Rectius Instruendum Or A REVIEW and EXAMINATION Of the doctrine presented by one assuming the Name of ane Informer in three dialogues with a certain Doubter upon the controverted points of Episcopacy the Covenants against Episcopacy and Separation Wherein The unsoundnes and in many thinges the inconsistency of the Informers principles arguments and answers upon these points the violence which he hath offred unto the holy scripture and to diverse authors ancient and modern is demonstrat and made appear And that truth which is after godlines owned by the true protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland asserted and vindicated Prov 19. 27 Cease myson to hear the instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge Printed in the Year 1684. THE PREFACE to the reader Christian reader THat which the wiseman long since offered to their consideration who observe the revolving course of providence is ther any thing wherof it may be said this is new hath its signal accomplishment in the renewed collisions of opinions and debeats The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yesterday but as early as the morning of time when he who is a liar from the beginning assaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfulnes of God and having by a lie mad a breach in our first parents integrity by inducing them to believe it instilld his poison into our nature a love of darknes rather then light The eye of the understanding like natures bodily organ when its cristalin humor is vitiat cannot see and receive the impression of its object truth and duty in its lively colours and natâ—… simplicity and if sometimes the clear beames of truth force a passage for it self make some impression upon the perverse dark mind of man O how quickly is that litle Victory lost this begun signature obliterat by the rebellious will affections The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God nor can be hence truth is detaind in unrightiousness convictions stiffled and the convincing spirit of God counteracted and grieved Hence all the renewed pleadings for discoveries of truth begets in most men by a wofull antiperistasis nothing but renewed contradiction spurnings against it While as the suns vigorus influence upon the vapors of this dull earth by its irradiations it attracts and condenses thick foggs dark clouds of peruerse disputings the more to obscure it self Yet a holy seed there is and hath been in all generations children of light and of the day whose work and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth who under the conduct of Michael that great prince who stands up for his people truths sincere lovers and asserters have from the beginning warred this good warfare against that old apostat and his followers So that the warr which John saw in heaven betwixt Michael and the Dragon was not then only begun but a new battel and encounter of that old warr proclaimd in paradise betwixt the seed of the woman and the serpent All men are inrolled in one of these two armies imbarques in one of these interests according as they are regenerat or unregenerat as they have the seed of God in them or not discovries of truth have various effects accordingly either of more intense love or violent hatred as the sun shining upon the flowers dunghil draws equally forth a sweet stinking savour The erecting of this royal stand art of Zions King and lawgiver ingadges his faithfull witnesses to flow unto it and come under it and excits such who have but the spirit of that world in them to a counter-muster against it Who would not have thought that the longed for appearances of that Immanuel and desire of all nations that eternal word and wisdom of God in the flesh should have put an end to all rebellion of wretched sinners agaâ—… him but it never grew more then by his convincing discovries of himself Eternal truth and holines suffred contradiction of sinners against himself he oft silenced enemies reasonings not their malice and the most admirable actings of his effectionat condescending love to men the giving of himself to death for them was intertained with the most virulent and hellish eruptions of their wrath against him in murthring him The rulers opposed this great ruler of Israel the learned scribes and rabbies with all their literal knowledge of Moses and the Prophets could not yea would not see and acknowledge this great Prophet the covenanted people would not receive this great messenger of the Covenant and they who boasted to be Abrahams seed rejected this promised seed could not see him when among them but hated him whom Abraham saw a far off and rejoyced in the discovery Yet this wisdom of God was then and still is justified of all children of God and such as are of the truth will see its beauty throw all the mists of mens calumnies and contendings against it The angry cloud wherwith God hath now of a considerable time covered the daughter of Zion in our land challenges in this as much as in any thing else our mournfull observation simpathizing compassion that men have taken the boldnes with perverse disputings to infest her true sons and children to assault her precius ordinances and priviledges and with a barefac'd impudence to indeavour the removal of the ancient land marks which our fathers have set nay which the great God hath established Yea to cajoll us with poor sophistry into a