Chapter 76

THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO, IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.

1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be church governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an argument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil government, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the same persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another exception against the prelate, that he assumed the power of church government and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which was much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the involving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles, which we avoid by ours?

2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge the church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his third rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will “get us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough.” Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to myself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine (without government) will obtain the magistrate’s love, “more honour, more maintenance:” something for shame he behoved to add of the punishing of sin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be troubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the magistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in the Erastian electuary.

3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed “without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of the people,” _Epist. to the Parliament._ This is prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.

4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of God for that calling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,—a distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the Jewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the ancient church who were not preaching elders, _Assert. of Episcop. by Divine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,—and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his _Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to “set up classes, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach the word,” &c. Such classes, I dare say, the prelates themselves will admit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest, yielded as much.

Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government distinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under pagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is Christian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift’s plea against the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.

6. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, That granting the incestuous Corinthian to be excommunicated, “the decree was Paul’s and not the Corinthians’,” and that it no way appertained to them under the notion of a church. This is Saravia’s answer to Beza, _de Tripl. Epist. Genere_, p. 42, 43, yea, the Papists’ answer to Protestant writers, by which they would hold up the authority and sole jurisdiction of the prelates, as the apostles’ successors, to excommunicate.

They do not more agree with the prelatical principles than they differ from the votes and ordinances of Parliament, which is the other point that I have here undertaken to discover; and I shall do it by the particular instances following:—

First, The ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for the calling of an assembly of divines, beginneth thus: “Whereas, among the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is, or can be, more dear unto us than the purity of our religion, and for that as yet many things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the church, which do necessarily require a farther and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained: and whereas it hath been declared and resolved, by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the present church government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., is evil and justly offensive, &c.; and that, therefore, they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement with the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad.” After it was resolved and voted in both the honourable houses of Parliament, and sent as one of the propositions to the treaty at Uxbridge, “That many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government.” Now, therefore, what can be more contrary to the votes and ordinances of Parliament than that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that there ought to be no ecclesiastical government beside civil magistracy, except we please to take preaching and baptism under the name of government, as if, forsooth, the Parliament had meant, by presbyterial government, Parliamentary government; or as if, by the purity of religion in point of the discipline of government of the church, they had intended nothing but their civil rights and privileges; or as if the wise and honourable Houses had understood themselves no better than to intend that for a nearer agreement with the church of Scotland and other reformed churches, which is the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.

Secondly, In the same ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an assembly of divines, it is ordained that the assembly, after conferring and treating among themselves touching the liturgy, discipline, and government of the church, or vindication and clearing of the doctrine of the same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the matters aforesaid to both or either of the houses of Parliament, yet Mr Hussey, _Epist. to the Parliament_, p. 36, will not have classes to put anything to the vote, but to hold on the disputes till all end in accord, and in unanimous consent of the whole clergy. But how can the Assembly, after disputes, express their sense, and deliver their opinions and advice to the Parliament, as they are required, except they do it by putting to the vote? Mr Coleman himself hath consented, yea, sometime called to put things to the vote; and as for classes, will any man imagine, that when both houses of Parliament did vote “that many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government,” their meaning was, that the classical presbytery shall only schoolwise dispute, and put nothing to the vote; or that the classical presbytery shall in common dispense the word and sacraments to many congregations, and that either the classical presbytery shall go to the several congregations successively, or the many congregations come to the classical presbytery, for preaching and baptising? I admire what opinion Mr Hussey can have of the Parliamentary vote concerning presbyterial government.

Thirdly, Mr Hussey, _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 4, 5, will have ministers placed “without any regard to the allowance and disallowance of the people,” yet the ordinance of Parliament, for giving power to classical presbyteries to ordain ministers, doth appoint that he who is examined and approved by the presbytery shall be “sent to the church or other place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and conveniency), there to preach three several days, and to converse with the people, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and may have time and leisure to inquire into, and the better to know his life and conversation,” after which the ordinance appointeth public notice to be given, and a day set to the congregation to put in what exceptions they have against him.

Fourthly, Mr Hussey in that _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 5, saith, “Oh that this honourable court would hasten to set up classes consisting only of ministers whose work should be only to preach the word, and weekly meet in schools of divinity!” Here is a double contradiction to the ordinances of Parliament, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for choosing of ruling elders, and speedy settling of presbyterial government, it is appointed that ruling elders shall be members both of classes and synodical assemblies, together with the ministers of the word. Again, the ordinance about suspension of scandalous persons from the sacrament appointeth other work to classes, beside preaching and disputing, namely, the receiving and judging of appeals from the congregational eldership. Mr Coleman, in _Male Dicis_, p. 12, professeth that he excludeth ruling elders from church government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the Parliament hath voted “that many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government,” so their votes do commit that government to pastors and ruling elders jointly.

I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I showed in my _Nihil Respondes_ that Mr Coleman hath abused the honourable houses of Parliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing. The honourable houses, in their wisdom, will soon observe whether such men, whose avouched tenets are so flatly repugnant to the parliamentary votes and ordinances, are like to be good pleaders for Christian magistracy.