all the weapons wounds of such as have impugned those principles And upon the debate about the Covenants and Separation the only presents us with soomwhat of their old musty store who have appeared in this cause of late whose notions are more crude after all this mans re-cocting a convincing proof that there was in the first conâ—…oction ane indigestible error Next I find some what more of a seren temper lesse of the sarcastick scolding strain then what hath tinctured his fellew-actors upon this sceen who have bravely scolded it out against the Presbyterians even to a non ultra of that Thersites artifice although now and then he puts out his litle sting too this way In soom things also his Ingenuity deservs its praise in advancing Prelacy so neer the popes miter both in his pleadings from the Iewish Priesthood from antiquity wherein he hath purtrayed the beast in exacter lineaments then soom moresmooth pleaders His Character of the term Curat viz on that serves the cure though not the Minister of the place and of their preaching upon shorter texts that it is a racking of the Text and of their brains to find out matter is honest and apposit for which the Presbyterians do owe him thanks but thereby their doubts in the point of Prelacy the present Separation are so strengthned and like to grow and especially by his feeble resolutions that they verily judge he shall never prove the Aedipus but is in extreme hasart to be devouted in this encounter Actaeon-like to be torn in pieces by the kennell of his own pretended resolutions and Arguings retorted and hunted back upon him They do also look upon the Dialogizing Method so much pleasing him some of his fellowes as a cover but now very dilucid and transparent to hide the childish sophistry of disguising the true state of questions and the strength of Presbyterian Arguments while they must fight with no weapons but of their adversaries choice and measuring When the Knight enters the lists with a huge invincible gyant the encounter looks very unequall and fatall like to the sprightly litle Combatant but the Romance maker can so order the seene that he shall be sure to lay his adversary all a long and come off victorious Our Adversaries have too long ridicul'd our serious Theologicall debates with their play-bookes wherein they do but render themselves ridiculous what hath the chaff to do with the wheat When will they offer a fair and formall enucleation of this controversy and discusse our Arguments long since offered unto them which do stand to this day unanswered How long will they beg Principles beg concessions and rear up soaring like Arguments upon a Chimaericall fundation and then Accost their credulous hearers or readers with Thrasonik boasts and Rhetoricall Rhodomontadoes which are as insipid and tastlesse to the discerning as the Artificiall fruit to the hungry pallat Reader for the design of this undertaking I have this to say that although I have as litle as many men coveted such appearances yet have been perswaded to be thus publick upon this occasion that having casually met with this Pamphlet after it had for a considerable time travelled up and down I judged it expedient to employ upon it some solitary houres wherein I was taken offfrom other employments both to prevent languishing and to satisfy the desire of a friend whom I highly esteem as likewayes to undeceive some simpler and lesse discerning readers who seem'd to be taken with this piece which essay after a considerable times lurking coming into the hands of some welwishers to our Zion I did at last yield to their importunity in reference to the publication Whatever entertainment this may meet with and how keen soever the darts of malicious reproach may prove which are levelled at me Hic murus Aheneus esto I have this shield that I can say it before the heart searcher without heart condemning that as I intended herein a vindication of Truth and duty and according to my measure and capacity to give this testimony for it to the strengthning of a poor afflicted remnant contending for the same so in writing these sheets I had an eye upon the father of lights for his help and presence and dare not deny but that this was found in some good measure accordingly And in the perusal of what is here offered unto publick view which was not at first directly my intention I would have thee looking after these with other emprovements First thou may discover what a honourable cause wee now contend for even the Crown dignity and Royal prerogative of Jesus Christ his glorious supremacy over his own house in appointing its officers lawes ordinantes for the true frame of his tabernacle according to the pattern shewed upon the mount for that Government of his house delivered in his perfect and glorious testament sealed with his blood for fealty loyalty to this King of Kings in keeping his Covenant into which this nation and Church so solemnly entered for the walls and bulwarks of this City of God in opposition to antichristian underminers and invaders thereof for these solemn Assemblies of his saints upon the ancient grounds and principles of our Reformation so much now aspersed by devouring tongues the ceasing wherof in our Zion ought to engage to sorrow and a lamenting after our provoked Lord now hiding himself from us Enemies have often invaded him upon his his throne of grace and professed friends have not sincerely aproach'd unto it Next As to our adversaries pleading against us in this quarrel thou mayest discover first that they are snar'd as by the works of their hands so by the Words of their lips and fall before the rebound of their our Arguments this mans pleadings against us especially upon the point of separation levelling so clearly against himself that such who impartially read him upon his point may straight entertain this reflection It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks and that its easy to pull this Egyptians spear out of his hand and kill him with his own spear Secondly thou may see what monstrous issues they are driven unto in the defence of their cause what a chain of contradictions absurdities they have twisted to wind themselves out of their inextricable Labirinth that they hatch cockatric eggs obstinat maintaining of one absurdity begets a hundred so true is that saying prophecy evil men shall waxe worse worse deceiving being deceived How palpably have they wrested the holy Scriptures to shift the convictions thereof and make some shift of answer How laxe and absurd are their new principles in point of Oaths resolving their strength into the Magistrates arbitriment and Lawes besides other odd posterns which they have opened to escape allobligations thereby if their matter be not indispensably necessary which with them is in a great measure determined by the Law What a monstrous Chaos of more then Infidel-barbarity and confusion
de universae fraternitatis suffragio lib. 1. Ep. 2. By the chose of the whole Brethren From the Epistle of the Council of Nice to those of Alexandria Lybia c. which is extant with Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9. Where he shews that those who succeed in the room of the dead Prelat must upon these terms succeed si digni viderentur populus eligeret if they appear worthy and the people shall chuse That Chrysostom succeeded to Nectarius postquam in hoc Clerus populus suffragia sua contulissent after he was called and chosen by the Clergy and people Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. That Evagrius was chosen suffragiis or by votes and suffrages Socrates lib. 6 cap. 13. That Augustine called again and again for the people's consent as to his successour Hic mihi vâ—…stra assentatione opus est Fâ—… 11. To which may be added a very impartial witness Bishop Bilson Perpetual Government Chap. 15. page 434. Where he shewes that the people had their right in chusing their Pastours Onely to prevent mistake upon these passages we would take notice that this suffrage here atribute generally and indiscriminatim to the people and clergy must be understood pro uniuscujusque modulo and according to every ones capacity for the reasons above rendred Since both Ministers right in ordination and also the right of a juridicall eldership in churches constitute in reference to the election of Ministers hath as we have shown a clear foundation in Scripture and antiquity But of this enough 2. We have also proven that we are not concerned nor in the least constrained by our principles and practice in this case to null a Church or Ministry where this call is wanting it being enough for us that the want of it is a corruption rendring a Ministry not so pure as it ought to be and that our case being a case of competition betwixt Ministers holding fast this piece of our Covenanted Reformation and a party of Schismatick Innovators opposing and rejecting it and turning back to the vomit of this and other corruptions after they have been seen cast out and vowed against We are upon the grounds of our Reformation and vows sufficiently warranted to leave these innovators and adhere to the faithfull Ministry 3. As we did shew that the granting of Curats their having the essence of a ministerial call will not infer our hearing and owning them in every case and especially in ours which himself must grant unless he fall in a palpable contradiction so it s more then he can prove that this Church of Scotland from its first beginning till 1649 had pratronages Which being founded on the Common law and several ages posterior to the pure Church in this Nation planted as we heard without Prelats by some of Johns Disciples how absurd is it to assert that it had Patronages from the beginning Finally whatever tollerance of these corruptions before they be removed may be pleaded for yet such as have embraced them now yea as a badge of owning this deformation of our once glorious Church are certainly to be disowned by all who would hold fast their integrity For what he adds anent our owning Presbyterian Ministers adhering to our Reformation tho they have been presented by Patrons It 's both impertinent to the point and already answered For it s not this simpliciter or only which we ground upon in this practice as is often said but the principles state practice and design of Conformists in this complex case Beside who sees not the difference betwixt a Minister owning the principles of our Reformation and disowning this with other corruptions although the times necessity did constrain to make use of patronages in their first entry when our Church was as yet groaning under this bondage and such as owne this corruption both in judgment and practice after it is rejected and the Church delivered from it yea and owne it as an express badge of Conformity to abjured Prelacy Sure they are very blind who see not the difference betwixt these The Doubter alleadges that patronages are abjured in the Covenant and the Informer desires to see in in what place But if he will open his eyes and but read either our National or solemn league he will easily see this for patronages being a popishcorruption contrary to the Word of God as we have proved it 's abjured among the rites or Customs brought into this Church without or against the word And likewise in being condemned in the 2. book of discipline to which we vow adherence as unto the discipline of this Church it must be in that respect also abjured And as contrary to sound doctrine the power of godliness and Government of this Church exprest in the 2. book of Discipline it is abjured in the solemn League wherein we likewise vow adherence to that discipline But saith he Since patronages were in use aster the Covenant why was not this breach discerned and was this Church perjured all that time Ans. The forecited act of Parliament shewes that this corruption had been long by this Church groan'd under and long before that time declared and testified against both in the 2. book of discipline and by assemblies thereafter and if the interposing of the civill Magistrat being necessary to remove this the Church still untill that time groan'd under this burden where can he fixe his challenge The next argument of his Doubter for not hearing Curats is that they are ordained by Bishops To which he answers 1. That all whom we refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops He means those who were ordained by the Presbytery and have conformed Ans. 1. We have already told him that it is not the Episcopal ordination simply and abstractedly from our case which is our ground of not owning them but the Episcopal ordination of perjured intruders breaking our union and reformation and ejecting our faithfull Pastours and testified against by our presbyterian protestant Church which they have thus intruded upon 2. We have told him that the concession of their lawfull ordination for substance will no more plead for our owning them in this complex case then their concession of the lawfull ordination of Presbyterian ministers will infer an obligation upon Conformists to owne them which is a consequence that they all deny And that they must grant that owning of the episcopal ordination in this complex case is different from a simple owning of it in relation to hearing Even as Presbyterian ministers are acknowledged by conformists to have a lawfull ordination for substance whom notwithstanding they will not suffer the people to hear 3. Those who were so ordained and have conformed having as I said eatenus or in so far renounc'd their Presbyterial ordination and adhering to the prelatical as the more perfect this their disowning of our reformation especially aggreged by their perjury and apostacy puts them in the same yea a worse condition as to our hearing
themselves into which wee hopâ—… will be aboundantly clear to the understanding peruser of what I have offered upon that head and the state of the question as It is exhibited how clear and full our confessions and principles are in asserting the due right of Magistracy as well as of a true Gospel Ministry and how harmoniously wee join to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches herein is sufficiently notour to the unbyassed and judicious and consequently that no precipitations or strayings from the scripture path upon these heads can be charged upon our cause and principles Great and manifold have been the assaults of Satan upon this poor Church and reproaches of that grand accuser of the brethren upon our Reformation and the faithful promoters thereof And the plowers have long plowed upon her back and enemyes of all sorts have many time afflicted her from her youth O that our provoked jealous God would shew us wherefore he contends and give both Ministers and People a heart-affecting sight and sense of the true grounds of this controversy and shew unto us our transgressions wherein wee have exceeded and provoked him thus to lengthen out our desolation that he would excite Ministers to make full proof of their ministry and open up to them an effectual door and engadge his people to a due and suitable subjection to their Ministry that this word might run swiftly and this sword of the Lord eut the cords of the wicked that wee were all excited to encompase his throne with strong crying and tears in order to the returning of the Ecclipsed departing glory that this great Shepherd Israel would shew himself the only wise of God and the only Potentate in dissappointing and crushing the crafty cruel stratagems and designes of Satan now acting both the roaring lyon and subtile old Serpent and of his grand Lieutenant Antichrist and his Artizans That this our Isle upon which the â—…ay-spring from on high did early shinâ—… and which did early wait for his Lawâ—… who is Zions great Lawgiver was recâ—… vered from Popish darknesse and froâ—… decayes after the times of Reformation may have a restoring healing visit and being made a maried land may be upon this ground a land of desires That Christs Tabernacle now fallen down may be rear'd up according to the pattern and planted among us untill his glotious appearance to accomplish his Churches warfare and to make up his jewells This is the Expectation of the prisoners of hope and in this expectation let us turn in to the strong hold even to his name which is a strong tower and go on in his strentgh keeping his good way which hath alwayes been strenth unto the upright Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and be stedfast unmoveable alwayes abounding in the work of the Lord since he comes quickly who is our head and judge and his reward is with him so that neither our labour nor suffering shall be in vain in the Lord. The Contents FIRST PART Chap. 1. page 2. THat the prelat now established in this Church is both Diocesian and Erastian cleared By the present standing acts hereanent page 2 3. A twofold state of the question proponed accordingly Arguments from Scripture against the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer such as 1. appropriating the term Episcopus common to all Pastors to a Prelat The absu diâ—…y of this discovered Calvines remarkeable Testimony on Titus 1 7. page 4. 2 making it relate to Pastors which hath the flock for its immediat object Cleared from 1 Pet. 5 3. Invading and nulling the Authority allowed to Presbyters The matter of fact cleared from the principles of Prelatists and the absurdity hereof from severall Scripture grounds page 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 4. Impeaching Christs Kingly office as head of his Church and the perfection of his word in obtruding an officer on his Church of a different mould from those described and allowed by him cleared from the nature of the prelats office and some Scripture grounds page 13 14 15. Chap. 2. page 16. Some more Arguments against the Diocesian Prelat that his office debases the acts and exercise of the power of order cleared from the matter of fact and Severall Scripture grounds page 16 17 18. It maimes and diversifies the Pastorall office by Anti-Scripturall new invented degrees thereof cleared at large page 19 〈◊〉 His office many wayes contrare to thevery nature 〈◊〉 the gospell Church Government cleard also at largâ—… from the nature of the Prelats office and several Scripture grounds page 21 22 23 24. Cap. 3 page 25. The Diocesian Bishops office debases extraordinary offices in consounding them with ordinary cleared from the Scripture-account of these extraordinary offices and the nature of the Prelats office according to the principles and pleading of the Episcopall party Pag 25 26 27 28 29. 30. The derivation of the Prelats office from the Apostolical Authority and the power of Timothy and Titus loaded with absurdities ibid. Chap. 4. page 30. The Diocesian Prelats office takes away the peoples right to call their Pastor This right proved from Scripture and divine reason page 31 32 33. It excludes the office of the ruling elder proved from the practice of Prelatists as likewayes the preceeding charge the divine right of this office proved from several Scripture grounds especially 1 Tim. 5 17. And some chief exceptions of the prelatick party examined Page 34 35 36 37 38. Chap. 5. page 39. That the present Prelacy is grosse Erastianisme proved from the matter of fact some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civill contrary to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Page 41 42 43 44 Is in many points ane incroachment upon the liberties of the gospel Church and upon Christs mediatory Authority over the same which is cleared page 45 46. Chap. 6 page 47. Erastianisme denyes the compleat constitution of the Apostolick Church in point of Government Removes the Scripture land marks set to distinguish the civil and Ecclesiastick powers which is cleared in several points page 47 48 49 50. It is lyable to great absurdities ibid. Chap. 7. pag. 51. The Informers shifting and obscuring the true state of the question anent Episcopacy and flinching from the point debateable discovered several wayes page 52 53 He declines a direct pleading for the Prelats civill offices yet offers some arguments in defence thereof wherin his prevarication and contradiction to himself is made appear His pretended Scripture Arguments from the Instances of Eli and Samuel and the Priests concurrence in that Court 11 Numb to fortify the Prelats civil state offices ad examined page 54 55 56 57 58 59. He is contradicted by interpreters in this point Antiquity full and clear against him The grounds of the Assembly 1638 Sess. 25. Against the
our obligation to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland page 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article refuted The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves as oblidged to reform according to our pattern which is the Scripture pattern proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Informers allegeance that the first Article is ambiguous and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath their sense cannot determine its meaning vain and impertinent pag 65 66 67. Chap. 4. page 67. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy how poorly and impertinently cleard page 68 69 70. His first ground taken from the command and authority of Rulers generally considered and found impertinent to support his conclusion though his supposition were granted page 71 72. His 2d ground touching the alteration of the matter sworn as also his third taken from the hinderance of a greater good by the performance resolving in his sense wholly upon the Magistrates command absurd when applyed to our case which is fully cleared page 73 74 75 76 77 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a greater command overruling the lesse and our obligation to obey the rulers as prior to that of the Covenant page 7. ibid. also page 79 80. His Argument taken from Num 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes the Informers rules pleaded against him and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate page 80 81 82 83 84 85 86. His impertinent repetitions some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable page 87 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8 20. weighed page 89 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood resolving still upon the command of the powers absurd and contradicted by Casuists and many wayes crosses his design and pleading cleared at large page 91 92 93 94 95 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge examined as also his Arguments from the Rechabites page 97 98 99. Chap. 5 page 99. The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites His trifling way of moulding our Argument And in what sense wee plead this passage page 100 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz that an Oath can bind against a command of God impertinent to the point and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text page 102 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand inconsistent with himself in this point Page 104 105 the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20 10 discovered and cleared from Interpreters and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures page 106 107 108 109 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua the league and the peace discovered page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here He supposes but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such page 111 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed page 120 121 122 123 124. The impertinency of all he answersupâ—… this point though granted His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon examined As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15 4 Page 125 126 127 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats groundlesse and impertinent to the point ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury largely scannd The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136. THIRD PART Chap. 1 pag. 2. THe question stated and cleared from our Churches state before and since the introduction of prelacy and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2 3 4 5 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly plead upon for the peoples adherence exhibited Separation in many cases not Schism The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of Schisme is founded upon exhibit and cleared page 7 8 9 10 11 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact and of our principles aâ—… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of Schisme such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted which is cleared in severall particulars page 13 14 15 16 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19 20 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution the grand renters and dividers of this Church 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large page 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Finally this practice cannot be that Schisme abjured in the Covenant The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme cleared page 27 28 29. Chap. 2 page 29. The Informers charge of internall Schisme upon non conformists his Elogies of Schism and Testimony of Cyprian considered and this charge retorted upon him page 30 31 32 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops liturgies c. examined found groundlesse and impertinent to the point His Argument from Rom
Church matters Hence it is evident that this Author is obliged if he would answer his undertaking in pleading for the present Prelacie not only to evince the warrantablenes of the Diocesian Bishop in all his pretended spiritual power over Church Judicatories But likewaves of the Erastianbishop deriving all his Authoritie from the Civil Magistrat Wee shall then befor wee come to examine his pleading upon this Head offer I. Some Arguments against our Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church-officer and shall shew his office to be contrare to Scripture 2. As ane Erastian Prelat deryving all his spiritual power from the Magistrat I. As a pretended Church officer the Diocesian Bishop is contrare to Scripture in many respects I. In narrowing and restricting the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ane office and officer distinct from and Superior to a Presbyter or Pastor For since the Spirit of God in Scripture appropriats this term to Presbyters and consequentlie the work and office therin imported Tit. 1 5 7. Act. 20 28. 1 Pet. 5 2. 3. Sure it must be ane anti-Scriptural and Sacrilegius robbing of Presbyters of their right and due designation to make this proper and peculiar to a Diocesian Bishop onlie as the Characteristick of his office Episcopal men themselves and this Author particularely doe acknowledge this term to be in Scripture applyed to Presbyters Let them then shew a reason why they have made it peculiar to a Prelat as distinct from Presbyters Or let them shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denots such ane officer as they have shappen out viz. A diocesian Prelat having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction over a wholl diocess with a negative voice and a sole decisive suffrage in the Church Judicatories thereof Should they appropriat the term Pastor or Minister to a diocesian Prelat onlie Who would not call this ane Anti-scriptural usurpation of the Presbyters due And why also shall it not be thought such ane usurpation when they appropriat the term Episcopus or Bishop to such a pretended distinct officer Since this term is as much given to Presbyters in Scripture as the terme of Pastor or Minister Judicious Calvin hath some remarkable passages to this purpose in his Comentaries On Tit 1 7. Having observed that Bishops and Presbyters are all one He calls the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Prelat a profane boldnes and ane abrogating of the holy Ghosts language Abrogato Spiritus Sansti sermone usus hominum arbitrio inductus praevaluit nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum transferri reliquis spoliatis injurium est absurdum Deinde sic pervertere Spiritus sancti linguam nimis profana audaciae est Act. 20 28. He collects the identitie of the name office of Bishop Presbiter from the elders being called Bishops And having observed the same on Philip. 1. And that after the name Bishop became peculiare to one He adds id tamen ex hominum consuetudine natum est Scripturae autoritate minime nititur Telling us that under this pretext of giving the name to one ane unlawful dominion was brought in But of this againe II. The office hereby designed doth alwayes relate to the Flock and hath them for its immediat object and Correlat as much as the word Pastor The Bishops of Ephesus were made by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the flock of God whom they were to feed Whereas our supposed Diocesian Episcopus or Bishop His office and inscection relates immediatly to the wholl Pastores of his diocess who are alse much his flock and the object of his oversight care direction correction and censure as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or layetie Peter bids the Episcopountes feed the flock act the Bishops over them But our diocesian Prelat pretends to feed and rule the Pastores themselves The Scripture Bishop is Populi Pastor but the Diocesian Prelat is Pastor Pastorum Presbiter Presbiterorum And therfor is ane Antiscriptural Monster III. The Diocesian Prelat usurpes and takes from Presbiters that authoritie allowed them of God in his Word For both power of ordination and jurisdiction is soly and properlie in the Diocesian Prelat according to Episcopal men and likewise according to our Lawes As we saw above in the act anent Prelacy For according thereto the Prelat is a Superior ordinar Church officer above Presbyters he is sole as to ordination may doe it alone and assumes Presbiters onelie proforma Which no more lessens his Principalitie and Supereminencie in this pointe then a Prince in assumeing Counsellors saith Dounam Def. lib 5 Cap. 7. weakens his princely power and authoritie Presbyters exercise all their Acts of the power of order in a dependance upon him he only is the proper Pastor of the diocess as shall be afterward cleared Presbiters are but his substitutes and helpers They are likwayes Subject to him as their proper Sole judge and censurer by Ecclesiastick censures of suspension deposition excommunication the decisive power in Church judicatories is properlie his For the most unanimous Acts and conclusions of the diocesian Synod falls unders his cognisance to be ratified or Cassat at his pleasure He is the Sine quo non and hath a Negative voice in the judicatories the law allowing his Presbiters only to give him advice Nay and not that either unles he judge them of known layaltie and prudence Now in all these he usurps over Presbiters authoritie allowed them of God For I. Wee find the Scripture atributes the power of order jurisdiction equalie to all Presbiters who have both keys of doctrine discipline given them immediatlie by Christ. In that I. They are command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5. 28. Act. 20. 2. which comprehends the authoritie and exercise of both the keys of doctrine and discipline 2. In all commands relating to the exercise of this power ther is not the least hint of ane equalitie among them which were very cross to the Lords Scope if the Diocesian Prelats Superioritie were allowed and appointed The Presbiters or Bishops of Ephesus and those of the Churches which Peter writs unto are commanded to feed and rule jointlie equallie and with the same authoritie but non of them in dependance upon and deryving a precarious authoritie from another in feeding and ruleing 3. In all the commands relating to peoples Subjection obedience to Church Rulers in the exercise of their power their is not the least hint of disparitie among these Rulers 1 Thess. 5 12. People are commanded to obey them that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and to esteem them highly And Hebr. 13 17. They are commanded to obey them who have the rule over them and watch for their Soules but nothing of a special degrie of obedience to this supposed highest supereminent watch man is heard of in these or any
