it will follow that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be a rule for the interpreting of Scripture it being that which will be disputed concerning some whether they be not meer feigned Fathers and concerning sundry of the works that are attributed to the genuine Fathers and in which such Scriptures may be interpreted where there is doubt and difficulty whether they be not suppositious Argument 6. To say nothing of the difficulties or obscurities in the genuine Fathers and their genuine writings by reason of phrases now grown out of use Idiotisms Histories and Antiquities that make them the more hard to us of these
we had dissavoured such a sense as you had put upon us and after we had been at some pains to evidence to you the grosseness of that mistake as well as the heaviness of the charge Common ingenuity would have prompted you otherwise if that might have taken place But you thought at the first you had some great advantage against us when in your first Paper you endeavoured to have rendred us so odious And notwithstanding our Answer given you apprehended you could make out your charge and therefore you were resolved to adhere unto it and do the utmost you could for that purpose And so it seems if we have need of it we must not find any mercy at your hands and seeing it is thus we shall try what justice you here discover and what you have to say to prove us guilty or that our Paper held forth any such a matter as you have striven tooth and nail to fasten upon it 2. We said as your charge was high so it had as little reason in it for the bearing it up and this we say again But you hereupon demand but how do we take it off your selves return the answer to it and say that first we observe that you omit to mention the first part of this Order and unto which that which followes in the two next Orders doth referre This indeed we said and with this we begun but our work here in the first place was chiefly to give an account how you had represented us and to note by the way briefly what was true in it and what was false and wherein it was defective and the deficiency which we took notice of was that which you mention And this however it tended to take off your charge as sc it served to clear up our meaning yet we proceeded farther and gave you our reasons why that could not be our sense which you had put upon our words We told you our practice did speak the contrary that neither from the rules of Grammar Logick or common reason such a construction could be put on our words as you had given that it was an exhortation only that was to be given to the persons catechised to present themselves before the Eldership and no more not so much as an admonition in order to further censure in case not hearkned to and which two we proved unto you were different things we also told you that that which followes this order which you thus wrest is so limited that it could not with any colour be applied to those that being exhorted by the Minister to present themselves to the Eldership should still refuse For we said it spake expresly of such that should neither hearken to private admonition nor the admonition of the Eldership that their Names should be published openly in the Congregation and therefore of those onely who had been appointed to be admonished according to Christs rule Matth. 18. in the fourth Order and which were onely such as did forsake the publick Assemblies and the scandalous who had been mentioned in the foregoing order And yet to make the matter more plain we added that the persons that were to have their Names published and upon obstinacy to be proceeded against unto excommunication were such as were sit to be admonished by the Eldership and reject that admonition before they were further to be proceeded against which could not be conceived from any thing in our Paper to be the case of those who being exhorted by the Minister to present themselves to the Eldership refused to come before them These severall reasons the Reader may finde in the last Section of our Answer however not laid down altogether in this very forme and manner unto which yet you answer not according to your usual practice in this Paper passing over the arguments that we urged and saying nothing to them and hereby it was that we endeavoured chiefly to take off your charge and thought it was the fairest way to do it the rendring you our reasons to clear it up unto you what the true sense of our words was being the most rational way we could take therein We likewise on these and other grounds mentioned in our answer proceeded to answer the reasons that we apprehended might induce you to put that construction upon our expressions which you did and which the Reader in our answer may see particularly and to some of which you here say something the strength whereof we shall examine anon And then in the close of all we said we had thus farre removed all imaginable grounds in our apprehension for this your groundless charge that our purpose was to excommunicate all knowing and blameless persons if they presented not themselves before the Eldership And then we further added and said that we should now proceed to examine what you produced for the supporting of your selves in it and which we did accordingly as the Reader may observe And thus we endeavoured to take off your charge and of which we give the Reader an account that so he may discern the better how groundless it was But now as to what you here begin with hence it is clear that upon what account soever it was that we mentioned your omitting of the first part of our Order unto which we said that which followed in the