carless disregard and abandoning of the magnalia Dei the great things of gods Law important truths and dueties as if they were meer trifles and indifferencies to cast the aspersions of supercilius scrupulositie upon true zeal for God of rebellion upon true loyalti and faithfulness to the King of saints of devisive humor upon sincer indeavours after the union and true order of the house of God is it not to put light for darknes and darknes for light bitter for weeâ—…t and sweet for bitter yea cruâ—… percilius mockrie Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatick pamphleters The authority of the second great moral precept anent the receiving and maintaining of all gods ordinances the doct worsh. disc and governm of his house the weight and importance of the third anent the observation of most sacred solemn oathes and vowes to him for this great end weighes but light in these mens ballances but he whose hand holds the plummet and line judgeth otherwise their ballances are false not the ballances of the sanctuary Their new plagiary divinity depending in a great measure upon the camelion-rule of worldly wisdom and steering its course by the versatil rule of human lawes is calculat for any meridian but that of canaan immanuels land where all must go to his Law and testimony and is pronounced base mettal which is reprobat by that touchston where every pin of the tabernacle must have its samplar from the holy mount ere it get
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
worship God for the seasi was proclaimed to Iehova and to have a visible signe of his presence Wil the Informer say that this had been a good argument to warrand the breach of the Second command though this Practise was but fourty dayes younger then the promulgation if self So the case is here Though he could shew us human clear Testimonies nay more even Scripture Testimonies as to the factum that the diocesian yea and Erastian Prelat had been existent and set up in some Churches in the Apostles own time yet if we can from our Lord and his Apostles doctrine and practise prove this officer to be a plant not of a divine plantation and contrary to the divine institutiones He must needs grant that though esteemed golden it ought to be Nehushtan rejected and pluckt up by the roots The Papists who hold the Scriptures to be but a half-rule made up by traditions yet will not dare to own professedly at least any principle or practise condemned in the Word suppose he could bring thousands of Testimonies from ancient writers touching his Prelat he pleads for they are but hâ—…man Testimonies and therefore cannot beget a divine faith which is founded upon the word only Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas inter retare quam câ—…nsuetudo non nooit nam si nosset non-esset saith Tertullian Arise o truth it self and expone they Scriptures which custome hath not known for had it known them it had not been The Informer's Testimonies may induce to believe that there were Bishops in the Church but whither the office which these Bishops are supposed to hold be of God yea or not this queston must be brought to a higher tribunall and Gods Oracles must determine therein before the Conscience can be satisfied as to the owning of such a Church officer And if God dissowne him I may be ane Athanasius contra orbem in withstanding him It being still certain that these human witnesses are testesfacti at most but not judices veri recti Attesters of matters of fact but not judges of what is right and equal therein Thus we have seen that though all our Informers pleading from antiquity were granted his cause profliga by Scripture weapons lyes grovelling in the dust wheras he alleadges Testimonies as to the existence of Prelats in the Christian Church neer the Apostles times or contemporary with them that Catalogues of a Succession of Prelats down from Apostles and Evangilists have been keept in Churches which he thinkes speakes convincingly for the Episcopacy of Timothie and Titus c. I Ans. Although this be the very Marrow and strength of all his argument from Antiquity yet when tryed it will be found many wayes defective and unsound For clearing whereof I shall offer some things both to the Major and assumtion of this argument which will be found quite to breake the force of al his pretences this way For thus the argument must run If Diocesian Bishops by the Testimonies of the ancient fathers did exist in the primitive times and Catalogues of them are drawn by these ancients from Apostles and Euangilists then I must believe these Bishops to be of divine institution but thus it is by the Testimony of the ancient fathers Ergo I must believe Diocesian Bishopes to be of divine institution Now this being the argument in its genuine strength this pitifull pleader offers not a jott in proofe of the major proposition whose connexion he cannot but know the we all deny All that he offers is in proofe of the assumption which is also denved will be found very maimed I. To the Major I say that it is of very dangerous consequence to make that which men call antiquity or ancient custome the infallible rule and commentary as to the nature and office of Church officers mentioned in Scriptur Because 1. If mens practise must be the key and comment in this case so as we must not contradict or counteract it then why may not also human practise and profession of succeding