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
he that cannot distinguish this from accnstant official medling as a civil Iudge and constituent Member in civil Indicatories is very blinde And as stupid that man were who could not distinguish this from the privat domestick care mentioned 1 Tim. 5 8. Which is a part of that Eiconomie founded uonp the Law of nature and competent to a Minister as a Master of the Family who is to govern and rule his house under that notion Yet we must here tell him that Gods allowing the Minister his honorarium or maintenance is for this very end that he may not by any overstretch of the domestick case be taken off from his holy imployment Here we shall offer to this Informers grave judgment the Reasons of the Assembly 1638. Sess 25. against the civil Offices of Ministers 1. Christs notable example Luk. 12 14. Refusing to deal in a civil cause Ministers are his Ambassadours sent by him as he was by the Father Joh. 20 21. Joh. 8. He would not sentence that woman who deserved death 2. Civil Rule is discharged to Apostles Matth. 20 v. 25 26. not only Supreme which is competent to Princes but subordinat also Citing that passage of Bernard to Eugenius Lib 2. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tihi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum Dominion is discharged to Apostles Go thou therefore and dare to usurp to thy self whither the Apostleship if holding a civil dominion or being Apostolick a civil dominion Where theyrefute the ordinary Episcopal Popish evasion as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That Ministers having given up their names to this holy warfare they ought not to be involved in things of this life as the law denyes this to souldiers C. d. Lib 2. T it 13 So the Apostolick law 2 Tim. 2 04. This work tobe heavier then that any man can be sufficient for it alone 2 Cor. 2 16. Hence Ministers are called watchmen labourers souldiers fishers c. 4. The Apostles for all their extraordinarie gifts were not fit for serving tables and preaching the word both Act 6. although these were both ecclesiastick functiones therefore farr lesse can any Minister now assume both ecclesiastick and civil offices Gregorie the 1. cited by Gratianin Decreto dist 89 Cap. Singula proves that two ecclesiastick offices are not to be committed to one from that place of the Apostle Rom. 12 6 7. As it is unbeseeming that in mans bodie one member should Act the part of another The 6th of the Canons called Apostolick appoints that the Bishop or Presbyter assuming civil places be deposed which will make fearfull Massâ—…cre among our Prelats that day the Parliament rides so Can. 81 and 83. Cyprian lib 1 Epist. 9. sayes that long before It was appointed in a Councel of Bishopes that none appoint in his Testament one of the Clergie a Tutor or Curator Quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis precibus orationi vacare debent Since every one honoured with the divine priesthood ought not to attend but to the Altar and Sacrifices to prayer and preaching for it s written no man that warrs c. Clemens the 1. whom many make Bishop of Rome and out of whose writings the defect of ecclesiastick history after the Actes of the Apostles they affirme must be made up in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord whom they make a Bishop hath these words neque judicem aut cognitorem secularium negotiorum te ordinare vult Christus ne praefocatus presentibus hominum curis non possis verbo Dei vacare secundum veritatis regulam secernere bonos a malis impietatis tibi crimen est neglectis verbi Dei studiis sollicitudines suscipere seculares That is neither will Christ ordaine thee a judge and arbiter of civill affaires lest being involved in the present cares of men thou be not able to attend the word of God and according to the rule of verity to separat the good from the evill It blotts thee with the Crime of impietie to take up secular cares neglecting the Studjes of the word of God Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais cited by lipsius in politicis said that it is unlawfull to joyne the Civill power with the priesthood-nam hoc esset miscere non miscenda hoc est Sacris civiliaconfuâ—…dere For this were to mix together things which cannot be mixed that is to confound Civill maters with Sacred See severall others cited by the assembly and recorded in the Historiamotuum pag. 283 284. Where there is ane Answer to the objection drawen from Augustins practise and from that of 1. Cor. 6. 4. The informer comes nixt page 5. to his defence of the Episcopall office it self But still goes on in the mist of confused generalls never condescending upon the nature power and extent of the diocesian Bishopes office as it is now established by law However let us remember that our present prelat is according to our law Ane ordinary Church officer assuming the government of some Hundereds of Congregations as monopolized in him and conveyed according to his pleasur unto the Ministers therof Having sole power in ordination and jurisdiction and a negative voice in Church judicatories whose proper worke is Ruleing only not feeding by doctrine This is the Bishop which all his pleading must be commensurat unto else He but beats the Air. 1. The Doubter alleages The unlawfullnes of the Episcopall office for want of ane expresse warrand for it in the word To which He answers By granting that this will prove it to be not simply necessare but not unlawfall since it may be lawfull and expedient as falling under some generall as the command of decencie and order will warr and a Moderator and Clerke although this be no where commanded That many learned men have thought prelacie lawfull though not commanded nor warranted by any particular Scripture precedent nor yet prohibited but left to Christian prudence at it is found expedient and conduceing to the good of the Church To which I answer 1. He grosly mistaks the Import of these relatives a command and the necessitie of a thing flowing therefrom when restricting it to ane expresse warrand or command there being many things necessarie necessitate precepti which have no expresse warrand or command Divines doe tell us that Scripture commands are either immediat or mediat the immediat are either explicit or in expresse terms enjoyning a thing as honour thy father and thy mother or implicit holding out either that which is comprehended in the command as suetable midses leading to the dueties enjoyned or deduced by consequence from what is expressed As Ministers preaching is deduced by consequence from the command thereanent which the Apostles gotâ—… the Circumstances of the command pointing out this to be a perpetuall duetie of Church officers Againe 2. There are divine commands which are mediat
not to add new spirituall officers who must have a new work c. And the Bishops authority must either be comprehended among the rules anent these officers enumerat and the exercise of their power or he is anâ—… apocriphal officer and unlawfull Or he must say we may add new officers and offices and institutions in poynt of government to these contained in Scripture and so our divines argument against the pope from the Scriptures silence anent him in its enumeration of officers is naught 3. Christ exercising ane external visible kingdom over his Church visible and all Church officers and their administrations being in his name and authoritis as is above cleared every Church officers mission and warrand must be found in his word other wâ—…yes he runs unsent and cannot expect his blessing all that come be for him and anticipat his call are theeves and robbers 4. All Christs officers and their gifts are Christs royall and mediatorie donations to his Church and by him peculiarly set and authorized therein Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉 7 8. c 1. Cor. 12. 28. He as the great Master of the house gives all his Stewards their Keys their Orders Now how Christ the king and head of his Church his donation his commission his giving his Keyes Should be instructed other wayes then by his clear warrands and institutiones in his word and Testament I would gladly learne of this Informer Is there any officer of State any subordinat Magistrat allowed in a kingdome which hath not the clear warrand of the lawes Surely not and so the case is here Finallie The ground and reasone which he builds this shifting evasion upon viz. That many things are not otherwayes commanded then under some generall as that all things be done decently or to edification instancing in the moderator and Clerk of a meeting of Ministers is very poor For since the authority which God gave Paul was to edification all ordinances which have the most clear institution must be thus qualified and to this end that which is not Otherwayes commanded then under this generall must needs be the alterable circumstances only commone to Civill and Sacred actions and such as supposes the thing it self cloathed with these circumstances to be that which is to be done and by consequence falling Hactenus under the Compasse of a command or institution for it is these only which are left to the regulation of Christian prudence according to the generall rules of the word But as we have above cleared such ane eminent Church officer as the Bishop is supposed to be or any Church officer can be no such circumstance but is such a substantiall point of government as requires a clear and positive warrand or else must be holden unlawfull and this he must acknowledge or contradict himself for He dare not say but that Church officers are other wayes commanded then under this generall and himself alledges the prelats divine institution so He can be none of these things which hath only this generall warrand Besides I would know if He will say that this officer the prelat must be sett up and Act with decencie and order surely He will not deny this If then the prelat himself is but a peece of decentie and order as being only commanded under that notion and a species under that generall then he sayes that order and decencie must be managed cloathed with order and decencie which will be very hard to reconceale to sense or He must say that the prelat must act with disorder and confusion or to evit these rockes that the prelat must be warranted under another notion then that of a circumstance of meer order and so must have a particular warrand His instance of the Moderator and Clerk is very foolish the Clerk not being necessarly a Church officer and the Moderator no distinct Church officer from the rest of the members and so is utterly Impertinent to this pointe and question anent a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a presbiter whither he ought to have a particular Scripture warrand Besides that the same divine warrand that a judiciall procedor by disquisition votes and suffrage hath and is exemplified in that Synod Act. 15. this being the necessary frame of judicatories as such and consequently of all Church judicatories the moderator hath the same foundation of his office but He will never let us see a shaddow of this for the prelat Now to shew what good Harmonie this Informer keeps in this point with some chieff men of his way others also let us hear what they hold Institutum Apostolorum de regimine Ecclesiastico ea gubernationis ratio quae aetate Apostolorum fuit c. The Apostles appointment as to Church government and that way and method of government which was in their time is perpetuall and can no more be changed then the priesthood of Aaron could saith Saravia con tra bezam Whitaker controv 4. Quest 1. Cap. 9. Tells us That the Church must not be governed-vt humano ingenio arriserit as pleases mens fancie sed ut Christo Ecclesiae domino so lique principi placet But as it pleases Christ her only head and Lord. Hence he concludes that the forms which He hath institut must be held fast as the best Matth. Sutliv de Pontif Roman lib. 1 Cap. 1. Answering Bellarmins argument from Civil to Ecclesiastick Monarchie tells him that-sicut unus Ecclesiae summus princeps c As thereis one chieff Prince of the Church so there is one true essential forme therof differing from the various moulds of commone wealthes that as she hath but one head so but one frame of policie which those who resyle from Christi leges transgrediuntur-they transgress the lawes of Christ and blotts her true government Field of the Church lib 5. Cap 45. Argues thus against the popes temporal power that among men non hath power of chaingeing any thing but he alone to whom in an eminent degree it belongs and from whom it is originally derived but to govern the Church as such is not eminently in the Magistrat It is a Bad omen cespitare in limine our informer we see in his first answer to his doupter is so anhappie as therin to justle with soom chieff champions of his cause CHAP. IX The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy His answers to our Argumets from Matth. 20 25 26. and Petr. 5 3. Examined at large The genuine strength and nerves of our reasoning upon these Texts which he dare not medle with His answers found inconsistent with themselves the same with Papists answers for the papacie and contrare to the sense of sound divines THe doubter in the nixt place alleages Prelacy to the forbidden and therefore unlawful bringing for proof Matth. 20 25 26 27 28. And the Argument from this text he makes his poor doubter slenderly and curtly to represent thus That Christ forbids any of his
and himself also THE Doubter over come by this Informers mighty Answers forsooth Confesseth Episcopacie not to be unlawful and only pleads that it may become inexpedient and a better put in its place Whereupon he promises That if we will not stand out against light he will let us see warrand in the word for Bishops and so he may easily doe But the Bishop he must let us see the warrand for is the Diocesian Erastian Bishop haveing sole power in ordination and jurisdiction bound to preach to no flock and deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Now when he hath given us Scripture warrand for such ane ordinary Church-officer as is of this mould under the new Testament erit mihi magnus Apollo Wee see he still walks in darknes as to the State of the Question and dare not exhibit to us the mould of the present Bishop now existent when he offers to produce Scripture warrands for him His 1. Warrand is that under the old Testament setting aside the hie Priest who was a Typ of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention being made of chief Priests 2 King 19 2. Ezr 8 29. c. Matth. 2 3. Act. 19 14. And over these againe a chief priest under the hiest preist who only was Typical since two hie priests are sometimes mentioned Luc. 3 2 So there was a subordination among the Levites Exod. 6 2. Numb 3 18 19. with 24. 30. v. Neh. 11 22. One is set over the Levites called by the Greek Episcopus and another over the Priests v 14. From all which places he concluds That subordination among Churchmen is no such odious thing as some believe Ansr. 〈◊〉 If this be all the Conclusion which this man drawes out against us from the premised trite argument of Bellarmin and others viz. that there is a subordination among Church men It will never help him nor wound our cause in the least for as we grant without the least preiudice thereunto that there is a subordination both of Courts and Church-officers under the new Testament Pastours being above ruleing elders and they aboue Deacons Presbyteries also being above Kirk Sessions Synods above Presbyteries National assemblies above Synods as the jewes had there Supreme Sanhedrin Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue a middle Ecclesiastick Court called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Preâ—…bytery Luk. 22 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudicatorie wherein was both ruleing and censures Act. 26 11. Compared with Act. 9 1 2. And with Mark 5 35 36. Act. 18 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie Aar rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this I say is clear so it is evident that it is much more then a meer subordination of Courts or officers which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us viz The Prelats sole decisive power and negative voice in judicatories and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs in their administration Now from the subordination of Courts or officers mentioned under the old dispensation to conclude the lawfulness of a Prelat a pretended Minister of the new Testament his taking from other Ministers all the power of Government contrary to our Lords express command his laying aside the preaching Talent and giving up all the ecclesiastick authority which he pretendes unto to one who is not Qua talis so much as a Church member is a wide and wilde conclusion yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point is beyond all Question 2. Giveing not granting to him that there was under the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for and such a difference of degrees among Church officers as he represents how will he prove this consequence that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded and have the same degrees of Ministers as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits this Connexion he supposes here and offers afterward some smatterings in proof thereof but with what success we shall see with in a little Will he say that it is lawful to bring into the christian Church every point of the jewish policy Bilson ane English Bishop even in pleading for Prelacie will give him the lie if he say so and shew him the disparitie betwixt their Church government and oures Perp Gov. Chap. 2. for the tribe of Levi saith he was neither subjected to the Government of another tribe nor without manifest confusion could it want all Government wherefore as all the rest so this tribe also had its proper Magistrats to wit it s Pinces Elders judges c. He adds that the Jewes Law contained in the books of Moses comprehended the mould of their civill Government and the Priests and Levits being most skilful in this knowledge we need not wonder that they were placed in the same benches with the judges this we offer to our Informers observation to snew how this Bishop Pulles his care in argueing from the Priests sitting in civill courts numb 11 To Justifie our Prelats civill rule but now to our purpose in relation to Church government he adds further that the offices of the Sanctuarie and rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifices from which all the other tribes except the Levites were restrained were not of one kinde So that it needs be no wonder that these degrees of the administrators were distinguished according to the diversitie of offices and services But in the Church of Christ the Word and Sacraments concredited to all Ministers without distinction as they are of one kinde neither admitts any difference of administration or celebration so neither doe they require different degrees of Ministers Thus he Sure had our Informer listened unto this information of this Father of the Church as he speaks he would have spared this Argument as not worth the repeating The Ministry of the Levites who served in the sojourneing Tabernacle is compared to warrfare Numb 4. Because of the Militarie order which the Priests and Levits observed in their externall Ministry Where there was one common Temple a common Ministry of the priesthood a thousand administrators in every family the twenty four families who served each their week in the Temple being called courses by Luke stationes by the Talmudists the term being borrowed from warrfare as Scaliger observes in Canonibus isagogicis it is no strange thing if in this Ministry and Priesthood their were such degrees of administrators but the Prieststood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the law saith the Apostle Hebr. 7 12. And the policie suitable to the state of that Church must by necessary consequence be changed also 3. The antecedent of the Argument from that policie will be a harder taske then he imagines and this Informer would be quite out if put to draw
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
were adressed to a Moderator would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod Nay since a Presbytry laid on hand 's upon Timothy himself Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus had the Episcopal power in Common committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous we may clearly infer that these directions though immediatly addressed to Timothy yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches as well as him 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way and in any other Capacity then of ane Euangelist which he sayes it might be he yet was and not a Bishop He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion who sayes that he was not yet made Bishop Now if these Rules were to be observed by him and this his supposed singular Authority exercised as ane Evangelist whose office was to cease It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power Surely upon our supposition that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul in his Apostolik function and had a transient occasional Imployment here as is clearely held out in the Text these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity Besids these Directions are for instruction of every man of God or Minister in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6 But doth not give them Episopal power Or will he say that every man hath the formal office or place in the nature whereof he is instructed The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man or suppose him either King or Governour In the 3d. place As to these Directions themselves particularly as to Timothies direction as to laying on of hands 't is Answered that laying on of hands in ordination is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters which as I said they exercised upon Timothy himself though Paul was present 1 Tim 4 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point Nay this addressed direction mainly respected them as the proper subject of this power and the Presbytery received their lesson here not to lay on hands suddenly rather then Timothy Nixt As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures I answ That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke and this every Christian hath authority in Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19 17. Prov. 9 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke and this is competent to every Minister of the word Isa. 58 1. 2 Tim. 41 2. Tiâ—… 1 13. 2 Sam. 12 8. And besides Institutions and reproofs of Church officers will not prove a fixed Episcopal power Prophets rebuked but had no jurisdiction over Priests nor Paul over Peter though he reproved him As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder It is answered That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders since Ruling Government attribute to them in Scripture doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures Matth. 8 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated ecclesiae to the Church or the juridical Court not to one Prelat as is above cleared and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation respects them who were to judge upon it and not the Prelat Compare this with 1 Cor. 5 4 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent Gal. 6 1. The Church officers or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother 2 Thess. 3 14 15. To which I may add that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder and positively enjoyned doubly to honour them when faithful So the receiving ane accusation is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of even against the superiour whither in state or age in relation to admonition Counsel or Comfort accordingly Levit. 19 17. Gal. 6 1 2 Joh. 10 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept not to receive accusations lightly Hence the 4th Council of Carthage cited by Blond Apol. Sect. 4 enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie and that without their assent the sentence should be voyd where was the negative voyce here Whittaker thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text and our Informers too controv 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2. That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation proves not that he had dominion over Elders which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church to bring the guilty into judgement openly to reprove which not only superiors may doe but also equals and inferiors In the Roman Republick the Kings did not only judge the people but also the Senators and patricii and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a â—…sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church what this authority was may be understood by that which followes those that sin rebuke before all which equals also may doe Thus bishops heretofore if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or Synod and condemned him if he seemed worthy by a publick judgement that is did either suspend excommunicat or remove him the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons not by his authority alone but with the judgment of the Church and clergie in case of appeals even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod what they did was ratified The same is the answer of Bucer de vt usu Sacr. Minister Willet Sinops Papis Contr. 5 Ques 3 part 3 In the appeudix Eucer de Gub. pag. 300. to 398. The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after ages and are of ordinary use and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts that in calling Timothy and Titus extraordinary officers in these Acts we lead the way to their errour who call ordination and jurisdiction extraordinary Answ. As we have proved that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such but that any power he had above Presbyters was by his special Evangelistick Legation so the concernment of after ages in these directions and their being of constant use is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies all the acts directions given to extraordinary officers both under the Old and New Testament of perpetual
at Timothies ordination for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly But did any of them lay on hands Besyds we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbytery doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word presbyter Imports ane officer cloathed with authority so that this Court of elders must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination His Last Exception is That upon our supposition That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince that though Major Singulis greater then every single person yet he is Minor universis lesse then the whol body so it may be said that though Timothy as ane Evangelist were superiour to any meer elder yet ane eldership the juridical Court the Church representative might be above him if at least such a superiority was here necessary else let him say whither the Prophets at Antioch were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul and Barnabas and send them out upon a gospel legation Himself is bound to answer this whither these Inferiour officers in that act were greater then he yea or not and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless and lay hands upon ane Apostle And when he hath cleared this he will easily exped our difficulty in this point 2. Though it were granted that a presbytery consisting of meer ordinary officers could not ordain ane Evangelist yet I hope he will grant that a presbytery where such a one as paul was might doe it who as ane Apostle might ordaine alone If he say what is then become of our presbyterial ordination which we draw from this text I answer it is much confirmed but not weakened by what is said for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act the ordination even of ane Evangelist the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained were denied he would be more puzeled to make it good then he Imagines Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority as a learned man distinguishes here God and Christ alone ordaining thus whose servants and Ministers both the ordained and ordainers are Ephes. 4 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9 37 38. 2 Cor 4 5. 1 Cor. 3 5. 21 22. Act. 13 1 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh will make him greater then Pharaoh the peoples blessing of Solomon greater then Solomon The Kings Acturney saith he who drawes the noble-man or officer of state His patent and commission is not greater then hee But the King who is the original of temporall honour So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it but Christ only is the original proper ordainer As for that text Hebr. 7 7. He sayes iâ—… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power 2. Admitting that the ordainers behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut yet it will not necessarly follow that they must be still greater after the ordination is past finished the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves have Hee instances Matthias and Paul who were inferiour to the Apostles before they were called and ordained But being called they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power dignity degree c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances if intending to Press it As the armie Creats the Emperor which of the two is greater Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan the Council of Cardinals a pope c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto hâ—…s next Argument CHAP. XI The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels discussed That the stile of Prophetick writinges and of this book doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel fully proved The admitting the Angel to be a single person will not help the Informer his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches frivolous and vain as also his new Argument taken from diotrephes's love of preeminence wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones and offers violence to this and parallel Texts OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to and when increased there is but one Angel addressed and commended or blamed according to what was well or amisse in the Church And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended is directed to one Angel who by his place and authority was mainely concerned therein Ans This man if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate as he would appear might have found all this and much more then he hath offered fully removed and answered by many Godly learned But they must still tell over and over their old baffled arguments to which satisfying answers have bein often returned But to the point the weaknes of this proofe is many wayes evident 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel and starrs Revel 1 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs so must the expression of Angel be likwayes a part of this mistery The Maxim is known â—…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures as are produced for Presbyterian Government Besides that the word Bishop is no where in Johns writings made use of who calls himself a Presbyter and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another but in condemneing Diotrephes He calls Christ the word and the Sabbath the Lords day these are expressions not found before in Scripture Surely he should have made mention of a new office as well as of a new phrase had any such thing as a Bishop been allowed by him Besides the Metaphorical terms of Starrs or Angels doe import the qualities of light heavenlines of frame c which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers 2. The great topick of