two next Orders did referre it was not any fair way in you to do so that your omission being of what tended to clear up our sense and meaning which was thereby darkened and obscured But this though we had complained of in our answer and that justly yet herein you answer nothing for your selves and so still remain unacquitted from that blame we had in this respect laid upon you 3. And now whereas you grant that that which followes in the two next Orders refers to the former part of the fourth Order which you omitted but then say not to that only but to the latter branch of that Order also touching the catechised persons This is that which we must constantly deny And however you assert it yet seeing you neither answer our reasons to the contrary which we gave you and have here briefly recited nor bring forth here any thing to make good your assertion you cannot reasonably expect that all men will believe what you affirm in this particular although you your selves notwithstanding all that hath been or shall be said should still have such a faith And therefore it will not follow by that our Order that if the catechised persons refused to present themselves before the Eldership the Minister must exhort and admonish them in order to the publishing of their Names in the Congregation and excommunication in case they should persist in such refusall and which is the sense that you put upon that which was appointed to be done by the Minister toward catechised persons all that was appointed to be done by the Minister being onely to exhort them that were found to be competent in
knowledg and blameless in life to present themselves to the Eldership without the least hint of any further process that was to be against them in case they hearkned not unto that exhortation 4. In your first Paper as we have told you you recited omitting the former part of our fourth Order only the latter and that in these words viz. That the Minister when he catechiseth the severall families shall exhort such persons in them as he findes of competent knowledg and blameless in life that they present themselves to the Eldership that they may be admitted to the Lords Supper Then you come in with your comment upon it and say But what if they will not present themselves before the Eldership the Minister say you must exhort and admontsh This we said in our Answer was wholly of your adding and after we had rendred our reasons why that part of our Order could not be understood as you represented it in your Paper and had answered all imaginable objections in our apprehensions we said this again And here we desire it might be took notice of that we did not only say this but gave our reasons for it and must after so long time of consideration say so still But that it might here appear upon what ground we said this though the Reader might of himself find it in our Answer we will recite so much out of it as may make this evident We coming to examine what you produced for the supporting of your selves in what you had charged us with said we found something in your comment upon our words which was not in our text For you said what if after the Minister hath exhorted them they shall not present themselves before the Eldership the Minister say you must exhort and admonish them But this we said as we told you was wholly your own and none of ours And then we added our reasons in these words For first though we do not deny that if upon the first exhortation they do not present themselves to the Eldership it being in order to their regular and orderly admission to the Lords Supper the Minister may exhort and exhort them again because they continue in the neglect of that which is their duty yet there was no such thing said by us But then to make the ground of your charge something more colourable you added another word which was not at all used by us We said the Minister was to exhort and that was all But you add and say He shall exhort and admonish But we said we had told you before to exhort and admonish were different things But here without ever so much as attempting to say any thing to these reasons you fall foul upon us and say why will you thus so boldly averre so manifest an untruth But if you had considered how many untruths you had your selves boldly asserted in this Paper you would have been more sparing then here again thus groundlesly to have charged us with asserting of untruth We do not deny but the Order is express as you say That the Minister when he catechizeth the severall families shall exhort such persons in them as he finds to be of competent knowledg and are blameless in life to present themselves to the Eldership c. as we do also grant as you do also here hint that we did confess that the Minister was to exhort and that was all and which is all the reason you here bring to make out the charge against us of asserting a manifest untruth But yet we must still say that the comment upon our words by you made both the question moved by you sc what if after the Minister hath exhorted them they shall not present themselves before the Eldership and your Answer by your selves given to it sc The Minister must exhort and admonish is wholly your own and none of ours both because there was no such a Question moved by us or any such an Answer given to it and also because you adding in your Answer made to that Question the word admonish to the word exhort saying He must exhort and admonish did deprave and corrupt the sense of the word exhort in which it was taken by us and by that addition made it equivalent to an admonition in order to further censure which was spoken of in the beginning of the fourth