ages determine as to every Scripture truth and duty therein held out 2. This were to set up a higher rule and tribunal then the Scriptures and to make our faith to stand in mans wisdome not in Gods and to make the Scriptures of a privat interpretation as if the Prophecy had come by the will of man For if I must believe no otherwayes anent the Scriptures relating to the offices of Timothy and Titus then according to the practise of supposed Bishops their successores and that they held no other offices but such as these supposed successores are said to have had then the Custome and practise of fallible men becomes to me the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ratio a priori and the chief ground why I believe these Scriptures to have such a sense and no other and so I give men a dominion over my faith and my faith herein resolves ultimatly into a human practise and Testimony of fallible men which is a principle no protestant will allow Next as to the asumption of the argument I would demand of this informer how I must be infallibly assured anent this universal judgment and practise of the ancient Church and of this true succession and how he will instruct the universal harmonius judgement of all the ancient Fathers in this great point viz. That such prelates as we have now were the first recipients of the ordinary power of government from the Apostles and Evangelists as their only immediat ordinary successors The topick of our Informers argument doth suppose the certanty of this mater of fact But to clear this will be found a hard peece of work Because 1. It is certan that many of the ancients wrote nothing many of their writings are lost many writings going under their name are counterfit most especially to this debate It were possibly none of the hardest Tasks to discover some writings here cited to be meer countersites How shall I know that the Testimonies of those who have written are not contradicted in this point by such men of their times who either have not written or whose writings are perished 2. There are many things which the Ancients speak of as derived from the Apostles and have had ane universal consent as farr as the knowledge thereof hath come to us which are acknowledged to be contrary to the word of God and the Apostolick doctrine as the error anent the vision of God that the Saincts sie not his face till the last day the error of free will which until Augustin opposed it was universally receaved the Millenary error anent Christs personall reigne upon the Earth a Thousand years called by Lactantius the doctrine of the holy prophets and christian wisdome which christians follow Iustin Martyr holds them to be no christians that dissown this and this is owned as ane Apostolick tradition So childrens partaking of the Lords supper and the necessity of baptisme was by Augustin
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
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
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
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
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
opposition to prelacy So the Confession of the French Church Credimus veram Ecclesiam c We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ hath ordained viz that there be Pastours Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again we believe that all true pastours wherever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one head and Bishop Christ Iesus which strikes our Diocesian and Erastian frame of government starke dead Which is seconded thus by the Belgick Confess Art 30. All Christs Ministers of the word of God have the same and equal power and authority as being all Ministers of that only universall head and Bishop Christ. To thesewe might adde many other Testimonies of reformed divines as Calvin Piscator Marlâ—…rat on 1. Tim 4. 14. Tit. 1. 3. Zanch. de Statu Pâ—…ccat and Legal in 4tum praecep Chemnitius Loc. Com. Part. 3. de Eccles. Cap. 4. Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. de Sacram. ordinis pag. 224 225. proving also that Election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church Antonius Sadael Resp. ad repetita Turriani Sophismata par 2. loâ—… 12. Beza de divers Ministrorum gradibus Iunius Controv. 5. l. c 3. N 3. Chamierus Panstratia Cathol Tom 2. de Occum Pontis Cap 6. A 3d. Great point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to prelacie is the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers And for this there is as full a consent of divines and Churches both ancient and Modern Severall of the forementioned Confessions clears this the peoples election and call being taken in together with Presbyters ordination Cyprian Epist. 