Seven and calls them not the Seven Angels as he should have done according to this mans meaning but indefinitly the Angels of the Seven Churches from which it is convincingly apparent that though there were Seven Churches written unto yet there were not Seven diocesian Bishops according to the number of the Seven Angels but that all the Ministers or Angels are thus collectively understood And wheras this man professes in the deept of his witt for sooth to wonder at this answer and taks it to be a shift He should wonder at Augustin Homil. 21. upon this booke who thus taks it expounding the Angel of Thyatira the proepositi ecclesiarum the governoures of the Churches He should wonder at Aretas lib. 1. Cap 1 2 9 10. Wonder at Primasius in Apoc C 2. At Ambrosius Anbertus To 1 6 p 1. Anselm Pererius Victorinus Tirinus Haymo Beda perkings Fox in his Meditationes upon the Revel p 7 8 9 17. who cites also many Interpreters thus expounding him Yea more he wonders at King james and the Episcopal clergie in England under and by whom in the contents annexed to the Bibles of the last translation the contents in the 2. chap are represented what is to be written to the Angels that is to the Ministers of the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c Its pitie they had not this grave dictator to correct their mistake and to present them with his new spectacles to discover therewith the Bishop in these Epistles He should have wondered at Pilkington Bishop of Durham in his exposition upon Hag Chap. 1 v. 13. who expoundes the Angel thus collectivly See Gers. Buc. de Gub. Eccl. p. 1. 205 393 408 419 422 433. Now what pinched all these Authors to embrace this Silleptick exposition of the Angel As for Scultetus although a Protestant yet he is a high Prelatist and a partial witnes in this point cannot conterballance these Authores mentioned But next what wil our Informer gain though it were yeelded that this Angel is ane individual or single person Some learned men doe so take it as Beza and Reynolds who notwithstanding were far from thinking him a Prelat Because I. He may be the Angelus Preses or the moderatour Angel not the Angelus Princeps or Lord Angel yea and the Preses and Moderator for the time as a speaker in the Parliament Ephesus had many elders Act 20 27. 1 Tim. 5 17. of equal authority who were made Bishops and they are spoken to in the plural though the Angel is named in the singular number 2. This Angel is said to have no jurisdiction and superiority over the rest of the Ministers And we challeng our Informer to shew where this Angel is spoken unto with reference to Ministers as subject unto him which notwithstanding is his supposition petitio principii all along in this Argument 3. The Parochial and Diocesian division of Churches were long after this and not until 260. Years after Christ. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel but that which is the common duty of all Ministers Finally Suppose it were granted to him that a superiority were imported in nameing this Angel It may be a Superiority of Order Dignity or Gifts not of power and Jurisdiction But the Dcubter Object 's That Revel 2 24. Christ by Iohn speakes to the Angel in the plural or You ' and that therefore he means all the Ministâ—…rs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this he answers That Beza by this phrase understands the president and the company of Ministers with the rest of the people tabing the Angel still for a single person and hâ—…lds that more then the Angel are spoken unto He tells us that the words are ane Apostrophe wherein the speaker amplifies his speech turning it to some others then those who are first spoken unto Ans. 1. We have already shown that this and the other parallel phrase mentioned doe strongely plead for the Angels being understood Collectivly since the Lord makes a Plural of the singular Angel as 1 Tim. 2. 15. Shee shall be saved if they continue c. especially the above evinced equal power and authority of the Angels or Presbyters who where in these Churches being pondered Besids how doth this remove the objection that Beza understands it some other wayes then collectively what sayes that to the reason and argument it self But 2. If Beza understand by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or yow the moderator or president Angel with the rest of the Ministers wherein I pray is our argument infringed viz That this Angel is not a Diocesian Prelat since other Ministers are taken in with him here as of equall authority in this compellation In Beza's sense this is no other language then what might have been said or writen to a presbyterian Synod with its Moderator all being equally concerned therein and supposed equaly Angels in this Church And if this Cutt not the sinnews of this mans designe and argument here let any judge 3. Non can rationally call it a turneing of the speech to any other then such as were first speken to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to yow I Say is a continuanc of the speech to the same persons with ane exegitick explication of the Angel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or yow especially since they are distinguished from the rest or the ordinary Presessores by the Copulative and. In our ordinary language we usually reinforce our speech to the same persons and to the same purpose with ane emphatick I say as it is here Some Prelatists have a Knack which I wonder our Informer stumbled not upon in alledging that some copies leave out the Conjunction Reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to yow the rest in Thyatira making the terme yow all onewith the rest in Thyatira but the plaine reading of the 23. v. confutes this But that which the Informer thinkes should put it out of question wich us That these Angels were Diocesian Bishops Is the Testimonies of the Ancients who came immediatly after them and condescend upon some of their names Then he repeats to us againe the storie of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus borne neer the Apostles times who numbers Seâ—…n of his Predecessours before him and tels us That Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Numbers Tuenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy That these Seven Bishops of Asia are at the Council of Neice designed by their styles Ephesus Smyrna c. That Eusebius Tertullian Irenaeus assert that Iohn made Policarp Bishop of Smyrna That he is thought to be the Angel to whom John wrote That Ignatius writes to him as such c. These he thinkes as acomment upon this and such like scriptures should convince us Ans. 1. He forgot one maine point of this argument from Antiquity before it convince us he must condescend upon the mould and power of the Bishops which these Ancienas speakes of he holds that the word Bishop is variously taken in Scripture and why not also
c 24. not 1. acknowledges that De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs nihil ex Scriptura imâ—…ne ex patribus quidem qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt quicquam certi demonstrari potest That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexandria from Scriptur no not from the Fathers who florished before the council of Nice Baronius Anno. 44. 11 42. saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia c. Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name since what is related by true writers remaines not incorrupt it may make one dispair to reach that is true and cerâ—…in So much is the great popish historian forced to confess The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter Joseph Scalliger his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem Related by Didocl Cap 4 p. 123. Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem and to Josephus his History To this I add that he will find many learned men doe hold that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues were meer Presbyters who according as they were more eminent in the Churches and consequently their memories referved therein whose Natales as Iunius speaks that is their dayes of banishment martyrdome or death were keept in the Churches records accordingly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues though they were contemporary those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times For this I recomend Franciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3 l. 2 c. 5. not 18 errori causam prebuit c the cause of the error he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches c. It s then evident which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture nor with themselves 2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops and conforme the first ages to their own they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal piety c and put them into their Catalogués 3. Whom they thus put in they called them Bishopes in conformity to their own times though they were meer Presbyters For as we saw upon Phil. 1. himself acknowledges that the Fathers used the names indifferently So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident that ouâ—… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age the Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishopsblondel Apol Sect 3 p 3 14. 3 5 p. 308 378. Shewes the consent of the learned heerin For this Church of Scotland we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major de Cest. Scot l. 2. of Fordon Scoto-chronicon lib. 3. Shap. 8. likwise of Blond Sect. 3. All shewing that this nation haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79. till the year 430. When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy Clemens of the first century in his Epistle to the Philippians maks but two orders of Ministery Bishops and deacons these only he sayes the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy page 57. c. The same we heard of policarp in his Epistle to the Philippianes we heard of Augustins Testimony Epist. 19. to Jerom. Dr. Reynolds in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls cites Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others ancient and modern to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Jeroms Testimony upon Titus is famous for this point who assertes and proves at large from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment and in first Apostolick times afterward the government was by Presbyters communi concilio Presbyterorum by the common councel of Presbyters that by divine appointment Bishops Presbyters are one that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom That divisions by Satans instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter That their equality was not his privat Judgement but a Scripture truth The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius But now let us hear what ouâ—… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters Saravia Dounam Tilen c. To infringe this Testimony 1. He â—…ayes That Ierom speaks onely of the first gospel times when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostles did by their own presence industry Supply the rowme of Bishops but as they began to fail by death or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality Bishops were set up over Presbyters This he proves because jerom sayes that from Mark the Evangelist The Presbyters choosed out one and called him Bishop even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius but Mark died before Peter and Paul Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation And of Mr. Durham on the Revel paâ—… 225. and thatMr Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop viz As the army doth choose the Emperor Thus far we have our Informers first great defence Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit quod ab Apostolis jure divino est factitatum aliquantum certe deflexit neque in hoc aut excusari potest aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum c Some would he saith draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastick Custome and the Churches human deccree what was done by divine right he went out of the way and in this he cannot be excused nor can his words admitt of any other sense or meaneing So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer But to the point I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song which hath been answered by many Iunius decler c. 15. Not. 16. tells him That tria distinguit tempora
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
about his ministry and the duty intrusted to him c. Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon and summes it up thus Decernit itaque praesens Canon ut si quis Episcopus vel Presbyter ad docendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit suum munus non implea segregetur The present Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath received imposition of hands relating to teaching and fulfilles not his office that he be set aside c. Where its evident that he makes the Bishops ordination or imposition of hands relative unto the great duety and office of preaching the gospel aswel as that of the Presbyter and accordingly expoundes the Canon The XXXIX canon intrusts the Bishop with the Charg of the peoples soules in correspondence with the preceeding In the forecited cap XII Photii we are referred to the Syn. Carthag can CXXIII Syn. VI. can XIX LXIIII. See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can XIX quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis in omnibus quidem diebus sed praecipue dominicis docere pietatis rectae rationis eloquia ex divina scriptura colligentes intelligentias c That all such as are set over Churches on all dayes but especialy on the Lords dayes most teach the oracles of piety and pure religion drawing instructions from the divine scriptures c Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituuntur propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse eum cui praesunt populam semper docere multo magis in diebus dominicis c That is The Bishops are constitut teachers of the Churches and therefor the canon sayes unto them that its absolutely necessary alwayes to teach that people over whom they are set and much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from ther work c. So that our non-preaching or seldom preaching prelates who by a new consecration forsooth superadded unto their Presbyterial ordination to preach the gospel get a bill of ease from this great duety to act state games except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit to supererogat stands arraighned stigmatized and deposed by the ancient Canones as unworthy of any office in the house of god Vide can Apost conc general partic Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan cum Balsam comment pag. mihi 39 116 117 121 207. Unto this account and censure of antiquity and of the ancient canons past upon our non-preaching prelates I wil here subjoyn a remarkable passage of a learled divine whose praise is in all the Churches Whittaker de Eccles. contr 2. cap. 3. being about to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument Pontifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia Nam Ecclesia non potestesse sine episcopo The Pope of Rome is no true Bishop therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church because the Church cannot be without a Bishop But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fellowes he addes disputo ex eorum placitis That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop propter praecipuum munus episcopi saith he quod in illo desideratur because of the Chief office of a Bishop whcih is wanting in him And what is that olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesiam nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fideles erant Olim hoc ad se pertinere praecipuum suum munus esse putabant ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent adeo ut monstri simile esset per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentos episcopum aliquem in ecclesia esse qui aut nollet aut non posset populum docere that is of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church and none were made Bishopes who were not faithfull in this office of old they lookt upon this as the Chief duety incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them so that fore more then six hundred Yeares after Christ it would have been lookt upon as a monster if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people He addes That all the Apostolick Bishopes were such And that the Apostle requires it in a Bishop that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach 1 Tim. 3 2. hoc est saith he non ejusmodi qui curet â—…antum det operam ut alii doceant hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere Not such a one who is diligent onely to provid others to teach and gives this authority to others But who is himself sufficient to teach others This he proves because the Apostle is in that place shewing how the Bishop most be indued and gifted befor he be chosen and that therfore by being apt to teach we most understand a personal care and ability and not a deputed care quis enim hoc praestare non posset saith he who is he who may not perform this This he further cleares from 2. tim 2. 2. where the Apostle injoyns Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men qui essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves able to teach others Reprehending Turrian and with him our Episcopal men in interpreting that first passadge of a deputed care as to teaching And shewes that the old interpreter translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doctor or teacher And a doctor saith he is such a one as can teach himself Thereafter he cites Oecumenius and Chrysostom thus expounding the premised scripture and even soom of the popish scoolmen as Aquinas upon this text who cals this the proper work and duety of a Prelat And shewes us that Aquinas pertinently applyes to this purpose that passage Jer. 3. 15. I wil give Pastors according to my own heart who shal feed yow with knowledge and understanding And that Cajetan and Catharinus do thus expound this text In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head is fortified and confirmed 12. As in other points of difference so the ancient Bishopes were as farr from our Prelats fastuus pompe and sumptuus grandeur which they assume Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum tells us of their tenuitas edendi potandique parcissime indumentorum vilitas c. Their spare eating and drinking their meanenes of apparrel their lovely countenance as that which commendes them to God and his true worshippers Paulus Samosatenus his fastuus pompe
proposition of their appendix he might have seen this objection fully removed For therein they make good from many places of Irenaeus which were tedious here to transcribe that by Bishops he understood meer Presbyters and not Bishops distinct from Presbyters From which places of Irenaeus they collect 1. That he calls Presbyters Successors of the Apostles 2. That he calls them Bishops 3. That he holds the Apostolick doctrine to be derived by their succession 4. That what in one place he sayes of Bishops the same he sayes elswhere of Presbyters which sense and account of him they back with pregnant Testimonies of Dr. Reynolds Whittaker other learned protestant divines and lights in that Church And in proposition 7. anent the pretended Succession of Prelats from the Apostolick times they cleare it that these Successions are drawen from meer Presbyters viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Minister first ordained as among the Athenians their were 9. Archontes or Chief Rulers equall in Authority yet the Succession of Governours in Athens was derived from one of them who was the first Archoâ—… ut compendiosior ac minus impedita esset temporum enumeratio that the Calculation of times might not be hindered but be the more compendious 4. He sayes it is more likly that Ierom was deceaved If we understand him to speak of Bishops who were introduced after the Apostles times then Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived before Ans. That Eusebius was deceaved is not only alleadged but proven by the learned and Ierom proving so clearlie from Scripture the identity of Bishop and Presbyter both in name and thing doth convincing lie inferr that the Bishops set over Presbyters are discrepant from the scripture pattern That Irenaeus by Bishops understood these first Moderators is made good from his writings Next wheras these reverend authores pag. 114 115. say that Irenaeus by Bishops meaned Presbyters and page 65. That the Fathers spoke of Church officers of former times after the stile of their owne and that the Bishops in the Catalogues are onlie the first ordained Presbyters for the more expedit reckoning this man thinks these Answers inconsistent Because 1. they say that Eusebius Irenaeus were deceaved when they spoke of Bishops And Next that by Bishops Irenaeus meaned only Presbyters Ans. Had the Informer attended better the places he points at he would have keepd off this fantastick reflection For they shew that these first Proestotes or Moderators who were in themselves and upon the Mater meere Presbyters were by former times and writers presented under ane Episcopal notion and the power of Bishops then prevalent unto Eusebius and Irenaeus whom Eusebius especially too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them occasioned the deceaving of others and that he and Irenaeus speaking of them in that manner and stile in the Catalogues might deceave others by naming them so who were upon the mater meer Presbyters whom the succeeding writers following as they shew out of Iunius Contr. 2. Ch 5. not 18. and fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed that according to the Custome of their times there could be but one Bishop in a Church at the same time And to cleare it that the persons whom Irenaeus speaks of were upon the mater Presbyters in answer to that objection from Irenaeus lib 3. Cap 3. where Bishops are named as set up by the Apostles They answer that the word Bishop hath a various acceptation and that Irenaeus names Anicetus Higinus Pius Presbyters of the Church of Rome the words being then promiscuouslie used So that whatever impression Irenaeus might have of them according to the language and Custome of the time yet upon the matter they were Presbyters only and therefore they put the Episcopall partie to prove that those whom they named Bishops were veri nominis Episcopi or Hierarchicall Bishops They doe not speak so much of the Impression which Irenaeus or Eusebius had of them as of the true nature and State of these Church-officers whom according to the Custome of their times they call Bishops By Irenaeus his calling them sometimes Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names even handed down to him they prove that his expressing them under ane Episcopall notion then receaved or any such impression of them which he might entertaine was wrong since according to the scripture language the Bishop and Presbyter imports no other office then a Pastour What inconsistency will our Informer shew in this that Irenaeus and others were deceaved in representing the first Proestotes under ane Episcopall notion upon a Credulous report from their forefathers and yet that the persons whom they thus represented were upon the mater Presbyters As for what he adds p. 102 from Bucer de animarum cura anent a Proestos or the Election and ordination of one who went before the rest and had the Episcopal Ministerie in the Chief degree even in the times of the Apostles by the Testimony of Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius ancienter then Ierom Wee say that any who knowes Bucers judgment in Church government and are acquaint with his writings theranent will acknowledge that the Proestos is the utmost length he goes as to Episcopacy and a Proestos during life hath no doubt something of ane Episcopal Ministerie and is above his Brethren and we are to expone his summus gradus or Chief degree by the word praecipue or Chiefly that goes before Who will doubt but the constant fixed Proestos is in so farr set over the rest But here we must minde the Informer of Two things 1. That this Proestos chosen by the Presbytery is as we said farr short of the Diocesian Prelat who owns no Presbyters in his election hath ane arbitrary power over them 2. That it being thus defacto is farr from amounting to a proof of the jus and who will say that Bucer could take the Apostle James to be formalie Bishop of Ierusalem or chosen to be a fixed Moderator by Presbyters whose Apostolick office both Bucer and the Informer will acknowledge to have reached the whole world in relation to the watering planting of Churches Next if these words will plead for a Hierarchie even in the Apostles times and that Bucer took upon the Testimonie of Tertullian Irenaeus c the Apostle James and others for Hierarchicall Bishops surely he was oblidged to have taken notice of Ieroms proofs for the parity of Bishops Presbyters in the Apostles times which since he doth not it s most probable that he means to assert the factum only of exalting Presbyters to such a degree at that time but not the jus as is said else I see no consistencie in the words if he reckon the Apostle James in this account For he sayes Apostolorum temporibus unus ex Presbyteris electus That in the Apostles times one was chosen from among the Presbyters
things were so fresh recent 3. That discipline which the takers and framers of this covâ—…nant at the taking of it and in pursuance of its ends did carry on and establish that discipline it must needs include and engadge unto in their sense but that was Presbyterian-government For to omit many preceeding discoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology in the year 1580. The assemblie after their judiciall declarator that Prelacie is contrary to the word of God sent Commissioners to the King to desire the establishment of the book of policie by ane Act of Council untill a parliament were conveened and what this book of policie contained we did already hint Then in this same year the national covenant and confession is sworn by the King and Council In the assemblie 1581. it is subscribed by all the members and the Act of the Assemblie at Dundie explained And it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemne the estate of Bishops as they were in Scotland At which very Nick of time the Confession of faith Sworn before in the year 1580. is presented to the assemblie by the King and Council Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentlemen for erecting Presbyteries Compleatly through the nation and dissolving Prelacies all the three viz both the King the Estates and the assemblie fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church government and this oath for its maintenance And according to this joynt authoritative determination of Church and State Presbyteries were erected Likwise in this assemblie according to the forsaid joynt conclusion the Second book of discipline containing the mould of Presbyterial Government and likewise this National Covenant and oath for its perservation are as the two great Charters of our Churches government and liberties insert into the Churches records ad futuram rei memoriam And that posterity might not be ignorant of the discipline sworn in that covenant Upon which and many such like grounds the Assemblie 1638 did again judicially declare this sense of this National Oath which accordingly was received with ane expresse application to prelacy and the other Corruptions attending it and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil Sanction and authoritie Anno. 1640. The 2d Great engadgement pleaded against prelacie is that of the Solemne League and covenant Wherin we vow the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches In the Second Article Wee sweare the extirpation of poprie and prelacie Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries c. And all Ecclesiasticall officers depending on that Hierarchie of whatever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness Which engadgement hath been likwise taken by all rancks by Parliaments Assemblies and the body of the people Now that the Prelacie at this time established is abjured in this engadgement is these wayes Evident 1. Prelacie being razed in Anno. 1638. according to our national covenant and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to the Religion established in Doctrine worship discipline and Government in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced and upon both grounds Presbyterian government in its exact paritie being sett up and judicially enacted both by Assemblie and parliament that the Solemne league must needs strike against Prelacie is in this apparent because this league is clearlie referable to the great ends of the national covenant as it stood then established explained and Sworne by this whole nation and therfor is ane accessorie engadgement commensurat unto and to be explained by the preceeding and consequently none can doubt that it strikes against prelacie and engadgeth to Presbyterian government who knowes how former engadgements stood 2. The preservation of the Doctrine worship Discipline and goverment then existent in Scotland referring to the then establishment therof in opposition to the former prelacie and all its corruptions It s evident that all sort of prelacie whatever corruption in Government is inconsistent with Presbyterian simplicity and parity is here abjured and covenanted against As we engadge the preservation of the Doctrine and worship as then reformed from Prelatick innovations so likewise we sweare to preserve our Churches ancient and pure discipline as it stood then recovered from prelatick encroachments That discipline government is here sworne unto as the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland which the Church and State of Scotland at this time established and owned But so it is that that was Presbyterian government then fully ratified both by Church and State Ergo the preservation of Presbyterian government is sworne and by further consequence that government which was by Church and state extirpate as abjured in the nationall covenant and contrary unto this Presbyterian frame was likwise abjured and covenanted against in this league But such was prelacie Bishops Arch-Bishops c ergo Again 3. The great ground upon which our adversaries deny the national Covenant to strike against prelacie is that they hold that the then existent discipline to which in that Oath we vow adherence as the discipline of this Church was not Presbyterian government that King Iames did not own it Ergo by ane argument a contrariis and ad hominem since its undenyable with them that de facto Presbyterian government was now enacted ratified established and sett up both by Assemblies and King and Parliament that goverment we must stand oblidged unto by the solemn league as the reformed discipline and government of this Church and contrarily that government which was then de facto by assemblies King and Parliament razed as inconsistent with Presbyterian government and as abjured in the nationall Covenant that government wee cannot deny but the solemne league stricks against But so it is that prelacie was at this time razed by Assemblies King and Parliament as inconsistent with the nationall covenant and Presbyterian government then established ergo this solemne league stricks against Prelacie 4. The word preserve here used and the expression of common enemies cleares this further preserving â—…relates to that which one is in possession of the common enemies of this possession in the sense of all both Imposers and engadgers are the Prelats and their Malignant Agents so that the holding fast of what was attained in point of reformation c Presbyterian government in all its established priviledges against Prelats Prelacie and all the incroachements thereof is here most evidently engadged unto 5. That engadgement and oath which they who have set up prelacie in our Church did Cassat and remove as inconsistent therewith that must needs by their own confession strike against it but so it is that our Parliament and Rulers did wholly Cassat this solemne league in order to the establishing of Prelacie Ergo by their own confession it strikes against it They cassat the nationall covenant