Order and to which the two following Orders touching publishing Names and excommunication in point of obstinacie did referre These reasons to which you here make no reply we gave you in our Answer as by what we have recited out of it the Reader may perceive whence it is manifest that that comment you made upon our words however the word exhort be found therein which is perverted by you from the sense in which it was taken by us is wholly your own and none of ours 5. But upon this you return your wonted flouts and say But oh the learned Criticks of our age to exhort and admonish are two different things which we confound together taking them for one and the same which is in us a radical and grand mistake Unto which we say You had approved your selves to have been the more learned men if you had replied to what we had presented to you in our Answer proving the difference betwixt an admonition in order to further censure if not hearkned to and an exhortation onely But according to your ordinary practice in matters of this nature when you should return your answer to an argument you come not to this at all but pass it over putting it off with a scoff And here that it may appear to the Reader that we did not without some reason distinguish betwixt an admonition in order to further censure and an exhortation onely and that therefore your scoffs are reasonless we are forced to recite something further out of our Answer Having told you That it was an exhortation onely that was appointed to be given to the persons catechized to present themselves to the Eldership and no more not so much as an admonition in order to any further censure if not hearkned unto we added and said And here we observe that this is one main ground of your mistake that you do not distinguish betwixt an admonition that is in order to a further censure if it prevail not and which was mentioned in the first part of the fourth Order and which you wholly omit and an exhortation but confound these together taking them for one and the same and which is here a radicall and grand mistake For doubtless in a thousand cases that might be instanced in there may be place for an exhortation when though ineffectuall there is not place for an admonition that is in order to a further Church censure in case of obstinacy as it is taken by us here Men may be exhorted to examine and prove themselves whether they he in the faith to self-examination before they come to the Lords Table to grow
in grace and in the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to keep their hearts with all diligence and to infinite more things of the like nature and which are duties they should apply themselves unto when yet there is no room for an admonition in order to any Church censure in case it be not obeyed Nay when men may perceive there is not that care that should be in persons in regard of some of their words and carriages there may be place for an exhortation and yet for no admonition in order to any Church censure in case the exhortation be not hearkned unto if there be not any further scandalous outbreakings of corruption that may merit it Church censures are not to passe upon men for every fault nor against such as be guilty of such sins of infirmity as are commonly found in the children of God as in that case by the rule of our Government it is provided against And yet an exhortation to righteousness and watch fullness in such cases is not useless And so it may be well appointed by us that the Minister should exhort such as are found by him to be persons of knowledg and are in conversation blameless to present themselves to the Eldership that so they might be regularly and orderly admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an Ordâ—nance that is not to be sleighted as it is by many but upon too sleight grounds as they will be found to be when they are to be tried in the day of account and yet no proceedings by Church censures against such persons in case an exhortation prevail not Thus far we have recited what we answered but now what is it that is replied to all this not one word but only a bitter scoff as if that were sufficient to answer every argument But we beleeve all sober persons will see you have not therein very learnedly answered us however scornfull men whose censures we matter not may therein applaud you But yet to clear up the matter further however we judg all ingenuous persons will be fully satisfied with the bare recitall of the Answer that had been given because we see you have put our words upon the rack and stretcht them upon the tenters till they have quite lost their sense in which we used them and that you are resolved to deal as strictly with us as you can where you apprehend you have any advantage We must here open this matter a little more fully And first We shall not deny that the word admonish is sometimes taken so largely as that it is the same with the word exhort and so some of the Texts you urge may prove c. Acts 20. 31. Rom. 15. 14. Col. 3. 16. in which Texts the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that doth properly signifie to admonish is used And yet we shall not contend but the sense of it there may be the same with the word that doth properly signifie to exhort as also when the Apostle in another of the Texts cited by you viz. Titus 3. 1. saith using another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put them in mind though it should be rendred admone illos that word may imply an exhortation And again we shall as readily grant that the word exhort is sometimes taken so largely as that it may comprehend under the latitude of it that which is usually understood by the word admonish strictly taken as in Rom. 12. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that exhorteth on exhortation In which words the whole office of the Pastor is held forth who was not only to exhort but to admonish reprove and comfort also as there might be occasion But yet though these words are sometimes used thus promiscuously they are also distinguished To admonish taken strictly and especially in an Ecclasiasticall sense is to reprehend in regard of some fault and so it is taken 1 Thes 5. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e warne or admonish them that are unruly and is there distinguished from the word admonish taken in a more large sense as appears from ver 13. immediately going before Know them that are over you in the Lord and admonish you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and likewise from the word exhort taken strictly as appears from the same ver 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we exhort you brethren and yet doubtless the Apostle did not by that exhortation admonish those he writes unto to warne or admonish the unruly in that sense as he would have those unruly ones to be admonished But to make the matter more plain we may here distinguish concerning admonition There is a meer charitative admonition and an admonition in order unto further censure if not hearkned unto This latter as we have told you is not to be given for such infirmities as are commonly found in the children of God no nor yet for smaller faults or injuries which Christian prudence love and peaceableness require an overlooking and passing by and of which Mat. 18. 15. is not to be understood but the offence there grounding the admonition is a greater evil endangering the soul of the doer scandalizing the brother seeing it and lying as a stumbling stone in his Christian course and such a sin that for the nature of it is fit in case of insuccessefullness of admonition to be brought before the Church as herein our reverend brethren the associated Ministers of the County of Essex do very well deliver themselves in their late Agreement pag. 14. n. 5. This admonition that is in order to Church censure is either of private members and which may be also called brotherly and charitative or else it is of the Officers of the Church and which is either given by any one or more of the Officers severally which yet in them is authoritative or else by them all joyntly and which is the admonition of the Church spoken of Mat. 18. ver 17. which is another of the Texts you here mention although it is most orderly that this admonition be given by the Minister or one of them where there be two or more in the name of the rest of the Church-Officers that give the offender this admonition But besides this admonition that is in order to Church censure in case it prevail not there is also a meer charitative admonition that may be for lesser faults that yet are not to be censured with Church censures in case there be not reformation Although there are to be endeavours to redress such offences and which kind of meer charitative admonitions may be comprehended under the latitude of that rule laid down Gal. 6. 1. You your selves do not here deny but there may be a private admonition that is not in order to Church censure when upon your quoting Calvins words on Titus 3. 10. you say seeming to approve of what you take to be his meaning though you misinterpret him as we shall shew anon not every private admonition is in
thereason of it was a scornfull laughter ha ha he But this answer was so light that when you Printed your Papers it seems you were ashamed of it and therefore thought good to admit it 2. In the next place you write our Orders and having mentioned the former part of the fourth that speakes of the admonition that was to be given to the forsakers of publick Assemblies and the scandalous you express that which indeed was our sense there and say thus farre is in order to Church censures which we grant was our meaning Then you come to mention the other part touching the Ministers exhorting of the Catechized persons and say of this as if we had therein asserted some absurd thing The Ministers Exhortation is not so much as private Admonition But we are not ashamed of this Assertion it being that we still own And here it had become you to have opposed it with some Arguments but this it may be you thought you had done sufficiently before when you had told us and took the pains to prove that which we never denied viz. That to admonish and exhort are presumptuously used But we have proved unto you that these two taken properly are distinguished Admonition properly being a reprehension in regard of some fault whereas an exhortation is a more gentle way of proceeding and used in the exciting or perswading unto duty and for which there may be place as we have told you in a thousand Cases where there is not to any admonition in order unto censure in case of unsuccessfullness and in which sense admonition is taken here And now we go on to what follows Though here we observe that you having recited the fourth Order at large when you should come to recite the fifth do it not only in part and therefore that the matter here may be the more clearly understood that though your imperfect recitall of it may be darkned to an undiscerning Reader we shall mention it fully The Order was thus That if they will neither hearken to private adminition nor the admonition of the Eldership their names shall be published openly in the severall Congregations and they warned before all to reforme The Question now is as you here