68. is full to this purpose Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos sub omnium oculis plebe presente deligatur dignus atque idoneus publicâ—… judicio ac Testimonio comprobetur That is The people themselves have Chiefly the power either of Electing worthy priests or refusing the unworthy which mater we see even of it self to descend from the divine authority that the priest be set apart under the eyes of all in the peoples presence and as worthy and qualified be approved by a publick judgment and Testimony So lib 1. Epist 4. is full for the Churches libertie and right in elections The 4t Council of Carthage Can. 22. Requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum testimonium convenientiam The consent of the citzens their testimonie and agreement Socrat l. 4. c. 25. sayes that Ambrose was chosen Bishop of Millan by the uniform voice of the Church In the pretended Apostolick but truely old constitutions of Clement lib. 8. cap. 4. The Bishop who must be ordained is appointed in all things to be unblameable chosen by all the people unto whom let the people being assembled on the Lords day N. B. with the Presbytery and the Bishops there present give their consent And a Bishop askes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery the peopleâ—… if they desire such a man to be set over them The Helvetick confession told us that the right choosing of Ministers is by consent of the Church So the Belgick confession tells us that Ministers Elders and Deacons are to be advanced to their office by the lawfull election of the Church Greg. Nazian orat 31. commends Athanasius his calling as being after the Apostolical example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the suffrage of all the people Blondel clears this from a large consent of antiquitie page 379. to 473. And this is cleared also by a large consent of protestant divines Luther de potest Papae Calvin on Act. 6 3. Beza confess Cap. 5. Art 35. Musculus in Loc. com Zanch. on 4t com Junius Animadvers on Bellarm Controv. 5. l. c. 7. Cartwright on Act. 14. v. 23. Wallaeus Bullinger Wittaker See Mr Gilesp Misc. quest pag 18 19. Our first book of Discipline appoints to the people their votes and suffrage in election of Ministers in the 4t head And the 2d book Cap 3. discharges any to intrude contrary to the will of the congregation or without the voice of the eldership A 4t Essential point of Presbyterian Government in opposition to Prelacie is in relation to the office of the ruleing elder as appointed by Christ. This we cleared from Scripture and there is as cleare a consent of antiquitie for it and of modern reformed Churches and divines exhibited by our writers For this Ignatius Epist ad Trallianos ad initium pag. 66. edit oxon An. 1644. is cited Likewise Baronius in his Annals Anno 103. in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani Felicis Tertul. Apolog. Advers gentes Cap. 39. Origen ontra Celsum lib. 3. Cyprian Epist. 36. Optatus lib. 1. pag. 41. edit paris An. 1631. Ambrose comment on 1 Tim. 5 1. And for modern writers Whittaker contra Duraeum lib 9. Sect. 47. Thorndicks discourse of religious assemblies cap. 4. pag. 117. Rivet Cathol Orthodox Tract 2. quest 22 Sect. 4 Finally Presbyterian Government as it stands in opposition to the present Prelacie in its Erastian mould and maintaines a spirituall authoritie in the hands of Church officers distinct from and independent upon the civill powers of the world hath as full a consent of the learned As Erastianism was first hatched by Thomas Erastus Physician in Heidleberg about the year 1568. And much catched up and pleaded for by Arminians since so it hath been impugned by a full consent of reformed divines who have fully proved it to be contrary to the rules of Church Government set down in the Scripture both in the old and new Testament and utterly eversive of the Gospel Ministrie and Church The eminent divines who have written against it are Beza who encounters with Erastus himself upon this point Zachriasursin Wallaeus Helmichius Triglandus Dr Revius Dr Voetius Appollonius and many others Especially the famous and learned Mr Gillespy in that elaborat peice entituled Aarons rod blossoming wherein the consent of the ancient and modern Church as to this great point of truth is exhibit See 2. book 1 Cap. pâ—…g 167. Now from all that is said Whither Presbyterian Government hath not the patronage of the purest Scripture antiquity and a full consent of the after purer times and of reformed Churches and divines in all the forementioned points of its opposition to the Prelacie now established Both in holding 1. The identity of Bishop and Presbyter as to name and things 2. Presbyters right of ordination and Jurisdiction 3. The peoples interest in the Election and call o. Ministers 4. The ruleing Elders office 5. The Churches intrinsick power of Government I leave to the Impartiall to judge And consequently of the vanity of this new Dialoguist His pleading upon this point A Confutation Of the Second DIALOGUE Anent the Covenants Against EPISCOPACIE Wherein the Informers reasonings against the
of schisme which he sayes we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue we will therfor supersed our enquiry here and pass over to his third dialogue and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation which we doubt not to discover to be as Irrational as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE Upon the point Of SEPARATION Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question the practise of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastours of this Church from vvhom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances is vindicat from the charge of a sinfull Schismatick separation the true and solid grounds of this practise offered and the Informers arguments against it fully ansvver'd CHAP. I. The question stated and cleard from our Churches state before and since the introduction of Prelacy the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists Separation in many cases not Schisme The Informers groundless suppositions Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length whereby this practise is acquit of the charge of a sinfull separation and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue is anent sinfull separation and Schism whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation rather then Curats or Conformists And whether they stand in this case of our Church oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other as their true Pastours from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances and to whom they owe subjection reverence and obedience accordingly This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at it being most suitable unto his pleading which is all along grounded upon this supposition that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church and professours therein from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them as their only true and proper Pastours And in correspondence to this principle and inference doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers and people as to their respective acts of preaching and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topick fortify the antithesis therof he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground For clearing this let us take a litle view first of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction 2ly of her present case 3dly of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon for the peoples adherence 4thly on whose side the separation stands Schism is a sinfull separation from a Church with whom in what acts we are bound to adhere So that when this Question is cleared who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere it will go far to clear this debate First As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction I shall lâ—…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact First that our Church from the infancie of her Reformation together with popry rejected Prelacy and in her National capacitie and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy And in her National capacitie abjured the same often solemnly and universally This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue 2ly Presbyterian Government hath been look't on by our Church as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion to try her true members the subscribing the books of Discipline and the nationall Covenant of old and the solemn league of late with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government have been the ordinary door of entry into her Ministry This as to mater of fact is clear and undeniable 3ly Our Church hath Judicially condemned Eâ—…astianisme and Ministers their state offices and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows Assembly 38. Sess. 16 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5. In the 2d place as to our Church her present condition these things are clear and undeniable 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory 2. Presbyterian Government is raz'd and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops obtruded upon this Church And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away 3ly Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the National Covenant as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie and for maintaining her reformation are disown'd raz'd and cassat as far as legall enactings can reach 5. Ane express badâ—…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts and peoples hearing their viâ—…ars and substitutes for the same scope in thâ—… rulers diclaird designe 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown and stand in opposition to this course and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have likewise disownd the same stood their ground Hence upon what is said it followes in the 7th place that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine Worship and Government The great hedge thereof is removed viz her solemn vows and beside her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy the Churches intrinsick power of Government Christian libertie the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in Gods Worship her Doctrine anent Justification the Imperfection of obedience Christs certain determinat and full satisfaction for sinners in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors The morality of the Sabbath c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie And next for her Worship beside what corruptions are already introduced and others pleaded for as the perth Articles c. It is upon the matter subjected to mens arbitrary impositions And our National Covenant and Confâ—…ssion is disownd ae stricking against popish corruptions and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine principles And for Government the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats in all their meetings by his negative voice and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats creatures And