then established in all its previledges which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein And the extirpation and reformation ingadged to in the 2d Art must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland and that by way of mids leading unto and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation engadged unto in the first Article 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy together with the solemne league and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article cannot consist with our Prelacie Again as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation by this Church principally vowed and intended so that clause in the end of the 2d Article viz. to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness amounts both as to us and England to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacie that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue Next will this man deny that these officers Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d article or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d article how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are oblidged against Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastick officers depending on that Hierarchie what is it only all in bulk and not all and every one this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism heresie profannesse which are thus Summed up whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly and not to every one sigilatim or apart 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles is there abjured as I said but such are Bishops Arch-Bishops and I adde whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government is also here formally abjured In the 3d place Timorcus is clearly against our Informer for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction and of meer order The prelacie of jurisdiction he saith is twofold the first is whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction such as is our prelacy now in Scotland in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti to give him advice which is all that our Curats are allowed by law as is said above and scarce that The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President who must concurre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government Now let this man say since Timorcus whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus do disowne such a prelacie as is here described and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops obtruded upon this Church can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination jurisdiction that all the power which Curats have according to our Law is to give the Bishops advice yea and not that either unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence And surely if this precedency of meer order here exprest be the only primitive Episcopacie it is far short of what our Informer pleads for and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent And if in the sense of Timorcus and the other divines mentioned and in the sense of the imposers of that oath the extirpation engadged unto cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense the prelacie now existent is abjured That Mr. Crofton and the Presbyterian Covenanting partie in England according to him are not reconcilable to our prelacie nor the Covenant in their sense appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant against the Oxford men and others In his Analepsis pag. 74. 75. he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie and that a Diocesan Bishop and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites not in kind citing and approving of Salmasius and Beza's calling episcopacie a step to the papacy so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment it being with him a part thereof Again pag. 78. whereas the Oxford men plead that they cannot swear against episcopall government which they conceive to be of divine or apostolick institution he chargth them and Dr Gauden with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti and not describing of episcopall government And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government communi concilio Presbyterorum with a Moderator or Chaireman ordinis causa which he sayes is of divine institution and exemplified act 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop of sole ordination and jurisdiction unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject and must swear obedience to him c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer precedency ordins causa which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture and the Covenant according therunto will allow Thereafter pag. 72. He tells these Masters that Christ
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
each having a Prefident to propone questions gather suffrages c. and no more Which mould of government whither it would not smooth our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity let the Informer himself judge It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side the present prelacie is abjured Finally as for the authors after cited and that declaration of the sense of the 2d article which he mentions we say as it is not clear nay the contrary is evident that such proposals in explication of that article were either mad or approven by all or the soundest Presbyterians there present so it is al 's evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved be found contrary to sound droctrine and the power of godliness that article of extiâ—…pation doth most clearly and formally reach it Neither are we so much concerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England they not having tendered that oath unto us as in the obligation of this oath and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us to preserve our reformation as it stood then establisht Moreover this man would take Dr Sandersons advice here that an oath being stricti juris the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words but if it be doubtfull every one is to take care that they indulge not their own affections and inclinations or give way to too large a license of glossing to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation or give such a sense to others or take it to themselves as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others Thus he de jur prom praelect 2. parag 9. The Doubter objects next that we are not concerned in the parliament of England sense but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland who imposed the oath and meant it against all sort of prelacie To this he answers that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms the meaning must be determined by all the three and that Timorcus shews that the Parliament of England their sense mas with concnrrence of our Commissiners Ans. 1. We have already made it good that giving the Informer the advantage of the sense of the 2d article which he alledges it will notwithstanding clearly exclude our present prelacy Timorcus telling us expresly pag. 16. that the Covenant aperily oblidges against Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. which termes he sayes are lyable to no ambiguity and particularly against all such exercise of prelacie as is by one single person arrogating to himself sole and single power in ordination and jurisdiction Darre this man deny that our present prelates have this legall prerogative expresly allowed them by our lawes is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergie as their Lordships forsooth shall judge loyall so that the prelacie which Timorcus and the English are for is point blanck cross to the present hierarchie and the three nations sense of that article will as we have proved never be reconciled to his sense and pleading in this point 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d Art Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured it being that which relates especially to England where Prelacy was then existent and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engadgement to preserve our reformation then established and never imagned nor offered the least limitation of our obligations both by the National Covenant as then particularly applyed against prelacie and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League to preserve our establisht reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatsoever as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him that we are engadged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland which was Presbyterian and that therefor in the 2d article we swear against all kinde of Prelacie Prelacie and Presbytery being inconsistent To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbyterie and in the 2d left at libertie for some kinde of Prelacy and with all if Presbyterie and Prelacie be inconsistent then we have sworne contradictions viz to admit of no kinde of Prelacie and yet admit of some kinde of it Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude according to the Genuine sense of that Article as to any prelacy or whatever government else is inconsistent with Presbyterian Government because 1 the generall oblidgements to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat what ever is found contrarie to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness will as I have said necessarily import both as to us them ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground 2. As for Englands reserving a latitude for a proestos which he here alledges Timorcus will tell us out of Doctor Sanderson of this rule as to the interpretation of promissory Oaths that tho it s granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret according to the sense of Imposers as our private Oaths according to our sense yet both these rules are to be limited so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others must be other then will comport with the just signification of the words and phrases in the Oath vow or Covenant for this were to destroy saith he the simplicity necessary to every Oath and indeed not to interpret but to coin ane Oath or new obligation Now the obligation of both Nations in this Oath is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness If therefore a fixt Moderator or any supposed moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto no mans glossings whatsoever can according to this necessary rule prejudge the native import signification and extent of these generall clauses In the 2d place his contradiction here imputed to us is but his owne airie imagination for it is not ad idem and eodem modo Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lye Our duty to preserve and our obligation thereanent being relative to the establisht Government of the Church of Scotland and the extirpation engadged unto being relative to another nation and Church wherein that species of Prelacy particularized in the Article was existent so that there is no liberty left for any kinde
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
to that doctine which is according to godliness What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this that one nation vow adherence to its owne establishment in point of reformation and Church Government and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first as will be every way like unto this establishment both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat The Informer next tells us that it is doubted by the learned whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government His first reason is because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed is very insignificant Our Church after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship which Prelates had introduced and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up in Presbyteries synods and Assemblies and all the priviledges of these her courts authorized and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick constitutions and laws will any doubt but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white that the discipline then reformed and establisht is in that oath sworn to be maintained He may al 's well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then established which we Covenant to preserve as to doubt of the government since this reformation then established takes in all the three together and in the same sense Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers as are enumerate in the 2d article but an establisht reformed government was then existent Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say that it was not Presbyterian government or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath His 2d reason is that Independents took that Covenant and had a hand in wording that article that it might not import any particular forme of government That the words import no one forme of government but with this proviso as reformed The Seasonable case said this already to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyteriall as he acknowledged there could be no other government understood then what was then existent established and reformed That to say Indendepents understood it of their government will no more reflect upon the Covenant then upon the Scripture it self which Independents do alledge will plead for their government Next I would ask this man why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine and worship viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reformed but not the then established doctrine and worship is understood in that article and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde except his name and Sirname be in it because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Majesties general titles Alas what ridiculous conceits are these The Doubter next objects that the English parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath did by the reformed government understand Presbytrie which was then settled here and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it whatever Independents think He answers by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government but what they call so and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government This the Seasonable case also said before him and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology To this I say first that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us nor is their sense therof principally to be eyed by us as in his mould of the objection and answer he seems to suppose The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects framed by the consent of both according to their own condition and exigence so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being which he who denyes to have been Presbyterian in its compleat formes and courts he may deny any thing 2. We told him alreadie that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of yet the words and clauses of the Covenant as to that 1. article are clear and abundantly significant and will admit of no evasion And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent the 2d Article is as clear and convincing And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not we have proved that they stood oblidged both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article and also in the more generall clauses mentioned to extirpate Prelacie root and branch This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths if their sense and obligation must vary turne ambulatory or ambiguous according as men do shift or turne aside We told him of Dr Sandersons rule anent the import of the words of an oath in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation whatever liberty men may take to glosse or interpret which is the judgement of all sound Casuists 3. Dare he say that ever the parliament of England denyed that de facto Presbyterian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland or will he make them so irrationall as to deny this necessary consequence that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent and if his consequence cannot but be admitted surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense nor denyed our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government And besides they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern and that of the best reformed Churches in conformity to that pattern And that the Church of Scotland and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent were
such was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves as from their confessions we have made appear For confirming this further because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point In that piece intituled The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40. He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in delivering in writting and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland together with the Doctrine And pag. 41. he cites the corpus confess pag. 6. Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine and 54 years unity without Schisme that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the word of God was by litle and litle received and according to that Discipline the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King Rulers of the church These English Non-conformists Beza the Author of the syntagma in Croftons sense and himself together with them thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government which Mr Knox introduced to have been the government of this Church since the reformation and which King Iames also owned For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Arch-Bishops their approving the order of the Church of Scotland he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world Again pag 39. he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline as the great badge and Test of her government and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland viz. that they were not concerned in and had litle knowledge of that government he tells them that he wonders how an university conversing in all books could profess they had no knowledge of these books So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England the government engadged unto in that article is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government Again pag. 141. he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant and that in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain France and Ireland for himself and Successors and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation he asks the learned in law whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. c. So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant and to reach all his Majesties dominions For he tells us in the preceeding page that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus hath rendred it nationall Again Timorcus pag. 70. asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant anno 1648. sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer and doth evidently demonstrat compared with these passages of Mr Crofton that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England both imposers and takers parliament and people understood that article of Presbyterian government The Doubter here poorly grants that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry we are bound to it in that sense Upon this he assumes That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning Ans. we have already made it good both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expresâ—…ie the nations universall taking it so and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament as well as by the recommendation of the assembly from the total extirpation of prelacy and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts in consequence hereof that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and government cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent Especially the league being framed and entered into by us for our further security in relation to what we had attained And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time and this being also their scope and designe discovered in their treaties with England when that Covenant was entered into I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it whither ever any demurre here anent or any other sense of this article was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath or whither the imposers thereof in Scotland would have engaged in that league with the English upon any other termes then these and in this their sense of that 1. article Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league Nay when as Timorcus tells us it was debated branch by branch phrase by phrase in the convention house in the parliament in the assembly of divines was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland Presbyterian government was not to be understood in a word dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England did in the sense of this oath and even in imitation of the Scottish or rather the Scripture patterne plead for and had begun to set up Presbyterian government and are closs to their principles to this day But
he adds that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers the authority of the respective rulers of both nations in relation to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto and their sense scope therein to be mainly eyed and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges as to their own national end in this stipulation Thinks this man that the then representatives of Church and State did eye any other end as to Scotland then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine Discipline Worship and Government as at that time therein establisht Moreover the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion and frustration of the imposers designe therein Next he tells us that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie What poor stuffe is this Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland would comport with some episcopacie which the Informer hath not yet proved what hath that to do with Scotland Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy till God give further light must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate Nay this is too dull inadvertancie As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland is and Beza is so farre from disowning this that as we heard he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel CHAP. IV. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined at large As also his reasoning upon Numb 30. Wherein his begging of the question his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists and manifold inconsistencies are made appear OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces and the cheife products of his invention or rather of those who have gone before him upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy doth next as a liberall bold disputer undertake to loose the Covenant even upon supposall of its pre-existent obligation against it And therefore making his Doubter tell him that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie either in the national or solemne league lest he fall under the charge of perjurie In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacie The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine and so do I. Because to swear against episcopacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath To this doubt he returns a large resolution but still follows up the Seasonable case closs for fear of miscarrying And first he begins with a threefold partition either prelacy saith he is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government or thirdly of a middle nature neither commanded nor forbidden but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not Here I must stope him a little and minde the reader that we did upon the first Dialogue disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie as a monster to Scripture since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers ordinances Lawes censures and as we heard himself acknowledge setting down all substantialls of Church Government prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto and by consequence necessary or finfull commanded or forbidden So that he is to be limited to the first two and any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy is but his petitio prnicipii and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question now proceed we If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it This I willingly grant to him but what then Why we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered Let this bargaine stand I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences appear to be vaine and proven the contrariety of that prelacie now established both to the Scripture and pure antiquity and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment What next what if it be sinfull Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation No may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schisme heresie and profanness May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason because before this Oath treason is a sin Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation though the matter it self doth binde did not the Oath and Covenant Neh. 8. containe an abjuration of many sins against which the people stood before preoblidged But he adds its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger Right why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger Especially against this man and his fellows who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus Then he tell us That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull Sure they are very faint disputants We heard that Beza whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery called episcopacy diaâ—…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull But how will he now absolve us Why it must be indifferent neither lawfull nor unlawful and then the question is with him if we could by our own Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull so that we can never after submit unto it He adds that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill
flows not from the wife her donation nor the parents from the Children So that a parallel argument can hardly be drawen from the Power of husbands and parents supposed in this text in relation to Oaths and vows of the Children and wife to that of the Magistrat in relation to his subjects 2ly in the beginning of that Chap. the Lords way of Laying down this great Sanction touching vows seems to exclude the Magistrat from this absolving Power For after the propounding of the Law touching the keeping of voluntary Oaths and vows viz. that the person vowing shall not break nor profane his Word as the Hebrew signifies but do according to all that Proceeds out of his mouth 1. The Case of the wife and the Daughter not foris-familiat is Gods great and only exception exprest in the Text from his own rule and Law touching the strick observation of voluntarie Lawfull vows So that the rule and Law seems to reach all other Cases as to free vows except only this 2ly in the Beginning of the Chap. we find that Moses spoke this to the Rulers and heads of the tribes but the text is silent as to his applying of this exception anent the father and husbands Power in absolving vows unto these heads Rulers which should have been especially intimat to them Hence it may be probaby Concluded that the Rule and Law touching the observation of vows stands fast in all other Cases except these here expresly excluded by the Great Lawgiver So that ere his argument can reach us he most give in Sufficient proof that the Magistrat stands vested with this Power and falls within the Compass of this exception in relation to his subjects Not to detain him here in tasking him to prove that this Judicial statute as others of the like nature doth belong unto the Christian Chùrch But in the second place Granting that the Magistrat is here meant it will never speak home to his Point but much against him for 1. the dominion of the Superiour being the ground of this discharge wherin the husband and Parent have Power if the matter of our vow be found such as is excepted from the Magistrats dominion the Informer must grant that this text will not reach our Case And supposing the matter antecedaneously unto the vow to fall under divine Commands this is evident beyond exception But because he beggs our concession that it was before indifferent I adde if it be within the Limits of our reserved Libertie as free subjects or of our Christian Libertie it s still on both grounds beyond the reach of his dominion and consequently excluded from this exception and the vow must stand and oblidge according to the Grand precept here set down so that a hundred discharges of the Magistrat will never touch it We heard him acknowledge that by discipline of this Church in the nationall Covenant the substantialls of Government is understood and that consequently it binds therunto So he must acknowledge that our solemn Covenant will inviolably bind to this divine Frame of Government no earthlie power can loose therfrom no more then from Scripture institutions And Doctor Featlie acknowledgeth that people may Covenant without their Superiours to fulfill Gods Law Now give us all Scripture Church officers and their Rules of Government Prelacie shall be quickly gone So that upon his concession that the national or solemn league do reach the substantialls of Government or what is necessary for the ends of Government set down in Scripture it will amount to that which we plead for and he must grant it falls not under the Magistrats Dominion and that his argument from this text is lost 2dly this dissent which looses the vow must be both ane open dissent and also presentlie in the verie day he heares of it Qui sero se noluisse significat putandus est aliquando voluisse That is he that declares a late dissent may be presumed sometimes to have given his consent saith Dr Sand. de jur prom This he cannot say as to our King 3ly It most be constant the dissent suspending but not loosing the obligation The oblidging vertue being naturall and inseparable to the vow as Dr Sand. tells us de jur prom pag. 3. Sect. 10. when ever the consent comes the obligation returns Now have not our King and Rulers consented unto and ratefied all our vows both in the nationall and solemn league and Covenant 4ly This consent of the superiour once given can never he retracted by a dissent again Whither it be before or after he can never make it void as the Text doth clearlie hold out See Sand. 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. Now have not both the nationall and solemn League the Consent vows of all our superiours ratifying the same So that this text every way pleads for the obligation therof for this their consent once given they can never revoke far less their Oath and vows but the vows of the inferiours are thereby rendered for ever valid as Casuists in setting down these rules doe grant so Aquinas Filucius Tract 25 cap. 9. Azor. Moral inst lib. 11. cap. 10. Sanches lib. 3. Cap. 9. Amesius cas lib. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 11. Sand. Juram Prom. Prel 4. Sect. 16. But the Doubter objecting this consent and ratification of our superiours which therefore they cannot make void He answers that by comparing the 12. and 15. verses it appears that after the husband hath by silence confirm'd his wifes vow yet he hath a power of voiding it again and she is exonered of her vow and bound to obey her husbands Commands Ans. Although this were granted as the Text stands in clear contradiction to it that the husband might null the vow after he hath confirmed it by a silence or tacit confirmation yet it will not follow that his nulling power will hold after he hath given not onlie a formall consent positive but also solemnlie vowed and bound his soule to the Lord in the same vow which is most evidentlie our case Have we not the solemn vows subscriptions and Oaths of both King and Rulers concurring with the vows of the subjects in this case How then shall they loose their own vows 2ly this wilde gloss is expresly cross to Dr Sanderson and other Casuists their sense of this case and text as we heard who hold that if once the superiour hath either tacitly or expressly precedaniously or subsequently consented he can never by his dissent again either discharge from the Oath or so much as suspend the obligation of it Dr. Sand. saith 16. Prel 7. Sect. 6. it s a true rule quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet what once in this case hath pleas'd the superiour ought never to displease Gods Word declaring it established for ever If he hath consented saith the Dr either before or after be can never afterwards take away its obligation 3. He makes the text contradict it self for ver 7. upon