say to whom this Relative they refers It is indeed now a question because you have made it one though it was at first cleare enough to any ordinary understanding where there was not a spirit of opposition and a desire to cavill but if there had been any doubt yet in our Answer we cleared it by declaring our sense and giving our reasons why our words were to be so construed But notwithstanding we had so done because you are not willing to be satisfied you will have it to be a question still And seeing with you it must be so let us see what you can make of it 1. You would seem to returne what our Answer to this question was but you deface it and when you have done giving your censure of it But here we desire the Reader to observe 1. That you would by this answer which you say we give make the persons diverse that are spoken of in the latter part of the fourth Order viz. Such as being found competent in knowledge and blameless in life were to be exhorted by the Minister to present themselves to the Eldership in Order to their admission to the Lords Supper because of the double qualification there mentioned as requisite to make them capable of the Ordinance which is here your first errour 2. Having distinguished the persons that we made one and expressed that disjunctively not to the last they as you are pleased to express it nor last but one not to the blameless in life or competent in knowledge which we expressed it copulatively such as are of a competent knowledge and blameless in life You in the next place tell of Persons mentioned in two Orders long before to whom as you would have us to say the Relative they referres and not to the nearest or nearest but one Whereas the Persons to whom we say this Relative they in this fifth Order referres are those mentioned in the former part of the fourth Order immediately before viz. Those who were to be privately admonished according to Christs order Mat. 18. And who were either the scandalous or forsakers of publick Assemblies and which though they had been mentioned in the second and third Orders yet were the same persons that were still spoken of in the beginning of the fourth Order and to which the Relative they by us there used did referre Here then is another error And yet we denied and do still that the Relative they in this fifth Order did referre to the nearest Persons mentioned in the fourth Order which yet you will stil have in regard of their two-fold qualification to be diverse Persons which errour we noted before viz. the Catechized Persons but to the Persons mentioned in the beginning of the fourth Order only 3. When you tell of this Relative they mentioned in that fifth Order referring not to the last they but to two other they's these expressions being your own and none of ours you do not herein approve your selves to be very good Grammarians the Relative not referring at any time to another Relative but to an Antecedent if men will speake properly however the Antecedent to which it refers may be spoken of and implyed in a Relative going before and as in this place it is Here then is your third errour It is a wonder to thinke that wittie men and such as had triumphed over us as poore illiterate Persons but a little before should in so few words have erred so much And yet we cannot judge that the Reader will imagine you have in any of your Papers discovered any such depth in other Learning As that if you had been so wholly taken up therein that you had thereby forgot your Rudiments you were to be thereupon excused 4. When we said the Relative they must referre not to the next but the remoter Antecedent and which was that only that was asserted by us we did not Magisterially assert this but gave our reasons for this Assertion though you indeed Magisterially reject it not returning any answer to the Argument we gave you for that construction given of our words And therefore your censure of us Satis haec magisteraliter may well by us be sleighted being without all reason 2. We have noted what we thought ours fit to be observed in the answer you would represent us to have given to the question we shall now see what it is wherewith you oppose our Assertion 1. And first you tell us You understood as you do still that the Relative they may referre to the remotest viz. to those that forsake the publick Assemblies in the second Order and the scanaalous in the third Order mentioned but not excluding the meanest Antecedent viz. men of competent knowledge and blameless in life Here you
Church government or our own practice is not at all to your purpose neither doth it if it had been as you represented which yet we have shewed you is otherwise prove what it concerned you to have made good viz. That those that present not themselves to the Eldership upon the Exhortation given by the Minister to that purpose were according to our Order to have had their names published in the Congregations and they warned before all to reforme Which yet was your high charge and accusation of us but wanting support of it self falls to the ground And hereupon it is manifest that it is not we that go about to mince the matter or that seek to colour over our actions with a seeming deniall of all or to evade what we still practice but are ashamed to own as you here without the least shadow of proofe affirme of us neither is there any thing to be found in our Answer that hath any tendency this way we there professedly defending and justifying all that we practised But it is you who having laid grevious things to our charge which you could not prove would now represent us as if we did as you say that so you might seem to say some