Principles Doctrine practice are point blank contrary therunto is not 2. It supposed that there is no lawfull use of ordinances among Presbyterian Ministers as persons who have no Lawfull call to officiat in this case Hence this man pleads for disowning them universally and absolutely but we affirm they are Ministers standing in that relation to this Church and under the obligation of Christs comand to officiat which Conformists have not yet disproved 4. He supposes that every thing which may be expedient as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and order of a Church when enjoyning her full peacable constitution will equally oblidge in her broken and persecute condition when a prevailing backsliding party is in her bosome Now scripture and reasen will disprove this circumstances of order must give place to important duties in extreme necessity as this is the scattered officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preaching the gospel Act. 8 so did Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation 4. It is supposed that our change is only as to government and such only as was in King Iames time both which we have showen to be false 5. He takes for granted that their personal faults who are conformists and a supposed pullution of the worship therby is our ground of non-union and that our granting them to have the essence of a Ministeriall call and that their scandals will not pollute the worship will infer the hearing of them in this our case which is also false For even upon this supposition we are not bound to owne them no more then ane ingraind Schismatick obtruded forcibly by a party of the congregation upon the rest of the people might be ownd on this ground 6 This man begs the question in supposing that the constitution and frame of the Prelacy now establish't is the same with that of the ancient Church for he often tels us that we would have separat from the ancient Church upon the same grounds for which we disown Conformists Whereas we have shewed the difference of our prelacy from theirs in many points That our prelats both as Diocesian Erastian are wholly discrepant from the ancient Bishops 7. He takes it for granted that Ministers who disown this course of backsliding their relation to their flocks is cut off in the present posture of our Church and that the Prelats and their substituts the Curats are the onely proper representative Church of Scotland who accordingly have onely the lawfull power and exercise of the keyes as to either admission or censure of Ministers A principle alwayes disowned by our Church See Protesters no subverters pag. 96. Rutherfoords due right of Presbyt pag. 430. 431. Altare Damasc. pag. 23. 8. He supposes that its unlawfull in this our case to officiat renâ—…tente Magistratâ—… that this very violence and the present Lawes will render Ministers officiating unwarrantable pag. 205. which is a great mistake for the Magistrat cannot loose from the pastoral relation which he gave not ejusdem est constituere destituere Aâ—…esmedull cap. 30. thes 14. And hence the Ministers relation to the Church Nationall stands tho he restrain the exercise thereof in any one place and consequent ly the tyes and commands to officiat so that disobeying the Magistrats command not to officiat is no disobedience to his lawful authority Nay Apollonius thinks that the divine relation of a Minister to this Church tho banisht from his native country doth stand Ius Majestatis circasacra part 1. pag. 331. 9. He still supposes that what will not exse or of it self plead for disowning the hearing of the gospel or of a Minister simpliciter will plead nothing in this our case for disowning Conformists The mans weakness personal faults not lecturing c. are not of themselves sufficient to cut us off from hearing absolutely But tho this be granted we have the pure genuine Church of Scotland and her faithful Ministry to adhere unto and over and above these grounds mentiond conformists schismatick practice and corrupt Doctrine to lay to their charge which will make this ground in our case very weighty and preponderating and this the Informer himself must grant for he will not say that such like pretences or arguments in our case were valid as to the owning of Nonconformists and desâ—…rting of Curats Moreover he will grant that Presbyterian Ministers might Lawfully be heard if Conformists were not standing in their way Now so the case is in relation to Presbyterian Ministers pleading for that none of these things which he mentions were valid to infer peoples disowning of Conformists were there no other Ministers in Scotland and if this Church had universally both Ministers and people faln into this couâ—…se of backsliding will be readily granted But without any advantage to his cause as is evident To these many discoveries of his begging the question in this debate our plea and arguments will be clearer if we add a short view of our suppositions in this case and question Such as 1. our principle of the unlawfulness of prelacie 2. The binding force of our covenants 3. Our Churches divine tight to her Reformation and priviledges once establisht 4. that this is a case both of defection and persecution 5. of competition betwixt Ministers professours contending for our Reformation and a party of backsliders overturning it 6. The tendency of this course of Prelatick defection to raze our Reformation and that if not prevented it will end in propery 7. That Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their obligation to duty founded upon that relation is not extinguished but subsists notwithstanding of the present violence and persecution which they with their weeping mother are exposed unto Having premised