certainlie attaind by keeping then breaking it then the Rulers commuting the Oath or altering or breaking of it he must acknowledge to be sinfull upon his own ground Since they might have attaind these good effects of obedience preaching the gospel and unity by keeping this Oath and might have more surelie and better eshewed the forementioned evils then by breaking it And then let him in the third place seriously Consider whither the Rulers sin in commutting or breaking this Oath for neither a greater nor more certain good will warrand my breaking of the Oath to follow them in that sinfull course and loose me from my obligation 4ly It will hence follow that he playes the petty sophister here in calling disobedience to the Magistrat in this one point of a sinfull command in relation to this Oath which on the formentioned grounds is proved Sinfull a disobeying of authoritie For he dare not say that disobeying a sinfull command can come under this character And the true state of this Question is not whither it be a greater good to obey the Magistrat or keep ane oath but whither it is a greater good in this particular to obey him in Embracing abjur'd Prelacie or to stand to the Oath and the issue of this is whither it be best for the Church of Scotland to have or want Prelats which from what is said is soon determined 5ly What if these pretended good issues be countervaild by greater evills such as persecution of many thousands godlie faithfull Ministers and Professors laying waste Gods heritage Blood miserie confusion schisme the godlie adherers to this Oath being without all question this Pure Church famine of the word c. Nay according to Dr Sand. rule mentioned where is the Relaxation of all parties engadged in Covenant one with another as well as with God were not the Churches of both nations nay in all the three Kingdoms engadged to one another in this Oath now thinks he not that this prospect of a greater good in breaking this oath should have been laid to the eye of the representative Church in the three Kingdoms in order to the change of government And should not all parties engadged in this Covenant have dispensed with it and with one another in contemplation of this greater good and for obtaining this better government thinks he that such a great question as this What is this greater good in point of Church Government And that other Question Whither such great and solemn Oaths may be laid aside in order to the obtaining of it Are Finally decided by the Magistrats Law without the least owning the Church representative and besides he dare not say that all are bound to obey the Magistrat in all things indifferent Is not subjection by the acknowledgement of most and even of his Master the surveyer different from active obedience Finally as for what he sayes of Ministers the Apologist told him and his master the Seasonable case and I do tell him again that God calls no man to preach the gospel by such ane unlawfull meane as perjurie and breach of Covenant and that in this case Ministers suffering for truth is a Confirmation of the gospel Phil. 1. 12. That in deserting and not preaching they are meerly passive being persecute for their integritie so the charge and guilt of not preaching lyes upon their persecutors Besides the state of the question in truth and in our principles importing a competition betwixt sin and suffering and duty and sin not a lesser and greater duty the folly and impertinency of his instance anent the lesser duty over-ruled by the greater exemplified by that I will have mercy and not sacrifice repeated here ad nauseam as also that instance of Paul and those with him their casting their goods in the sea c is most evident The sin and perjurie of this course of conformitie being our principle which he cannot disprove even though we should grant all his pleading here which goes but upon a begged supposition of prelacies indifferencie and the indifferencie of the matter of the Covenant what a flat folly is it to tell us of preferring greater to lesser duties wheras with us the question and case is anent Ministers duty when the Magistrat refuseth to admit to preach but upon sinfull terms which one consideration makes all his tatle here evanish in wind Suppose the Rulers of a land discharge all preaching but upon the terms that Ministers should commit some horrid act of wickedness would this man admit any to plead as he doth for doing evill that good may come of it and to tell what a weightie duty it is to preach the gospel and that the lesser duty of forbearing that evill commanded is overruld by the greater obligation to preach c. Well he and his partie like the pharisaik teachers twixt whom and us he insinuats a comparison are sure blind Informers and leaders and may be set to learn better thou that teachest another teachest thou not self For they have vented such principles anent sacred Oaths as some heathens would be ashamed of and which banishes all faith out of the world For what he adds anent the Rechabites when he shal equiparat the matter of their vow a thing meerly civil relating to their abstinence from wine and the manner of their dwelling with the weighty and great duties of a Covenant with God for publick and personal reformation and withal prove that hazart will equally plead for the laying aside of the last as in some cases it may warrand a dispensing with some part of the first the parallel shall be admitted but till then it must pass among the rest of the Informers gratis dicta The Dutch annot on Jer. 35. 7. Shew that Ionadab probably put this ingadgment on his posterity upon his foresight by a prophetick spirit of the judgments and desolations to come upon Israel in order to their inoffensive walk and for inuring them to parsimony And as for their dwelling at Jerusalem in case of hazard they shew on 11. V. that the Rechabits laid aside in this one thing their fathers command because it was but a humane ordinance which in obedience to the law of God they might in some cases wave which was also Ionadabs intention and acceptable to God And that in giving this account to the prophet of their practise in reference to their dwelling now at Jerusalem upon the Assyrians invasion they do shew that their fathers charge and their vow was not to be extended to this case So that in their sense there was no breach of the vow properly and strictly taken but onely the laying aside of a part of a humane ordinance in case of extreme hazart and this according to the nature and designe of the vow it self and the first institution therof CHAP. V. The Informers answers to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites and Zedikiahs Oath to the King of Babylon weighed Upon the
thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie moralitie of the Sabath free election c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment and Christs appointing Officers lawes and censures as head of his Church his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an 81 daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church with no other name then that of a conventicle 8ly Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her priviledges concerning heads of religion heresy excommunication and censures clear this Next Church-Judicatories were not discontinued but sat upon their old ground and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only Hence 9ly It s clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings at Linlithgow 1606 at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution to the priviledges of this Church And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie before they were raisd So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly c. For the 3d point viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly do plead upon for the peoples adherence take it shortly thus the prelatists do plead first that they are Ministers and in that relation to this Church 2lv That corruptions in administrators will not according to our own principles warrand separation from ordinances 3ly they plead order and union which they allege is broken by peoples withdrawing These are the cheif topicks they insist on On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question first from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers professours adhering to our Churches reformation principles and priviledges are the pure genuine Church of Scotland tho now fled into a wilderness whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren 2ly that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church and invasion of Christs Kingdome prerogatives and ordinances subjecting the lawes officers and censures of his Church unto men exauctorating putting in officers without his warrand that Prelats and their deputes consequently have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection 3ly that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly 4ly That hence it followes because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it and therefore to disown Curats both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church and as standing in a stated opposition to her likewise as the obiects of her censure if she were in capacity to draw her sword That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge beside the corruption Worship and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church and leading the people away from our vowed reformation c. In the 4th place to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands let us premise these things 1. Every separation is not sinfull even from a Church which hath the essentialls yea and more then the essentialls a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation But further in these cases separation is not schism I. It if be from those tho Never so many who are drawing back and in so far as drawing back from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind For this is still tobe held fast according to many scripture comands as we shall shew So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken was as another Athanasius I and I only am left in point of tenacious integrity 2ly if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts and authority while those from whom we separat own that corruption 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access after a National Churches reformation is overturnd and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners For in this case the persecuters separat from them and chase them away 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders in that which is of it self sinfull or inductive to it which is far from separation strictly taken The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill and hating the garment spotted with the flesh do clearly include this 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation which will not warrand separation from the Church National nor infer it by Mr Durhams acknowledgment on scandal pag. 129. For if scandals become excessive he allowes to depart to another congregation 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship the precepts to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean be separat 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge Prev 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation Act. 2. 40 will clearly import this by consequence 2dly This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which must be proved as first that the Prelats and their adherents are the only true organick Church of Scotland which is denyed her frame and constitution being such as it said surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number as they should have been if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish These souldiers who keep the Genâ—…rals orders are the true army not the deserters of the same Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd constitute and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland or this partie whose constitution
pure doctrine of this Church in complyance with persecuters surely they and they only are the schismaticks Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her priviledges what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks Now what is the difference here except that this party makes the greater number but will this take away the charge of schism suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ouâ—… upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks were not this a ridiculous charge and Just so is that of Conformists in this case 2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made Now then let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course without which they will not admit them to officiat and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit or else Ministers obligation to preach and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection will stand good on the old grounds and all the scripture comands founded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial relation to set the trumpet to their mouth and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection and peoples obligation to hear and take warning will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation 3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers and professors are in this their practise never toched by all his arguments and defences but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call which conformists lay claim unto Presbyterian Ministers answer that Nonconforming Ministers have this that they are Ministers of this Church and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats is not the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call will not with him infer hearing Non-conformists because of their supposed schism Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats who really are such 2. he pleads that corruptions and failings in administrators or even some corruptions in ordinances will not infer disowning of Ministers Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them to whom this is so clarly applicable 3ly he pleads union But let him say what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations was it ane union under Prelacie Erastianism and persurious breach of Covenant was not our Churches Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and Goverment a beautiful order and union Now who broke this supppose we should Plead union against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers will he owne this pleading or not rather disowne it because he thinks our union is schismatical well so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party this pleading is null 4. Divines do tell us particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32. that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule otherwise if the Churches deviation specially be great there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing from it and hence infers that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical Moreover this man himself grants that schism in its ordinary acceptation is taken for a causless separating and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin in that case separation is necessary Now then if we can prove that our non union is not causless and that communion cannot be held with Conformists in our case and circumstances without sin we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity we offer these considerations 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands for all along we must suppose its binding force and that there is a considerable body of Ministers professours contending for it and that the question is to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere and that according to our principles anent its binding force and the unlawfulness of Prelacie which this man cannot disprove The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes specially as this man pleads for it with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of reformation contrary to the first article wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn such as for prospering Prelats and their courses Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture repeating of the creed at baptism singing a set forme of conclusion or what innovations in worship are introduced Again this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders all which are contrary to the other articles thereof This will be specially clear if it be further considered That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer the presbyterian interest and our Reformation according to the Covenant will be extinct sold and betrayed 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie in opposition to the Covenant work of Reformation So that its a case of confession now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry contending for it 3. Ther 's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding but by this practice there is no getting of wrongs redrest or corruptions in the Ministry removed Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency in this great work of Reformation and is not this the way to fall into it more and more 5. We engadge that we shall endeavour that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto 6. We engadge
direct impeachment of our establisht reformation and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the same 2. Conformists do avowedly disowne and abjure our Covenants Presbyterians adhere unto and owne the same 3. Conformists are breaking and dissipating our Churches establisht order and union Presbyterians are in this practice contending for both the one party is wounding our Church both by persecution and reproach the other is taking her by the hand endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep distresse and so the Covenant obliges to disowne the first and adhere to the second 4. The one is censurable by her the other deserves her praise Now can there be any question in this to which of these parties people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Reformation In the 4th place In a sinfull separation as to communion in worship it must be supposed the worship of that Church ownd and establisht therein because a party innovating herein as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is establisht are hactenus and ipso facto in this their practice and upon this very ground schismaticks both in their worship and government Therefore to disowne them therein can be no schism for this would involve a palpable contradiction that these withdrawers in this same practice and in the same respects and circumstances therof were Schismaticks and not Schismaticks Now prelatists their doctrine is new and odd and not the voice of this Church And their worship over and above the corruption adhering to it is the worship of an innovating party and contrary to our Churches establisht order And therfore to disowne them therein is no sinfull separation from this Church her fellowship and worship while existing in her sound and purer part and opposing these innovations 5. In Schismatick separation the rent is made in the bowels of the true and genuine Church So that when a schism and rent is stated betwixt a godly Ministry contending for a pure Churches Reformation against an apostat party of the Ministry the sound professours stand preobliged to adhere unto and strengthâ—…n the sounder part upon this very ground of holding the union and communion of that pure Church against these backsliders supposing they will rent and ruine her if not opposed and so the case is here The union and order of this Church is already broken by the prelatick innovators and backsliders and by them only so that upon the supposal of this fixed schism the people of God must adhere to the sound Church and Ministry And in this extreme necessity the lesser obligation as to parochial order must give place to the greater duties of preserving and maintaining the Churches union and reformation when a course is carried on tending to ruine it 6. Every sinfull separation is from the fellowship of a Church either in her Ministry lawfull courts or Worship and ordinances according to the various relations state and condition of Separatists whether Church officers or others But in this our case Presbyterian Ministers and professours separat in none of these respects from the genuine Church of Scotland 1. Ministers separat not from her courts for none of her lawful courts are now publickly own'd or existent 2. People separate not from her Worship as it stood reformed and vowed unto when they owne the ordinances dispensed by her true pastours for that only is the true Worship of this Church Nor 3. from her Doctrine and a due subjection to her faithfull pastours in the Lord And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Ministers and professours Where is then the Schism Since both the Doctrine Worship and Government of this true Church are ownd and backsliders and Schismaticks only and as such are disownd 7. Schism supposes that these whom we withdraw from are such to whom we are under obligation to adhere for it is a breach of union which is cemented and conglutinate by the obligations and duties of those who are concerned to hold it fast So that where the obligation to the duty in subserviency to this union cannot be demonstrate to be incumbent upon such and such persons and in such acts By whom and wherein this union is to be upheld the charge of Schism upon these acts which are supposed to violat that union evanishes and falls to the ground But if the person tho a Minister supposed from whom the separation is made wants that which immediatly grounds this obligation of owning hâ—…m hic nunc as the case stands circumstantiat in that respect withdrawing or non-union can be no Schism for else the most ingraind Schismaticks might be owned the Informer himself must of necessity admit this for otherwise he will crosse and cut the sinews of all his pleading and arguments which he presents in this Dialogue for disowning Presbyterian Ministers in this our case for I am confident that out of this circumstanciat case he will grant that it is no breach of any of his rules or reasons to hear them That they are Ministers and are preaching faith and repentance that they have a lawfull Ministeriall call and ordination c. All these he thinks will plead nothing as the case is now circumstantiat for adhering to them because of that in their present condition which outweighs all this and looses peoples obligation to owne them which he thinkes is no Schism but duty Now let our Informer turn the tables if there be first that in Curats present state which preponderats as to our disowning of them now tho all that he pleads as to their ordination and ministerial call were granted it s no Schism in this our case to disowne them according to his own principles and pleading in this point 2. He must grant that denying to hear hic nunc and in such a complex case is different from a denying to hear simpliciter or disowning such a mans Ministry simpliciter or absolutely as he will grant that out of this case Presbyterian Ministers might be heard and that disowning them is not simpliciter a disowning a true Ministry or Church or them as Ministers So that its this case of competition with Conformists which with him casts the ballance Hence as matters now are stated and circumstantiat and upon our principles and premised Hypotheses he must grant there is that in conformists case which hic nunc will loose our obligation to receive the ordinances from them as the ministers of this Church which is the white in the marke wherat all his arrows are shot Such as 1. that we are preobliged by a lawful Oath to extirpat and disowne them 2. That they are promoters of a Prelatick designe to ruine our Reformation 3. That they have avowedly disownd our Covenants and that we are commanded by the overturners of our Covenanted Reformation to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it and concurring in this course of backsliding 4. That they are intruders and not entring in
seems saith he that some then out of pride and singularity for sooke the ordinary and orderly assemblies of Christians Ans. In this accusation his so much boasted of charity is evaporate What! No assemblies for worship in this Church but among Conformists doth he not thus unchristian and unchurch all the Assemblies of Presbyterian Ministers and professors for worship why persuades he people to forsake these Assemblies and who now Iudges another mans servant as he who brands withself-conceit ignorance and schism all these Assemblies of Nonconforming Ministers and professours who dare not comply with prelats Again how proves he that no assemblies are orderly except the Prelatical we avow our meetings for worship to be the most orderly according to our Churches established Reformation and that their Assemblies are cross to her constution order and union both in respect of Curats perjurious intrusion the doctrine which they deliver and their manner of worship which is cross to this Churches practice and appeintment his charge of schism and disorderliness is still begged but not yet proved and orderliness is with him described from Church-walls and as for unity why have they east out hundreds of Ministers from officiating because they durst not joyn with Conformists in their perjur'd course of defection if this man be not here self convict let any Judge Let him produce if he can in our Assemblies for worship that which is contraire unto the nature constitution and worship of the assemblies mentioned in that scripture and untill this be we may on better ground recriminat this charge upon his withdrawing people from the Assemblies of Presbyterian ministers and professors The Doubter alledges poorly that all do not forsake their parochial Assemblies but some do now and then keep them He Answers that tho all withdraw not in alike degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable that people advance from step to step that some after withdrawing from them hear only the Indulged or those who have still preached without conformity in their own Châ—…rches and within a little will hear none of them that some hear in their own Churches but will not communicat the reason whereof he cannot understand since the efficacy of Sacraments depends not on the Minister that the lest degree of separation makes way for a greater that Baxter in his cure of Church divisions tells of some turning separatists who dyed Infidels Ans. He hath not yet proved that the withdrawing which he mentions is a Sinfull Schismatick separation and we hope we have made the contraire appear As for these degrees he mentions we say 1. His cruell uncharitablness to Presbyterian Ministersis here very conspicuous since he will not allow them to be in the least heard or own'd in their present case and circumstances Certainly to tye up people from occasional improvement of the various gifts which God hath bestowed upon his ministers even in a setled state of the Church and in her right constitution is cross to that interest in one anothers gifts and graces which the members of Christs mystical body upon the ground of their union and communion with the head and among themselves are priviledged with And in impeaching this the Informer blotes himself with scismatick uncharitablenes of the deepest dye 2. As it s no strange thing that in such a time of darkness desertion and defection peoples recovery be gradual and sometime attended with Infirmities in the manner of duties incident to us while in time so the contrary influences of love to truth and duty and fear of hazard may be easily productive of such variety in the carriage of poor tender souls in this matter In a word the Lords supper being a special badge of our union and communion in and with Jesus Christ It s no strange thing that tender souls scruple to pertake thereof from men at so palpable a distance from him as Conformists especially while this ordinance may be enjoyed more purely elswhere He tells us that Schismaticks ar cut off from the body and receive no life from it and if we may drawan inference and retortion from this assertion the people of God must judge Conformists to be such For these effects of separation which Baxter mentions we bless the Lord the contrary effects of sound piety in many who were prophane while owning the Ministry of Conformists are convincingly apparent since they separated from them and the effects of backsliding from Gods truth viz. gross prophanity or atheisticall Indifferency in the matters of God are as sadly evident in those who having once own'd Presbyterian Ministers have return'd to Conformists again As for what he objects and answers anent some of their own party going to others then their own parish-Curats whom unless insuperable le ts hinder to attend their own parish-Church he would have his fellows not to owne We are not much concernd to notice any further then to tell him that parvo discrimine refert which of them people go to the best of them being as a briar and the most uprights as a thorn-hedge and all of them blotted with such Schismatick opposition to this Church her pure constitution and principles as may put it beyond debate with tender souls lovers of truth and duty that they ought adhere to Christs faithfull ambassadours rather then any of them The Doubter objects that its hard to hinder to go where we may be most edifyed since we must Cover the best gifts 1 Cor. 12. 31. He answers 1. that the Apostle is not directing private Christians what gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of gifts and every one should be content with his own given for the edification of others yet that he should seek after better not in others but in himself Ans. Our Informer doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way of representing this and some objections ensuing for 1. He supposes that this is lookt upon in it self as a sufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers without previous consideration of all the circumstances of our present case and also in supposing that nothing casts the ballance in the Judgement of the objecter as to profiting or not profiting but difference of gifts whereas we grant that the soveraign Influence of Gods Spirit who teaches to profit renders the means and ordinances effectual to salvation whether the Ministers gifts be great or small 2. We grant that tho people have a discretive Iudgement as to gifts and their own profiting and are to try the spirits yet in a setled state of the Church they are not to shake off the due regulation and guidance of a faithfull Ministry set over them in the Lord so as to be wholly at their own disposal herein since there is no Justling betwixt the privat discretive and publick Ministerial judgement in this matter 3. As in the tryall of Intrants not only the sufficiency but suteablenes of gifts for such a people is to be