thing though when it comes to be scan'd it is nothing but a plaine discovery that though your accusation was loud and strong your proof is low weake and empty and such as vanisheth into Aire For all the descants as you call them that we made on either Nounes or Pronouns was to shew that the Relative they in the fifth Order could not refer to the Catechized persons who being found knowing and blamelesse by the Minister though they should not according to the Exhortation of the Minister present themselves to the Eldership yet were not to have had their names published to the Congregation nor for that warned before all to reforme and which because you saw you could not make out do therefore having changed the state of the Question fall upon our practice and tell us we mince it or are ashamed of it though this be also untrue and that which you do not prove against us neither and so are doubly guilty in this one particular of false accusation But when to cleare up the sense of our words we had told you in our Answer that the Relative did often referre to the remoter and not the nearer Antecedent and must do so when the matter spoken of did require it and this you here call a weake senselesse and unheard of descanting on Nounes and Pronouns You do hereby proclaime your own ignorance the like descanting if it must be so called on Nounes and Pronounes being observed by the Learned as we have shewed you to open and expound the sense of Scripture and which you your selves must acknowledge or you shall never be able rightly in some places to understand them as from the instances we have given is manifest And you do hereby further discover your impotent passions else you would not have given us such language as we here as but too often throughout your Paper meet with As touching what follows to the conclusion we have already said what is sufficient for our own vindication We have spoken out and owned what is in truth our pactice and which we have told you is to admit of none to the Sacrament but by the juridicall act of the Eldership this being that which is requisite and necessary to be observed as we have told you or the Governement is indangered to be quite overthrown And yet none are debarred by us from the Sacrament that are knowing and blamelesse because they present not themselves before the Eldership which is that you would gladly fasten upon us though herein you labour in vain but the ignorant and scandalous only Although we here must minde you of what we told you even now viz. That this is not the Question that is now disputed betwixt us Neither do vve need upon any practice of ours or any other account whatsoever wave the Ordinance we act upon as repealed and vvhich however you do yet we must not nor be perswaded thereunto either by your threats or intreaties having proved sufficiently that this Ordinance is of force and strength to this very day that and what we have heretofore said concerning the civill sanction of our Governement is so much to the purpose that it makes this forth And so to conclude we do not question but whatever your conceits may be to the contrary others will determine that your high charge having not been supported by reason is of no vveight to the depressing of us much lesse the Presbyterian governement and vvhich though vve had fallen not having been able to have vindicated our selves from vvhat vve had been accused vvith vvould notwithstanding have been far above any depression of yours However vve believe it vvas the summa totalis and the uâ—shot of all that you chiefly aimed at in all your Papers though how you have therein acquitted your selves will be manifest enough to the attentive and impartiall Reader vvho vvill easily discerne by vvhat hath been said that you have no otherwise indeavoured to depresse this Governement but by aspersing it vvhen you vvanted Arguments vvherewith to oppose it by taking no notice of the reasons vve urged vvhen you could not Answer them and passing over many things in our Answer in silence saying nothing to them by betaking your selves to the Popish principles and practices refusing to have the controversie touching Church governement determined by the Scriptures and railing on us as Scripturists for contending to have the matter tried by this Judge by asserting severall manifest untruths and sometimes palpably contradictng your selves by falsifying and abusing approved Protestant Authors vvho favoured not the cause you plead for and aspersing others by perverting our words and mangling them vvhen you had a minde to render us absurd by many uncivill and unchristian expressions which you have used toward us to the reproaching of us by your severall bitter and reasonless scoffes jeeres uncharitable censures and slanders laying to our charge severall things for which you bring no proof and venting your distempered passions against us only because we are for Presbyterian and against Episcopall governement and to summe up all in a word by hard words but soft and weake Arguments But all wise and sober persons will conclude you fighting against us and the Presbyterians governement with such weapons as these tooke not the way either to depress it or us but have greatly hereby depressed your selves and which we mind you of that you seeing your manifold errours herein might be humbled for them and prevent that by unfeigned repentance which otherwise you have cause to feare and whereof we have all along in faithfullness warned you as there hath been occasion offered throughout your Papers though thereby what is now presented to the publick view is swelled to the greater bulke If this our pains that hath