these things from what is said we may draw forth at length the great state of the question thus whether when the Reformation of a National Church in Doctrine worship discipline and government is by a backsliding party overturnd and a course-carryed on to raze it God having left a considerable body of Ministers professours who stand in opposition to that course and are in their capacities testifying against it are these Ministers and professors who preach and hear in opposition to that course or the complying Ministry and hearers the scismaticks This being clearly the state of this question we shall offer these arguments to fortifie our principle of disowning conformists in this our case and denying a subjection to them as the Ministers of this Church and adherence to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and acquit this principle and practise from the Informers charge of sinfull separation 1. Whoever of the two partiss adhere unto the true genuine Church owning her constitutions authoritie and priviledges its certain the contrary party must be the schismaticks here it must be seen who are the first departers who have first broken the hedge who have first disownd and opposed the Covenants the Government the sound and
them then those that are meerly ordained by the prelats 3. He tells us That on this ground we would not adhere to these whom Timothy and Titus ordained nor would we have heard a minister for many ages of the Church Then he tells us of Jeroms quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus and that ministers have now a hand in ordaining Conformists That on this ground we would not have heard the members of the Assembly 1638. who were thus ordained and some now though non-conformists who were ordained before the year 1638 by Bishops the valitidity of which ordination is vindicat by â—…us dicinum minist Angâ—…ie Ans. We have already proven that Episcopal ordination is not in the lest warranted by the Authority of Timothy and Titus supposed in these Epistles but rather a Presbyterial ordination which is the pattern shewed upon the mount 2. We have also proven that his prelatick ordination whereof the Prelat hath he sole and proper power according to this constitution is a stranger in the first purer ages and even in Jerom's time 3. We have also proven that the granting of the essentialls of their ministerial call who are ordained by Bishops will plead nothing for owning Curats who are both scandalous and perjured intruders and have nothing for the most part which may in the least ground a charitable construction that they were ever called of God and are standing in opposition to a faithful ministry by them excluded and persecute from their watcthowers none of which can be said of the instances which he mentions As for that concurrence which he pretends Conformists have with the Bishops in ordination of ministers it is according to our Law meerly precarious and pro forma And therefore utterly insufficient to found his conclusion The Doubter objects that tho some of them were ordained by the Presbytery yet they are now turn'd the Bishops Curats He might have added and turned court or Erastian-Curats since the all of our present Conformists authority is derived from the court and subordinat to the supremacy as is evident in the act of restitution and other subsequents acts In answer to this he alleadges weakness of Iudgement strength of passion in the objecter but really shews both in himself by telling us that we may fear Christs threatning he that despises you despises me since he hath not yet made it appear that the men he pleads for have a relaion to this Church as her true Pastours according to the principles and tenor of our Reformation Then he tells us that Curat signifies a cure of souls But the True Non-conformist told his fellow Dialogist that this term owes its invention to mens vanity loathing the lowly Scripture style of Minister and is in effect nothing but the issue of the corrution of the Churches humility and that what they pretend herein while destroying in stead of feeding is like to stand in Judgement against them at the great day For his next interpretation of Curat viz. he that serves the cure tho not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another We owe him thanks for one egg is not liker another then they are to such vicarious substitutes But he will not have them called the Bishops Curats as if he were Pastour of the diocess and they deputed under him and Bishop he saith hath such thoughts of ministers What their thoughts are is best seen by their deeds We have proved that according to this frame of prelacy the Bishop is properly the sole Pastour of the Diocess In the 7. Argument against Prelacy The Doubters next objection is that they are perjured persons and therefore not to be heard He answers 1. That many of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not perjured which is already removed when we did prove from Deut. 29. that it oblidges even those who did not personally swear It s remarkable that Deut. 5. 2 3. God is said to have made a Covenant with his people in Horeb even with us saith Moses and all of us alive here this day They were dead who engadged at Horeb and many there present were not then born So Neh. 9. 