receiving these of another congregation to the Worship We say that according to the Informer himself its clear that such rules of decency and order are not calculat for every meridian every time and case of the Church extraordinary cases must have suitable remedies and circumstances of parochial order cannot in this case be pleaded when our main order of Government is already destroy'd and a persecuting party is in our Churches bosome tearing out her bowels when a besidged city hath within her walls a party of professed defendants betraying her to the enemie they are the most orderly and faithfull watchmen who resist them and run to the posts which they have betrayed Again should the many Ministers now persecute let us suppose they are residing in the bounds plead parochial order for their parishes adhering to them and disowning their Curats incumbent the Informer will not say that parochial order will plead for owning them in this case Or in the case of conforming Ministers turning enemies to Prelats and by consequence Schismaticks in his account he will grant that the people whom we will suppose they are breaking off from the union of the Prelatick Church ought not to owne them but were concern'd to go else where to hear Now the case being so with us this argument by his own confession cannot now have weight until all that we plead against them on this ground be answered Next he cites the Act of the Assembly 1647. Against them who withdraw usually from the Worship in their own congregation except in urgent cases made knowen unto and approven by the Presbytery Concluding that therefore they thought not this a fit method of edification that this act was made to prevent Schism But had he set down the narrative of that act it might have coverd him with blushes and would expose him to the censure of every Reader for it is grounded upon the then compleat establishment of the work of Reformation this Churches comely order of Presbyterian Government then exercised her Presbyterian unity and peace the purity and liberty of the Gospel ordinances then righly enjoyed But what will this say to the present case of defection and persecution wherein the faithful Ministry are thrust from their flocks and that work raz'd dare he say this assembly did intend to stretch their act to such a case as this or to stop Ministers from officiating in such a distrest destroyed condition of our Church Suppose this case had been stated in that Assembly What if Presbyterian Government shall be razed Prelacâ—…e erected the Covenant and the work of Reformation overturned and disowned by a number of Ministers while a stedfast body of the Ministry stands against them shall this act reach the people in relation to their faithfull Pastours ejected perjur'd intruders I dare refer it to this man himself to say to it what their resolution would have been and if they would have concluded it the people's duty to adhere to these destroyers in that case rather then the faithfull contenders for the work of Reformation In the 7th Article of their directions for family Worship past that same day they suppose this Church to be then blest with peace and purity and therefore do except from the compass of these directions the case of corruption and trouble wherein they say many things are commendable which are not otherwise tollerable And dare he say that they would not call this such a case He makes the Doubter yet again poorly except that men have different gifts which is here a meer nauseating repetition to fill up idle pages Upon this our Informer very discreetly and charitably tells us that we can litle judge of an edifying gift and do call railing at Bishops or at the civil powers and a tone in the voice so Just as Dr Burnet said before in in his roaving Dialogues What is the Judgement of Gods people as to edification and the evidence of the Masters presence with Presbyterian Ministers in preaching to his people depends not on this Character it being comprobat by clear proofs and sufficiently notour to such as can spiritually taste and discern But he will offer some considerations about diversity of gifts and edification by them which is to no purpose since our plea is not meerly grounded upon the gifts of preachers whether Conformists or others but abstracting from this we say first there is much more then meer gifts yea and an edifying gift requisit to ground a peoples owning a Minister hic nunc or in every circumstantiat case as their pastour what if he be in a schismatick course what if he be violently thrust in and hath shut out their Lawfull pastour standing in that relation to them to whom by this mans concession they owe special subjection reverence and obedience in the Lord for this we will find him hereafter plead are the people bound in this case to owne the Intruder because of his gift Nay he will not say it Now the case is Just so with us 2. We told him that our case is a case of competition betwixt the betrayers and destroyers of our Reformation and a faithfull Ministry adhering to and contending for it so that its this great Ministerial qualification of faithfullness opposit to Curats â—…reachery beside Presbyterian Ministers gifts and Gods blessing attending the same and the Curats intrusion unfaithfulness destructive principles and design in their officiating besides their insufficiency prophanity and blasted gifts which determine us in this matter and the Lords call consequently that for our edification and to prevent our Church her ruine and our perishing in their sin we come out from among them and be separat as we would come out of Babylon to which their party is runing post so that all he saith here may be granted without prejudice to our cause But let us hear his considerations anent edification and gifts first saith he all Ministers have not alike gifts therfore we must not undervalue the lowest 1 Cor. 12. I told him our quarrel is not meerly gifts a man may be hic nunc disown'd and yet no undervaluing of his gifts which the Informer must either grant or contradict all that he intends in this pamphlet For I ask him what if I plead this for Presbyterian Ministers whom for all their excellent and edifying gifts he and his party will not owne and whom be is in this pamphlet striving might and main tanquam pro â—…ris and focis to get universally disown'd by all professours in Scotland why quarrells he with the Almighty to use his own expression in undervaluing their gifts and would teare their commission I know our Informer will say that they are disorderly and so disowning them is no despising their gifts Well then he grants that men of excellent gifts may be hic nunc or in some cases disown'd and no hazard of this undervaluing and despising their gifts or quarrelling with the Almighty so the rebound
foundation and basis of that tye but begs the question in the application thereof to his case I suppose a Presbyterian Minister should plead this to warrand his officiating among his people in opposition to the Curat incumbent that the people are bound to owne him as their Minister because of this reciprocal â—…ye That the Scripture obligations mentioned by the Informer lyes on him to be faithfull and diligent which while he is endeavouring according to his duty founded on his relation to his people the people are therefore bound to attend on his Ministrie to esteem him love him receive the Law from him and and not to discountenance nor discourage him by withdrawing to another Now let this man shew what he will answer to this pleading and his argument will quickly evanish before his own answer If he say that the tye is loosed let him instruct what that is which has in this case loosed it Sure neither the Magistrates violence nor Prelatick censures according to our Principles and the Doctrine of sound divines when this case is truely stated And if this divine tye stand what will he say Will it not 1. follow according to him that a Minister may be under a standing tye to his people and they to their Minister and yet the people for all this may not be obliged to hear him but another hie nunc and that warrantably without hazard of disobedience to these Scriptures and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare generall argument from the reciprocal tye Sure in some cases the tye may stand and yet the actuall reciprocal exercise or obligation to the exercise of duties may be hic nunc warrantably suspended in very many supposable cases as of Physicall impediments in the people and Minister hostile invasion Pestilence Imprisonment c. 2. If the tye or relation do stand and likewise all things which do immediatly dispose to the exercise of duty then the Prelatical incumbent is in this case an intruder and not to be own'd For I suppose he will not say that a Presbyterian Minister might lawfully officiat in his own Parish after the Curat is setled there for this would quite cross the scope of his Argument Now the Question betwixt the two competitors is which of them hath the prior lawfull and standing tye will he dare to deny that Presbyterian ministers had this and since he cannot shew how it is loosed nor prove it to be loosed this argument will militat not for him but against him Next as for what he cites out of Mr Durham on Revel pag. 105 106. anent this tye It is still extra oleas and nothing correspondent to his purpose untill he instruct that which is the basis and foundation of this Relation in the case of Conformists which he neither doth nor offers to do Mr Durham speaks of a special delegation from Christ of his speciall warrand and appointment to such a man to treat with such a flock Now sure this most be instructed from his Word and Testament as to Curats before he can from this make any shew of Argument For Presbyterian ministers do upon better ground lay claim to this special appointment in relation to their flocks upon which conformists have intruded yet this man thinks these ministers are not to be owned And since this deputation and appointment is with Mr Durham the foundation of the duty betwixt minister and people it must be cleard from the word in the case of Conformists before this passage of Mr Durham will afford any patrociny to his cause Then he tells us Thaâ—… Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded on meer voluntary consent Well let him mark this and then he must acknowledge that it s not meerly the Curats gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre nor the peoples blind consent that will make them Ministers of these Congregations where they officiat What is it then that founds this relation The Scipture-commands saith Mr Durham 1 Thes. 5. 12. Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord. Heb 13. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that most give account c. But will this man deny that Mr Durham speaks upon the supposition of the Minister his having the Ministerial call and mission according to the rule of the Word to ground his pleading these Scripture commands and his special commission to such a people And that he look't upon the Presbyteries mission and ordination and the peoples call together with due qualifications and the visible evidences of Christs call in the person thus admitted as the foundation of this special relation to such a flock according to the Scripture pattern and the order and Government of this Church then established I durst pose his conscience upon the truth of this and whether Mr Durham did ever dream of a speciall relation to a flock in this Church resulting from a Prelates mission in a Method of perjury in opposition to our Covenant and sworn reformation without the mission and ordination of a Presbytry or the peoples call and in a way of intrusion upon the charges of faithfull Ministers violently thrust out by persecuting Prelats the men thus obtruded being for most part such as have nothing that may ground a reasonable or charitable construction of them that they are sent of God but palpable evidences of the contrary While in the mean time the faithfull Ministers are willing to cleave to their flocks and the flocks to them If he say that all the Ministers he pleads for are not such I Answer he makes no limitation of this Argument but pleads the foremention'd Scriptures and Mr Durham's Testimony universally and tells us in the next page that Mr Durham binds the people fast to the Ministers of their own congregations by this discourse he means to the Ministry of all the Conformists As for that passage of Mr Durham's Testimony after cited by him anent the Sympathy betwixt Ministers and flocks and the reckoning that will be made in relation to mutuall duties We think it pleads very strongly for that Sympathy that ought now to be betwixt Presbyterian Ministers and their flocks which Conformists have usurped upon and the mutuall performing of duty to each other upon all hazards in opposition to the Curats intrusion And if Paul aggreaged particularly the Gentiles slighting and grieving him by his particular delegation to them which was even as to the Apostle himself by the imposition of the hâ—…ds of the Presbytry Act. 13. 13. Presbyterian Ministers delegation to their flocks which was in this manner must needs stand and may be much better pleaded upon this ground then that of Curats Who are sent to flocks by Prelats as their own underlings and have nothing like Pauls delegation in their mission So that Mr Durhams arguments and the Scriptures cited by him are
so far from tying congregations to conformists as this man alleages that they tye them to their own faithfull Presbyterian pastours and by consequence to disowne prelats and their intruding hirelings as none of the lawfull Pastours of this Church I might here add that the account of the Pastours duty and the ground of the people's subjection and obedience exhibit to us in these scriptures which he mentions doth sufficiently exclude their party from any claim therunto What do they hear Gods word and warn the people from him who are generally so ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themselves and hardning others in rebellion against him are they watching for souls as they that must give account who are loving to sleep and slumber and dare not say most of them that ever they enquird at any soul how it is betwixt God and them do their lips keep knowledge who have departed out of the way and caused many stumble at the Law are they labouring and admonishing as to sin and duty who are ringleaders in a course of defection Sure if the duties of subjection reverence and obedience suppose such characters of Ministers and such qualifications as are here exprest people are hereby abundantly discharged from such subjection and obedience as to Conformists who are so palpably destitute of these qualifications So that the Informer falls utterly short of his intended advantage by this citation of Mr Durham and the scriptures therin mentioned do wound his cause tâ—… death and cut the sinews of his reasoning This man is so unhappy as to fall still by the rebound of his own arguments and the scripture-weapons which in pleading for this cause will never be found the weapons of his warfare wounds him every time he handles them which as it hath before so it shall presently appear further in some more of his arguments and answers upon this point which we now present CHAP. III. The Doubters argument from Curats not entring by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven The Informers exceptions upon the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fully examined and the peoples right in the call of Pastours cleared therfrom His reasonings about Patronages and the prelatick ordination and peoples disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship scanned and retorted upon him Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined Our Informer upon this point of separation which he holds to be his fort-royal in the present differences having plyed his Doubter with offensive weapons will needs shew his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless Well this fair disputant will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry which he is acting in this pamphlet The first argument which his Doubter offers is their not entring by a call from the people as all Ministers should citing Act. 14. 23. but by a presentation from the patron In answer to this he spends some discourse upon that text which we shall examine But to clear this point the more fully I will premise three things 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastouâ—… we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy and from other scripture-grounds beside this although it be a weighty ground also unto this we refer the reader 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawfull call it doth clearly follow that the patronages are a corruption rendring the Ministers call in this respect maimed and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be 3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron and not called by the people hath the essence of the Ministerial office and might in some cases be owned as a Minister yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat Because 1. It s certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church as establisht before these innovations a Ministers entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery without the usurping Prelate and by the call of the people without the Patron is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry and moreover the only way of entry own'd and authorized by her supreme Indicatories and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other and Ministers thus Lawfully called are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy and patronages formerly cast out and vowed against that people do adhere to their faithfull pastours rather then these Innovators and intruders which will be convincingly clear if it be also considered particularly that as prelacy allits corruptions usurpations now existent and introduced were fully removed and abjured by this Church so laick patronages in speciall were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39. act viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them both by the National and solemn league covenant by many deliverances and mercies from God by the latesolemn engadgement to duties to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland to advance the work of Reformation and considering that patronages persentations of Kirkes is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people Ministers of this land have long groan'd That it hath no warrand in Gods word but is founded only on the Canon Law that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance superstition that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline wherein upon solid grounds it s reckon'd among abuses that are desired to be reformed and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of Churches to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge c. This act the parliament 1662 did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice till they obtain a presentation from the Lawfull Patron and collation from the Bishop Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation to give a testimony to that work to with-draw from backsliders is there any doubt but that people are oblidged upon these grounds to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers who are standing to our principles and sworn
Reformation whereof these points mentioned are one main piece rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers exclude Conformists Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation liberty and thus crossing the scripture-pattern the first are adhering to this Churches vowes and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends the other are casting them away c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers entry are still binding and in force according to our principles as the Informer will not for very shame deny and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation the same doth now bind to adhere therunto and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof 4. This man dare not assert that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them or that the granting a Minister to have this is the only adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course setting up an altar against an altar as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course Nay he will not say it 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call mission and entry to their charges will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them and deserting conformists If it will not as he must here say or yeeld the cause then he must confess that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours which will be ad Kalendas Graecas whatever he can pretend here as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call and pastoral relation to this Church will be easily retorted upon himself and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church So that the state of the question here being this whether Ministers ordained by Bishops and presented by Patrons or those who are ordained by the Presbytry and called by the people have best right to officiat in this Church as her Pastours according to the Scripture rule her reformation and principles and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers and exclusive of all his fraternity And whatever he doth here alledge anent Pâ—…esbyterian Ministers schism intrusion or disorder will be easily retorted upon himself reputando rem in universum ab initio Or tracing matters to their true originals But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear entred by the peoples call But tho it were granted that such might be heard who are but a few how will this plead for all the rest and loose his Doubters argument as to them 2. we told him that it s not the want of the peoples call simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case that we ground upon in disowning them no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation union and order of this Church and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism disowned their first entry in this manner and obtained presentation from Patrons and collation from prelats according to their new acts and orders are now of the same stamp with the rest as to their principles and carriage and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case falls under the same obligations with their disowning others and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours He grants that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats by the stretching forth of their hands because the word so signifies Well what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person as it s taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing So that the word is not necessarly to be understâ—…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages and lifting up or extending the hands Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks Interpreters and the best Greeck authors The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus Moreover they made to themselves that is the disciples mentioned in the former verse made to themselves for such as were made were not Elders or Ministers to Paul Barnabas but to the multitude of the disciples in every Church while they were fasting with them praying commending them c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up or stretching out of
perjurious usurpation in the way and manner therof may supply the want of a formal censure yet absolutly to deny that in any imaginable case whether of the scandals and intrusion of the minister the Churches incapacity to censure or the peoples clamant necessity and apparent advantages for their edification otherwise they were oblidged to own him still and that nothing but this declarative sentence could loose their tye would infer very dangerous consequences obvious to the meanest reflection Specialy that in performance of supposed duties flowing from the tye and relation they would crosse many scriptur-precepts enjoyning the contrary Shall Christs sheep follow the hireling and stranger and not beware of wolves and false prophets strengthen Covenant breakers and scismaticks because a perturbed Church cannot draw forth her censure If it be said that this will open a door for separation since every one displeased may pretend that scandals are of an highnature Ans. 1. The sinful abusive pretences of men is a poor argument to infringe any truth or duty 2. This absurdity may be retorted in the other extreme and under pretence of the mans exterior call who is not nor can be in a Churches disturbed state censured Christs sheep may as I said be given up to destroying wolves the means and opportunities of their edification lost and their soules exposed to most imminent hazard of perishing 2. There is a pure Ministry and Church free of their scandalls and testifying against them so that adherence to them rather then Curats is only a non-union to corruption or a scandalous party of Innovators who have gone out from the fellowship of this Church and such a separation negative or non-union as Mr Rutherfoord allowes Due right of Presbyt pag. 253 254. such as he sayes was the carriage of the faithfull in relation to the Donatists in Augustines time or a separation from the most and worst part not the least and best part as he there distinguishes calling the greatest corrupt part the Schismaticks As before the Jewes came to blaspheme there was no reason to joyn to them rather then the Gospel Church planted by the Apostles to which Mr Rutherfoord sayes converts were to adhere 3. We have heard that according to our principles and the tenor of our Reformation we are to look upon them as Schismaticks from this Church So that upon this very ground of holding and mantaining this Churches purity and union they are to be disowned by Gods people Our Informer will grant that abstracting from a Ministers being otherwise either censured or censurable he ought not to be followed in a Schismatick course to the ruine of a pure Churches union but is ipso facto to be left for upon this ground he pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers abstracting from their being any otherwayes censured 4. Are there not many Presbyterian ministers neither convict nor censured and whom he dare not call scandalous whose conversation and walk is both convincing and shining and such as discovers that Christ is in them that they have the masters seal and call to preach the Gospel who have entered into this Church by the door and are standing in a ministrrial relation to her yet he pleads for disowning them meerly because their Ministry is cross to the prelatick union and order So he must grant that Ministers may be disowned on this ground of Innovating upon and standing in opposition to a Churches establisht union and order abstracting from this formal censure As for what he adds of Judas it s very impertinently alledged here for his theft and other wickedness was as yet secret and not become open and scandalous which excepts him from the compass of this question which is anent Ministers guilty of open and avowed scandalls intrusion into the Ministry violent ejection of faithfull pastours and persecution of a pure Church None of which can be said of Judas But now followes in the next place his main objection and argument from the Scribes and Pharisees he tells us what great exceptions might have been made against their life and doctrine Math. 23. that they were â—…mies to Christ neglected Iudgement mercy and faith that they were proud hypocrites and that tho all which Naphtali sayes of Conformists were true and all sees it to be true and consequently that he gives them no other characters then what they put upon themselves and cannot more be charged with distemper for this then our blessed Lord in calling these Pharisees serpents and vipers or Paul in calling the Impostours of whom the Philippians were in hazard dogs evil workers the concision whose God is their belly whose glory is in their shame though they were as these pharisees gross in their lives and there were leaven in their doctrine they were not to be disowned since altho the Pharisees for doctrine taught the commands of men and took away the key of knowledge Christ in his sexmon on the mount purged the Law from their corrupt glosses yet Simeon and Anna turned not separatists Ioseph and Mary went up to keep the passover and Christ bids bear them tho with a câ—…veat 〈◊〉 beware of their leaven and their ill example Here he also tells us that he hath no pleasure to make a parallel betwixt the Pharisees and our preachers in long prayers and devouring widowes houses compassing sea and land to make proselytes tho we have given too much ground for these comparisons Ans. 1. To beginne with this last invective which he insinuats and Dr Burnet prosecutes at large in his trifling dialogues If I should rejoyn that its a foming out their oâ—… shame to make such comparisons and renders them too like these wandring stars to whom this is attribâ—… It were no great overstreach Dare he say that our Lord did simply condemn long prayers because he condemned making a shew of them or that faithfull ministers their travells to keep poor souls upon the solid foundation of our sworn Reformation and recover them from this plelatick corruption and apostacy is to proselyte them to be children of hell It may be with better ground averred that prelatists who are enemies to either long or short prayers in the spirit and plead for dead formes and lyturgies and who have dâ—…oured not widowes houses only but Gods house and Church in this land and who compass sea and land to proselyte this poor Church to the Synagogue or Rome are much liker these precedents in the above mentioned characters But 2. To his argument The pharisees were scandalous in their life corrupt in their doctrine yet the saints separat not from ordinances and Christ allowed to hear them This man might if he had been ingenuous have found this objection solidly answered and removed by severals I answer 1. It s more then he hath proved that the owning of the Pharisees ministry is here enjoyned because 1. The command of observing what they enjoyned will not necessarly infer this we may observe what morall Philosophers or papists bid
against being his groundless supposition alledged but not proven by him and by us disproved by what is said above and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curats being his bare petitio principii his assertion after subjoyned viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the seperatists in Queen Elizabeths time is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence there being a vast difference betwixt our case and that of those separatists at that time as shall hereafter appear And beside Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text for their people's adhering to them then prelatists can plead The Doubter next alleadges that many Episcopall men have entered upon honest mens Labours and therefore ought to be disowned as intruders He answers 1. That all are not such that some Conformists have keepâ—… their places they bad before the change others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elswhere Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinfull intrusion by this description which himself must acknowledge For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curats who will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatick Church and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads the Curats entry is intrusion according to our principles beside that the Ministery of those who have conformed and were Presbyterially ordained being an express owning of the principles practices and design of this prelatick schismatick destroying party and by their acceptance of collation and presentation and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories a ministry compleatly of the prelatick mould its reductive if not formaliter an intrusion or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland even as a state officer or Magistrat his taking his office from Invaders while an army is in the fields against them doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof tho it be materially the same office and imployment which he had before Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General and other usurping superior officers who are dissolving and betraying the true army expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission doth partake in that usurpation Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood establisht in doctrine discipline worship and government and her National and solemn vows surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her without so much as a shadow of consent and so is all partaking therein by consequence which no Conformist can acquit himself of and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation cannot be lookt upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting Presbyterian ministers or came in before they were out and their places declared vacant Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them one thing is sure they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God and the rules order and Reformation of this Church So that come in who will they are Intruders 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithfull Ministers of this Church have Christs Keyes and commission 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers thieves and Robbers I mean perfidious Prelats often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation and not in the order of this Church Nor by her door A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossest of his house they put in a seeming neutral to keep house for them the poor owner seeks his possession complaines of this usurpation O saith the new tennant and Robbers depute I am no Intruder I have a good right I put you not out but found your house empty Now let the Informer use a litle honest application and answer his weightie Querie 2. He asks why will those dispossest ministers suffer the people to starve because they have slept out of their charges Ans. The people are starved poysoned too by those that come in these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd to endeavour what they can to save his lambes from the wolves and give faithfull Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard Next he tells us though a minister be transported against his will yet the people should submit to his successor True when for the Churches greater good he is transported to another watchtower by her faithfull guides and true Church Judicatories but not when the true pastour is chased away by usurping perjured Prelats and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar It s this mans perted self to use his own phrase here that blurrs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance One thing he did well to add as a proviso viz the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church Nay is he not disputing against this call and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawfull succession the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiours we say that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawfull pastour for another and in the method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern by Lawfull Church Indicatories these reasons would say something but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church and contrary to that Churches vows and their own are obtruding abjured prelats and a number of profane hyrelings as their deputes to exclude and ruine a faithfull Ministry his reasons in this case are naught and speak nothing to the point As for what he adds afterward of Ministers in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King and their submitting while others were put into their charges I Answer he will never while he breaths be able to prove that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the Kings ruine and the ruine of our Reformation and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages by the true Lawfull Judicatories of this Church So that upon both grounds the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithfull pastours as were set over them in the way and method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is that Presbyterian
as such Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches 2ly Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelats with Presbyters concurring were no more bound yea less bound to renounce their ordination simply then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church and under Prelats owning the protestant profession which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference and their not renouncing it simpliciter will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry when prelats are removed then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination and the acts flowing therefrom after their separation from the Church of Rome or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope or the ordination of the popish priest who baptized them and were concerned to be rebaptized So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer if his pleadings for our prelacy wil hold good and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarqued together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them and must stand and fall together which fortifies our hope and confidence that as the first hath begun to fall so the other shall gradually decay wither and fall with it CHAP. IV. The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church and the retorted charge of schisme upon Conformists examined OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists and therfore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter some more arguments in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge which I shal now consider and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter in presenting these arguments which he hath disguised in their genuine strength and shall examine his answers which when weighed in the scripture ballances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceeding The Doubter hath another argument that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church This objection he curtly and advantagiously propones making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice from a Church to which we are bound to adhere which this new advocat has not as yet made good 2. That any corruptions generally or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt will warrand a separation which is a principle we do not owne We acknowledge a Church may be joyned with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject But as to corruptions we say if the contraverted joyning be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances there can be in this joyning no stain but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case cannot be performed without a direct complyance with or stain of these corruptions then a proportioned separation is needfull in so far as suitable to that exigence and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned and that fellowship is not intirely to be broken off upon the preceeding ground in these things wherein there is no such hazard But now what sayes he to this argument 1. He tells us we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption and that this will not be granted Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption and therefore to be disowned The 2 answer is that its a mistake to think that for corruptions and even great corruptions a Church is to be separat from Then he tells us of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denyed that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted as it was by Ieroboams calves Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him and from these instances of not separating from a Church notwithstanding of great corruptions shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church as having a worship not substantially corrupted whatever other personal faults or corruptions they may be lyable unto that yet they are a true Church as to the main and that therfore they ought to be joyned with as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia wherein there were great corruptions were still adhered to by professors What will he say in this case I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismaticks to call our selves the Church of Scotland But what if we return this answer to him again that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church out of which Prelats were ejected vows against them universally taken on and Presbyterial government compleatly setled therein Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of Scotland or for them to usurp her name who have thus overturned her Reformation So that untill he make good the above mentioned hypothese or suppositions viz. that Conformists are the true organick Church of Scotland that this our practice is a separation properly such that its meerly because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curats with all their corruptions rather then our Presbyterian Ministry and Church which is both free of them and contending against them untill these and such like suppositions be made good his argument from the preceeding scripture Iostances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions is a meet petitio principii and will not help his cause in the least Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions For 1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies by the bad influence of judaizing teachers tho they were of a large yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture or strengthned by such an universal acknowledgment as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers far less publickly avowed and obstinatly and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers which makes their case wide from
him Since he dare not say that they are more corrupted then the Church of the Iews was at that time and so we may echo back his alas how will you justify this separation of yours with an enquiry how he and his party will justify their separation from the true Ministry of the Church of Scotland What if a party of corrupt Priests and Levites had risen up and pursued a course of defection tending to raze and ruine all Gods ordinances casting out all such Priests and Levites as would not concurr with them and had appointed an acknowledgment of and concurrence with their wicked defection to be the only condition upon which they will admit either priests or people to share in the ordinances In the mean time a great body of Priests and people adhering to Gods ordinances and contending against them had been keeping their possession of the temple Worship as long as they could I dare refer to our Informer to give judgment in this case and shew what Simeon and Anna Joseph and Mary would have done and to which of the parties they would have adhered And let our cause be judged by this His Doubter in the next place objects that Conformists lecture not therefore may not be heard Here he but trifles to insinuat that this is solely lookt upon by us as a ground of not owning them But in so far as in this our case it s a piece of their apostacy from our establisht reformed Worrhip and an expresse badge of conformity to prelacy and in both these respects flat perjury and breach of Covenant we look upon it as having its own influence with other grounds to warrand a non-union to them while standing in a stated opposition to faitfull Ministers mantaining this with other pieces of our Reformation To this objection our Informer answers 1. That some Conformists lectured and yeâ—… were separat from And so might all of them be upon the forementioned grounds thus disowned and separat from Altho they had keept a form of this but I beleeve they are for signs and wonders among them who keep the lecture or owne it at all Next he tells us of the ancient reading of the Scripture in the Jewish Church and of Moses and the prophets in the Synagogues Acts 13. 15 27. and 15. 21. and likewise in the Christian Church But what then who denies this why they have he tells us the Scriptures publickly read in their Churches But I trow the reading is the better of expounding and he might have found that the Levites Neh. 8. 8. read the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused the people understand the reading And he dare not say that the ancient publick reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by Gods appointment a dumb reading without exposition Why gave God prophets and teachers unto his Church if not for this end and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preach't Why then grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons so angry with this Churches laudable practise of giving the sense together with the reading comprobat by that ancient Practise of the Jewish Church which he pretends since otherwise the Text read ane 100. times is still like a kernell under a hard shell Nay but he sayes if we separat upon this ground we would have separat from the Church in all ages Sure not from that Church where the law was expon'd and its sense given as well as read beside that our non-union to our prelatick Innovators or withdrawing too if he please hath this as an appendix with other grounds that Conformists in withholding our former lecture or expository reading from the people and substituting a bare reading in its place discover themselves to be teachers who are keeping close and not opening the seals of Gods book are afraid that their hearers should learn too fast In the 3d place he tells us a tedious storie anent the disuse of our first authorized method of Lecturing which was at first only to read one chapter in the old testament and another of the New with brief explication of occuring difficulties but that thereafter we held with one chapter then with a part of one and raised observations making it a short sermon so that its all one to separat for this as to separat for shorter sermons which are caeteris paribus thought better then a long Then he tells us further to cloak this their laziness that variety of purposes are hardly retained and procures a wearying and that one thing puts out another c. But what fruitless talke is all this If our Churches appointment was of this nature at first to open up difficulties upon the reading did she therefore intend to cut off the exercise of that gift anent practical observations which is found in experience so eminently edifying as himself acknowledges in the next page and the method of preaching abroad to which method we are beholden for some excellent commentaries upon the Scripture which would probably have been by this time Intire through the whole bible according to the design and mould projected by the Reverend brethren and Ministers of this Church If our Prelats lazy reading tribe had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithfull labourers Again suppose there was as to this method some deviation from the first appointment yet since our Church gave a tacit approbation universally used it his censure is too critical saucy beside to plead from the variation in the practice to a total disuse is dull reasoning and whatever the lecture was at first this is certain that this universal practice and eminently edifying piece of publick duty owned by our Church was presently disused and discharged by prelats and its disuse became one of the badges of conformity and a part of their mark upon their creatures and therefore eatenus in all reason it ought to have its own weight with other grounds as to disowning them in their present state and circumstances The experience of all the true seekers of God can disprove sufficiently what he adds of a tedious nauseating as the issue of variety of purposes variety rather taking off then begetting tediousness whence the Scripture is composed for this end of such a sweet variety of purposes and methods His story of Pembo's defiring to hear one word or sentence at once and no more till after a long time is calculat well to patronize a reading or non-preaching Ministry but the many scripture precepts given to christians anent growth in Knowledge and leaving the first principles and not to be alwayes children in understanding and likewise the scripture precepts straitly charging and enjoyning Ministers to be instant in season and out of season preaching exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine sufficiently discovers the â—…diculous tendency of this story 4. He tells us that suppose it were a fault every fault will not warrand separation We say not that every fault nay nor this simply considered
this passage to prove that obedience to authority will preponderat the not giving of offence But so it is that the great ground of the Apostles decicision here is the guarding against the offence of the weak Iews and obedience to this sentence was in not giving offence and upon this very ground Christians were to abstain from these meats whereas he foolishly distinguishes in this point betwixt obedience to authority and not giving offence as distinct duties and makes the first to over-rule the second in plain contradiction to the text which makes the not giving offence to be the great duty and the foundation of this obedience 3. This charge will be the more conspicuos and the Informers inconsistent prevarications in this point if we consider these things in the point of offence 1. That every offence through weakness is not sinless upon the offenders part The Informâ—…r himself doth with the Apostle assert this who in the very preceeding page from 1 Cor. 8 10. Rom. 14. tells us that the Apostle will not have that which 〈◊〉 indifferentâ—… or lawful in it self used to the offence of tâ—…e weak or imboldening of their conscience to Sin 〈◊〉 That upon this ground it follows that the Scandalâ—… acceptum or offence taken as contra distinguishâ—…d by our divines from Scandalum datum or offenâ—…e given is badly and to narrowly described from â—…e groundless taking thereof as if upon this account it were faultless upon the offenders part it being certaine that neither the lawfullness of the thing out of which offence arises the good intention of the doer nor mens commands nor the weakness yea or wiâ—…kkedness of the takers of offence will free the giver thereof from guilt unless the action be in its present state and circumstances a necessary duty for thus the distinction could have no place and there were no Scandalum datum at all there being no ground to take offence upon the takers part and takeing this phrase in the Scripture acceptation as there can be no reason of a sinfull action properly Nay though the effect should not follow the giver is still guilty as Peter was in giveing offence to our Lord though that action could produce no sinfull effect in him for he said to him thow art ane offence unto me So that it is beyond debate with all sound divines and casuists that any dictum or sactum action or word upon which the formentioned effects may follow if it be not hic nunc necessary is a scandalum datum 3. That accordingly all sound divines treating on this subject in describeing a passiâ—…e scandal in opposition to that which is given do not draw their measures or description meerly from the weakness or othere bade disposition of the taker of offence but from the state and condition of the action it self out of which offence ariseth which if not necessary in its present â—…tate and circumstances they hold the scandall to be is well active as passive Thus Mr Gilespie Engl â—…op cerem Thus Ames de Consc lib. 5. cap 1. 〈◊〉 quest 3 Resp. 1 2. tells us that in omni scandalo â—…ecesse est ut sit aliquod peccatum in every scandal of neâ—…essity there is some guilt because it hath a tenâ—…encie to the spiritual hurt and detrimeâ—… of our bour And describing passive scandal which is without sin upon the givers part he sayes that this falls out cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi praeter intentionem facientis conditionem facti that is when the fact of one is the occasion of anothers sinning beside the intention of the doer and the condition of the deed it self He draws not his description from the intention of the doer only but from the condition of the deed it self which if tending to the spiritual hurt of our neighbour is still an active scandal and no authority of men can alter its natur or remove its guilt as we heard him before assert Mr Durham on scandal part 1 chap 1. describeth scandal that is taken only or passive offence that it is such when no occasion is given but when a man doeth that which is not only lawful but necessary exemplifieing this by the Pharisees carping at Christs actions Matth. 15 12. and by that of Prov. 4. 19. where the wicked are said to stumble at they know not what Thus clearly asserting that the lawfulness of the practice will not wholly lay the guilt on him that takes offence unlesse it be also necessary 4. The Informer cannot deny that this necessity of the action must be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the assertion of the practiser or the commands of the Magistrat simply or any supposed Ecclesiastick canon since this would evert the Apostles reasoning on this head So that he is obleidged to evince the necessity of this practice controverted from other grounds then he hath mentioned or this charge stands good against him esspecially since as we have said the Apostles injunction which he mentions as to the free use of meats was a greater authoritative determination then any which he now alledges to render the practice necessary And if a practice lawful in it self and corroborated by ane Apostolick precept enjoyning it could not be lawful in the case of offence farre lesse can the constitutions he mentions make this practice lawful in such a case So that our Argument a Scandalo stands good against him upon this point in answer to which he hath brought nothing but what is contrary to Scripture casuists yea and himself The charge which he after exhibites against us of erecting separat meetings in the houses and fields and of our being Schismaticks if ever the Christian Church had any we let pass among the rest of this mans petulant assertions the grounds whereof we have examined and confuted The people of God in obedience to Christs faithfull Ambassadours by Prelats perjurious violence thrust from their watchtowers assembling to hear the great Shepherds voice erect no seperat meetings but keep the assemblies of this Church driven by them to a wilderness whereof if the Lord open not his and the rest of his tribe their eyes they will bear the sin and punishment for ever The Doubter object next Christs preaching in privat houses and fields and peoples hearing therein inferring that so likewise may we This argument our Informer according to his usual candor disguises we say not that in a setled peaceable state of the Church Ministers may preach and people hear in this manner but upon supposal of this Churches disturbed persecute condition by a party of prevailing backsliders Ministers preaching and peoples hearing is warrantable upon the formentioned grounds both Ministers upon whom our Prelats hands have been very heavy of a long time yea I may say their litle finger thicker then their predecessours loins sters and people being in this broken destroyd state of our Church chased harassed and denyed
Watchtowers and posts by a number of Schismatick Innovators who are dissolving her union and impeaching her Authority In this extraordinary case Ministers more enlarged and unfixt officiating is no breach of this Rule Because 1. In this case the Parochial constitution is impossible to be held and God calls not to impossibilities and yet his call to preach the Gospel stands and binds and by consequence to preach to others then the Ministers parish The common rule will plead for this viz. necessitas non habet legem which this Informer himself doth hold will in some cases warrand the laying by of that which otherwise were a duty he knows what his inference is from Davids eating of the shew bread to keep from starving and Paul and those with him their casting their goods into the sea to preserve from perishing So that of necessity he must admit this rule and answer upon his own ground 2. The reasons which did warrand our first Reformers officiating in this manner a practice which he dare not say that the authors mentioned or any reformed divines do condemn will warrand this our practice in this persecute state of our Church it being clear that the case of Reformation is parallel to that of a Churches defection and persecution in relation to this practice contraverted as we cleard from Acts 8. 3. The same great end of the Churches greater good and edificaton which warrands fixing of Ministers to their posts in a Churches setled peacefull state will warrand their officiating more largely and at other posts when put from their own in her disturbed persecute and destroyed coondition by a prevalent Schismatick backsliding party The faithfull watchmen seing the city betrayed by a party of professed defendents who are letting in the enemy do their duty to the city best in resisting them and running to help 4. If faithfull Ministers their necessary keeping their posts and the unlawfulness of exercising their Ministry any where else were in this case asserted then it would follow that a Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed and destroyed Church and all his gifts and graces were useless in that case which notwithstanding are given for the good of the Church but this is absurd Shall not the weeping Church be taken by the hand by her true Sons when she is wounded and her vail taken away by smiting watchmen 5. By our Principles the Prelatick party are Schismaticks who have already broke and overturned our Churches order and Reformation Now this Informer will not deny that in such a case the Church may send forth her Ministers to officiat among such backsliders and Schismaticks for their healing and recovery he knowes upon what ground Mr Lightoun not long since sent out some of his brethren to preach in the West of Scotland Beside Mr Gillespie will tell him Miscell page 23. That a Schismatick Church hath no just right to the liberty of a sound Church as to the calling or setling of Ministers So that in our principles no Conformists are duely or lawfully called and settled 6. Our divines do grant that in extraordinary cases even the want of ordination it self will not hinder to officiat Ministerially but that there may be a necessity which will sustain and comport with the want of it Mr Gillespy Misc. ch 4. page 63. tells us that in extraordinary cases when ordination cannotbe had and when there are none who have commission authority from God to ordain then and there an inward call from God stirring up and â—…ing with the people's good will and consent whom God makes willing can make a Minister authorized to ministerial acts That at the first plantation of Churches ordination may be wanting without making void the Ministry because ordination cannot be had And if necessity will plead this in relation to ordination it self Ergo a fortiori this necessity of our Churches destroyed perturbed condition may much more comport with ordained Ministers their more enlarged officiating for the help and recovery of a perishing remnant by Wolves in sheeps cloathing Next this Informer going on in his nauseating repetitions charges intrusion upon our Ministers and enquires what warrand they have to preach and administer Sacraments to those of another Ministers charge being neither called nor desired by these Minsters I answer they have Gods call to preach the Gospel as Minsters of this Church and as this call would warrand their officiating in other parishes upon the lawfull Ministers desire or invitation in a settled serene state of our Church so in this her ruined and destroyed condition the same call abundantly warrands their helping of these congregations and such poor Macedonians who desire their help while under destroying Schismaticks who have no lawfull call to be their Mininisters from God or this Church But here our Informer assaults us with a dilemma either Presbyterian Ministers call is ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none since they are not invited by the Ministers of the congregations to whom they preach extraordinary they will not pretend unto I Answer by a counterdilemma and retort his argument thus either the pretended Ministers of these congregations have an ordinary or extraordinary call to officiat therein ordinary they have none according to the Doctrine Reformation and principles of this Church being neither called by the people nor ordained by the Presbyteries of this Church if we speak of the generality who are ordained and obtruded by the Prelats upon these congregations where they officiat and for those who were otherwise ordained and have conformed we have told him that by accepting presentation from Patrons and collation from Prelats they have renounced their Presbyterian call and ordination and the call of this Church consequently and thus do fall under the same consideration with the rest and for the exraordinary call neither the one nor the other will pretend unto it And when he answers this dilemma and by the Scripture-rules and the Principles and reformation of this Church which the Informer hath not disproved yea admits us to suppose in this question justifies the Curats call to of â—…iciat in these congregations over which they assume an authority we shall produce ours as to this practice which he condemns Beside what answer will he give to such a dilemma in the mouth of Schismatick congregations offered unto such Ministers as the Church sends from their own congregations to officiat among them And whatever his answer be it will suite our case Then he tells us of acts of councils condemning this encroachment as he calls it But when he shall exhibit a case parallel to ours which these acts speak unto we shall consider it For what he adds of the Aberdeen Doctors their charging the Presbyterian Ministers who preacht in their congregations with a practice repugnant to the Scripture and Canons of ancient Councils he should have done well to have produced these Scriptures which the Doctors alleaged And for ancient Canons I think all
adherence to this Church her sworn Reformation principles and faithfull Ministry adherence to a divided Sect. For the 4. anent the difference betwixt a sound and sinfull zeal and that we be suspicious of our Religious passions we say zeal for the Gospel for keeping Covenant with God for reformation from popry and prelacy which is the the Test of our zeal as stated in opposition to them doth convincingly evidence its soundness For the 5. anent not being over tender of our repute or impatient of mens censures we say to be tender of truth and duty and our good name in maintaining it which is as precious ointment and to be tender of not offending and displeasing all who are thus tender is nothing but a true and Gospel-tenderness For the 6. anent eshewing needless fellowship with the more censorious Christians we say we stand oblig'd to keep fellowship with all the godly in all duties and this charge of over censoriousness we deny as to our plea against Conformists neither hath he Informer yet made it good For the 7. that we lay not too much weight on doubtfull opinions nor begin with them we bless God that in this pure Church Gods people have been taught the solid beginnings and first principles and do build on that foundation But we have not so learned Christ as to put into the Category of things doubtfull breach of Covenant abjur'd Prelacy and a Schismatick sinfull complyance therewith For the 8. anent not admiring or favouring a preacher for his voice affectionat utterance c. Without solid understanding we say Gods people with us have been helped not to regard mens speech but their power And as they know Christ the great shepherd his truth by his voice from them accordingly as his sheep to follow them For the 9. anent not rejecting a good cause because owned by bad men we say the cause we disowne is bad in it self and we disowne the owners of this bad cause upon this ground And are confirmed in our disowning of it by the fruits which we see the owning of it produceth in its supporters and abbetors which are such as do warrand us according to our Lords command to avoid and beware of them For the 10. not to follow the bad examples of Religious persons we bless the Lord we are taught to walk by the rule of Gods Word not by examples of men and not to follow even a Paul further then he is a follower of Christ. For the 11. anent keeping an eye on the state of all Churches upon earth and pondering how Christ keeps fellowship with them lest while we think we separat only from these about us we separat from almost all Churches we say that we have lookt upon our own Church deservedly as among the purest and best reformed and by the same rule are concerned to keep up fellowship with her as knowing that such as renounce fellowship with her would renounce it with all Churches And this we do with a due charity for all Reformed Churches and whatever Churches do hold the foundation But upon these grounds we are bound to disowne destroying Schismaticks as are our Conformists who have introduced abjured innovations contrary to her pure constitution and Reformation and have gone out from her fellowship and by the same consequential reason from the fellowship of all Churches For the last rule which he mentions that we count it as comfortable to be a martyr for love and peace by blind zealots as for the faith by infidels we say that we owne no zeal which is not according to knowledge and are contending for the union and reformation of our Mother against a party of blind fiery zelots for ane abjured hierarchy contrary to the Word of God and this Churches vows in which honourable quarrel that many have suffered even to bonds imprisonments yea death it self it is our Glory As for what he adds of the English nonconformists their testyfing against separation as a way which God never blessed with peace and holiness though they dissented from the Ceremonies I nothing doubt but that they would have put the same Character upon the practice of the Prelats and their followers had they seen and known all the circumstances of our case They dissenting from fellowship in the ceremonies and eatenus from fellowship in the Worship though that Church had never been purged from them how much more then are we concerned to disowne innovations introduced into this Church after they have been cast out and vowed against Suppose that Church had been as ours Reformed in doctrine Worship discipline and Government and a party had risen up destroying that pure constitution contrary to all their vows admitting none to fellowship without acknowledging of their wicked course persecuting and casting out all Ministers and professors who would not concur And then let them tell us what these noncoâ—…ists would have done in this case surely upon the same ground that they eshewed a contagion in communicating with the Ceremonies they would have eshewed this piece of contagious conformity also Especially the express vows of adherence to that supposed reformation in every piece of it and of disowning all recesses all backsliders and of owning all adherers to these vows in prusuing the ends thereof being taken in and duely pondered After the close of this Dialogue our Informer will needs strengthen his plea in presenting unto us by way of Apendix some passages of the English Presbyterians their Jus divinum Ministerij Anglicani and likewise in Mr Rutherfoord his due right of Presbytery anent the unwarrantableness of Separatioâ—… which as they are utterly alien from our purpose so as would seem in the conviction hereof he doth not so much as offer to draw an argument from any of them while propounding these his grand supposed topicks except a general hint at the close which is utterly insufficient to fortify his conclusion as we shall after shew but leaves the favourable conclusion to be drawn by his half-proselyted Doubter or friendly partial reader However altho upon the matter any seeming conclusion he might draw from them is answered yet we shall view them briefly having premised 1. That he supposes but hath not yet made good the charge of a sinfull separation upon the people of God in this case which we have shown to be more applicable to himself 2. That the case of separation from that Church at that time because of her corruptions is far wide from this case of our disowning Conformists now and consequently all his citations will never come home to our purpose because 1. Not to separat from a Church upon the ground of corruptions which have been long setled in her is very far distinct from this practice of disowning an Innovating party introducing corruptions to the ruine of a pure Church after they have been seen and universally cast out which is the practice he now pleads for a stop as to an advance in Reformation is much different from
gospel and an enemy unto it Jackson thinks with sevral others that Paul said I knew not that he was the high priest c. ironically it being very improbable that Paul knew not the high priest and suppose it were so he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest because as a judge it was against the law to revile him Therfore saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28. though they understood Paul as excusing himself yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest who carryed so Which saith he is the more probable when it s considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes It s not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas secuta turpis prophanatio Paulum quasi integra vigeret solito honore prosecutum fuisse qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ and vile prophanity attending it that Paul as if the priesthood had been standing intire would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title And having objected to himself that we must not contemn civill Magistrats in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers Inter civiles Magistratus saith he ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet he tells us the Lord will have subjection remain intire Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat solâ—…untur piorum conscientiae ne injustae dominationi pareant c. spirituall government being degenerat the consciences oâ—… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjusâ—… domination But our Informer will say that I thuâ—… set the authors of jus divinum minist anglic by the earâ—… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place I answer they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest buâ—… onely that many think he did 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not is not laid upon this solely nor positivly at all even as a partial but onely as a probable ground And the conclusion it self when admitted will never reach his designe as is above cleared Again admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion civil rule as such being Gods ordinance which is not made null by corruptions so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians Let us next consider how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning since he offers not as I said any argument from these citations but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers In that piece scil Due right of presb page 220. to 256. There are several passages which this man takes hold of as 1. He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached and sacraments duely administrat is unlawfull and vindicats 2 Cor. 6. Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry professors then for Conformists whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church in such a case as this since as we heard he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number and that the backsliders from truth and purity tho the â—…reater number yet really are the Schismaticks And â—…n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship will not infer an absolut separation And his allowing non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation in the case of purer to be joyned with and his admitting a partial separation because of a partial corruption of ordinances Peacable plea page 121. will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words Peaceable plea page 122. doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds who will not go before us and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so Thus page 148. concl 6. he tells us we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church So that its evident that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland nor her worship while withdrawing from Curats in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned viz. page 233. the personal faults of others are not sufficient ground for separation That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin though they knew one of them had a Devil Again page 250. It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth page 253. The Godly separated noâ—… from the Church when the altar of damascus was seâ—… up things dedicat to Idols as Lutheran images are called Idolatry 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation and the cup of devils yet Paul commandâ—… not separation and the table of the Lord was there I answer this is already removed by what is said above as to any conclusion for his cause which thiâ—… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ouâ—… upon these citations 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland to which in this case we are obliged to adhere or 2. If we can prove that according to our Churches Reformation Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland though the persecute smaller number which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy for he sayes that in case of defection truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part Due right page 253. In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to
backsliders who are destroying and ruining the pure Church but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Ministry thus opposed as is said But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations drawes out a general conclusion from them that in Mr Rutherfoords Iudgment and the English divines neither the personal faults of Ministers Nor real faults about the Worship much less supposed only will warrand a separation which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust as is clear from what is said since he hath proved none of these three either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenour and principles of our Reformation nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case is a sinfull separation Or 3. that we disowne then meerly for personal scandals or some corruption in Worship Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these we have ground of disowning them as Schismatick Innovators destroying this Church and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship nor the worship it self be simpliciter disowned or else he must yeeld the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers and for not separating from them since it is upon this ground that all along he pleads for people's disowning them though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter to try all things and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss as Augustin wrote books of retractions and Ierom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error Ans. I think indeed we are to search all things by the rule of the word and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth searched better he had not obtruded upon Gods people in defence of so bad a cause such insignificant arguments for demonstrations But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good as well as to try all things It is not fit to be ever learning and fixe in nothing And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept justifies our opposing their Innovations But he pleads for retractions and it s no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God plead for retractions But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished the wo threatned against perjury backsliding breach of Covenant is very near them His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace is good and heartily accorded and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity peace and truth which this man pretends to pray for within her walls prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles which have made such sad breaches in her walls will be without them And the prosperity of such as love her will ruine her enemies His Doubters Resolution to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things makes up his lame advice And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about and antidoted this poyson we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth may hold it fast against the times errors and defection The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet is verifyed in the party he pleads for since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church after they have thus rent and separat from her demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles And in their taking up such grosse unheard of principles anent Oaths anent Magistracy c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism that male perseverando fit haeresis And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more more productive of It may very probably become also mater haereseos The Lord awake for judgement and send a plentifull rain to water his in heritance and revive his work in the admist of the years and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands which is disolat for his names sake CHAP. VI. Animadversions Upon the PREFACE And title Page HAveing thus examined what this new Casuist hath offered in these Dialogues we shall here subjoyn some Animadversions upon the Preface prefixt to this pamplet 1. His profest design is to let people see the sin and unwarrantableness of separation as the Epidimicall desease of the time Ans. I think indeed it is so and upon whose side this separation lyes and who hath brought in this flood as he calls it not since 78 but 62 I hope may be now no doubt to the impartiall discerner It s no strange thing to see men charge upon others that whereof themselves are so eminently guilty Papists call themselves the only Catholicks and charge Protestant Churches with separation just as this man and his Innovating party deal with us they only must be the Church of Scotland and we the Schismaticks though not many years agoe it would have been thought I beleeve by many of these men themselves as strange aâ—…e absurditie and paradox to term such a party owning such principles and practices as they now doe the Church of Scotland as to affirm that nihil was aliquid non ens ens or that Zenith was in the situation and place of Nadir such ane intoxicating thing is backsliding and sinfull self love 2. He praises Magistrats in the bounds where he is whose authority together with his mightie convictions forsooth brought back people who went once to hear Presbyterian Ministers out of noveltie Ans â—…s no small peice of our sin and desolation that the Magistrats sword given him for protection of the Lords faithfull Ambassadours in following theire duty according to there solemn vowes to God should be improven in such a sinfull opposition to them What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monstrous perperjurious backsliding were 20 years experience may discover especiallie to those who have seen and known the beautifull order of our first glorious â—…temple the verie rubbish whereof is yet refreshfull in any remains of a faithfull Ministrie that is left 3. Against his modest reluctancie forsooâ—…h some of authoritie and learning among his party thought it fitt that these his Dialogues should see the light because schismatick principles and practices are not laid aside but carried on and this Informer thou ht it a mater of conscience to discover to such as are willing to be informed how unwarrarantable such coursâ—…s are if Scripure and even the Doct ine
anent alterable circumstances of order and decency about which the Churches exercise of Christian prudence is convérsant so that he must understand what he pleads for to be of that nature but we have shewed upon the first Dialogue how far its contrary to Scripture reason to include a diocesian Bishop or Arch bishop within the compass of decencie and order there commanded since decencie and order points only at circumstances of actions already commanded and circumstances commun to civil and sacred things And this according to the generall rules of the word so that none can think Blondell so sottish as to take in among these the Diocesian or Erastian Bishop and Arch-Bishop 3. Since the profest scope of Blondells learned Appology is to plead for sententia Hieronomi which is that in Apostolick times communi concilio presbyterorum Ecelesiae gubernabantur surely whatever Blondell may admitt as to the Churches libertie in relation to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the admission of the diocesian prelate with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction which this man pleads for and much more the Erastian prelate would evert both his hypothesis and scope Again he dare not deny that with Blondell the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Ministeriall scripturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyterat so that what he calls the modus rei cannot in its self and consequently in Blondells meaning be supposed such a modus rei as destroyes the thing it self the subject which it affects as certainly by the Diocesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more the Erastian doth the very substantialls of Presbyters divine power which this learned author is in that piece pleading for And in a word I dare pose this Informer whither Blondell would not have thought a national Churches liberty in this point of Custome or alterable circumstances of decencie and order even tho we should grant that he puts Episcopacy among these is tyed up and restrained by sacred solemn Oaths and vowes universally taken on against the same so that his cause is never a whit bettered by these blind Testimonies which as is said he he durst not translate as he professeth to doe in the rest of his citations for the advantage of the unlearned The assertion after subjovned by him viz. that the unlawfulness of Episcopacie was questioned by none of the ancients except Aerius and rarely by any of the modern except some of our British divines that antient and modern divines think that prelacie was the primitive Government left by the Apostles we have proved to be a manifest untruth Specially when applyed to the prelacy existant with us and that it is the consentient judgment of the far greatest part both of ancient and modern that there is no difference jure divino betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter And that our Prelats now in Scotland are as far different from the antient Bishops as east from West so that no patrocinie can be drawen from the one to the other That Blondell professes to vindicat Jerom from that which he calls Aerianism who will believe taking Aerius opinion to be for the premised Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter since we have made it appear by Testimonies of the learned that both Greek and Latine Fathers held this same opinion with Aerius How he hath proved Episcopacie to be the Government which hath best warrand in the word and hath continued without interruption for many years we refer it to the reader to judge by what is above replyed wherein we have made it appear that as his pretended Scripture proofs for prelacy and his answers to our Arguments against it are most frivolous so none of his pretended Testimonies from antiquitie doe reach his conclusion nor any shadow of a patrocinie for our present Prelat now established whom we have fully disproved from Scripture both in his diocesian and Erastian mould What poor shaddowes for proofs doth this man grasp at Blondell thought the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and good order Ergo he pleaded for the Diocesian Bishop with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction and a Bishop deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat as immediatly subject unto him which is a very antilogical proof and a meer rop of sand Lastly he mainly commends to his reader this Dialogue anent separation wherein he sayes all the reasons brought for it are propounded and answered without passion which doth but alienat the minds Ans. How poorly this man hath answered the true grounds of disowning conformists or rather past them over and how pityfully he all along begs the question in supposing what he hath to prove we hope is made sufficiently appear to the Judicious and impartiall As for passion its true there is less of this in his Pamphlet then in some other of this stamp which his fellowes have flung out among the people yet he hath his signal flashes of it in Iustifying Dr Burnets parallel of nonconformists with Scribes and Pharisees and in calling them as great and causeless Schismaticks as ever the Church had in any age nay in his grosse malitious reflecting upon the sufferings of poor Innocents in this land telling us under the covert of Cyprians words that their in expiable sin of discord is not purged by their sufferings that forsaking Christs Church they cannot be martyres nor reign with him which with what a tincture of malice it presents its self let any judge His conferences he sayes do bring water to quenchour flames but they bring rather fewel to the fire and wood and hay to uphold Babell The Rabbies whom he pleads for have kindled our flames and the best way to quench them Is to put these incendiaries to the door Next he cites the preface of the Syntag. Confess edit Genev. wherin the Church of Scotland is commended for her unity as well as purity of Doctrine and then he cryes out O how have we lost our good name and the staff of bonds is broken in the midst of us but he should have been so ingenuous as to have told us that we are in the preface of that Syntagma commended for our reformed Presbyterian discipline as the great bond and cement of our unity and the guard of our pure doctrine and who have broken this bond and sacred hedge I need not tell him and what hath been the distress confusion and desolation of our Church since it was broken every one now sees so that he might lament the loss of our good name upon this ground and especially of our Integrity where he a true son and watchmen of this Church The consequences of our sad divisions through the violence and Schismatick intrusion of abjured perjured Prelats and their underlings have indeed hazarded the standing of Christs Kingdome among us according to that of Mark 3. 24. And the biting devouring wolves the Prelats for whom he pleads have hazarded
the consuming of Gods poor remnant Gal. 5. 19. Our Churches dissolution corruption were he as tender to prevent this as to preserve there worldly peace and sinfull union he would have seen Prelacy to be the Idol Iealousie the wedge driven by the popish artisans to divide and break this Church and as the true cause of all our breaches to be removed in order to healing The popish invasion doth indeed plead for union of the true Prorestant Church and interest against them and consequently to hold out and oppose such arrant upholders and promoters of that Antichristian interest as Prelats have first and last been found and never more then now since popry hath never more prevaild then since they were established by the confession even of our Rulers and that without control While they are enflaming the powers to the out most height of rage against poor Innocent nonconfomists so that union with them who are at so palpable an union with Rome is not the unity of the spirit which is to be keep in the bond of Peace and to be ownd by any that favour the Protestant Interest The texts which he presents unto us upon the frontispeice of the Pamphlet will be found to rebound a deadly blow upon his cause For that â—…assage Psal. 122. 6. 7. pray for the peace of Ierusalem c. We also pray for this peace and in order to the obtaining of this suit that the Lord would make up the breaches in her walls and remove the treacherous breakers thereof who we may say again and again that in this they have dealt very treacherously but what peace with Conformists while their whoordomsare so many The next text is Psal 133. 1. behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to duell together in unitie It is so indeed and therefore woe unto them if they repent noâ—… who have broken this bond of holy brotherhood have rent Aarons garment corrupted the Covenant of levi and do avowedly owne principles and wayes upon which hermons dew heavens blessing cannot be exspected Therefore this command of Lovely union engadges to disjoyn our selves from them For the next text Mark 3. 24. a kingdome divided against its self cannot stand c. We say Gods Church hath stood amidst great divisions is one and intire in it â—…f and will at last be delivered from all divisions and offences and therefore upon the same ground we are to avoid prelatists who have caused them For that of heb 10. 25. anent not forsaking the Assemblies we blesse the Lord that such as are sorroufull for our Churches true Assemblies and to whom this man and his fellowes reproaches thereof are a burthen have had the Assemblies of Christs ambassadours to attend and that the great Master of Assemblies hath not wholly left them but hath covered a table in the wildernes in this our Churches fliâ—…ht unto it to these who with perill of their life are seeking their soul food because of the sword of the wildernesse drawen out by Assemblies of Schismatick destroying Intruders from whom we must depart and who have persecut us away for adherance to our sworn Reformation and Covenant with God which they have dissound The sentence next subjoyned viz opinionum varietas opinantium unitas non sunt asustata doth highly reflect upon himself and the party he pleads for who doe persecut with fire and sword all who differ in judgement from them in these things which they aknowledge but tricae maters indifferent so that in this they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For us we are chased out from them and can be admitted to no union with them except we unit in there sin which throw grace we are fixtly resolved against His design to quiet peoples minds and setle them in more peace and unitie is of it self to good to be presented as a porch here to such a shattered pasquill and to be pretended to so bad a cause in this place may be not unsuitably assimilated to Solomons ring of gold in a swines snout No doubt solid peace and unitie is only to be found in Gods way in keeping his Covenant and owning his Messengers of peace whose feet have been beautiful even on these reproached mountains other places where Gods people assembled since they have his call and seal to preach the gospell and not in following the foxes in a way of perjurie and breach of Covenant as this pamphleter would perswad FINIS Curteous Reader There being several considarable Typographicall erroures in the first part especially thou art desired ere thou readest or in the reading to amend with thy pen these ensuing or such like as will occurr unto the in the perusal First Part. PAg. 5. l. 15. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 25. r. 28. l. 29. r. inequality p. 8. l. 18. r. chides p. 9. l. 2. r. juridical l. 8. r. high p. 10. l. 6. r. Pastors l. 16. r. dogmatick l. 35. r. juridical pag. 11. for as the foundation of r. influencing p. 13. l. 30. r. this p. 17. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 24. r. posessed p. 18. l. 17. r. he p. 19. l. 32. r. qualifications p. 21. l. 7. r. hath p. 22. l. 11. r. tell l. 20. r. the. p. 25. l. 23. r. with p. 26. l. 31. r. none p. 27. l. 1. r. up l. 7. r. these p. 28. l. 24. r. unto p. 29. l. 26. r. power p. 31. l. 17. r. there p. 32. l. 32. r. it p. 36. l. 26. r. worn p. 37. l. 9. r. bring p. 39. l. 13. r. he p. 12. p. 46. l. 23. r. Rom. 12. p. 51. l. 1. r. Gravari l. 2. r. Politicorum Chap. 7. Tit. l. 5. add in p. 59. l. 10. r. wearing l. 16. add a. l. ult r. not p. 63. l. 9. r. Oecononemy l. ult add shewes p. 68. l. 7. r. simply l. 33. r. to p. 73. l. 22. r. be p. 76. l. 9. add is p. 81. l. 10. r. subject l. 30. r. of dominion p. 82. l. 25. r. Informes p. 84. l. 1. r. negatively p. 85. l. 9. r. this p. 86. l. ult r. the. p. 89. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 80. p. 92. l. 4 -l 32. r. can p. 94. l. 33. r. in p. 95. l. 1. dele is p. 96. l. 4. r. he p. 99. l. 27. add is p. 102. l. 10 for the Corinthians r. Churches p. 104. l. 13. dele as we may after shew 107. l. penult r. officers and offices p. 108. l. 30. r. can p. 109. l. 9. add his p. 114. l. 10. r. thus l. 32. add no. p. 116. l. 11. adâ—… according to the series of his reasoning no. p 119. l. 9. r. this l. 29. r. inferiour p. 120. l. 30. r. this p. 123. l. 4. r. Christian. p. 124. l. 9. r. to gather l. â—…30 dele ry p. 125. l. 24. r. been p. 126. l. 22. r. Spurious p. 129. l. 1. r. commanded l. 4. r.