38. all entered into Covenant but some only did seal it Sure the intention and relation of the Covenanters and the matter of the Oath it self will make it thus extensive Next he sayes Ministers that took it and comply with prelacy are not perjured for the reasons which be gave in the last conference Which reasons I have there answered and proved that there is nothing in our case which may in the least limit or invalidat its obligation and upon the grounds which are offered to evince the standing obligation of that Oath I do affirme that they are perjured 3. He tells us That scandalous faults tho deserving censure yet while it is not inflicted and the person not convict his Ministry ought to be waited upon as Iudas who came cloathed with Christs commission to preach so long as he was not convict yet was to be heard Ans. 1. He grants that scandalous faults specially of an high nature and if the man be impenitent do deserve deposition Now their faults are both scandalous and of a high nature such as prophanity perjury and apostacy in all which they are most impenitent and avow the same and as for their being convict and censured which he requireth as needfull for disowning them I answer they stand upon the matter convict by clear scripture grounds and by the standing acts and Iudicial decision of this Church in her supreme judicatories and assemblies which have condemned and made censurable with deposition their present principles and practices in opposition to her vows and government Again there is a great difference betwixt what ought to be people's carriage toward scandalous Ministers when a redress by Lawfull Church Judicatories may be had to which people may have recourse and what the duty of a people is in that case wherin a prevailing backsliding party and a persecuting Magistrat owne such Ministers so that the true Church can have no access for censuring and removing them In this last case supposing their scandals to be of a high nature this inevitable necessity of the Churches incapacity for present may supply the defect of a formal censure in the judgment of some and ground a disowning of them as if they were already cast out especially if their entry be by perjurious intrusion and their profanity and scandals therafter notour to all Now how applicable this is to Conformists needs not my paines to subsume We might also here tell him that there are scandals which are officiall rendring the man coram Deo no officer and that in case of their becoming very atrocius Mr Durham will allow to depart to more pure ordinances On scandal page 129. Although we will not take upon us to determine how in what cases during the Churches incapacity discomposed state a Ministers atrocious scandals after his entry and
us do under such like restrictions and limitations upon which people are enjoyned to observe what the Pharisees prescribed we may observe what civil Rulers bid us do but not own them as teachers 2. There are many things in the context which seem utterly to repugn to this inference that our Lord enjoyned the owning or attending of their instructions as ecclesiastick teachers 1. He bids beware of their leaven or doctrine Math. 16. 12. joyning them with Sadducees who denyed the resurrection and erred fundamentally sure not to hear them was the best way to evite their leaven 2. It will be hard to prove that they were Priest Pharisees since all the Pharisees were not such as Nieodemus and Ioseph of Arimathea who were civil Rulers and consequently any command to obey them will no more infer hearing them preach then such a command as to council or parliament The thing commanded is not hearing them as teachers but only obebiencâ—… which may be very properly enjoyned as to civil Rulers 3. The qualities ascribed unto them such as their sitting in Moses chair who was King in Jesurun not Aarons who was the Piest their loving the chief seats in synagogues whereas if teachers their chief seat was knowen and appropriat to them their paying tithes whereas if priests tithes were payable to them these qualities I say seem to import that they were not priests and teachers by office that hearing of them or attending their ministry as such is enjoyned hearing of and atteding their Ministry as such 15. 4. Christ bids let them alone which sounds like owne them not as teachers He calls them blind leaders of the blind nay he calls them the stranger whose voice the true sheep hear not but rather the true shepherd Math. 15. 13 14 Joh. 10. 4 5. and such as shut up heaven against men and hindred such as were entring all which seem very inconsistent with a command of hearing them 5 Christ spoke to the disciples as well as the people in this precept Now its certain that neither the disciples did eyer hear them nor could they leave his Ministry nor is it found that Christ who came to fulfill all righteousness taught them to do so by his example Finally the words of this precept have for their scope to engadge to beware of the Pharisees infectious evills so that this command to do observe what they delivered as sitting in Moses seat which they did then possess is but by way of concession which supposes only that which he intended shortly to abolish and now would have improven for the best advantadge 2. Granting that they were to be heard I deny his consequence that therfore Curats in this our case are to be heard also the cases are very different and the disparity when cleared will discover his consequence to be naught from the hearing of the Pharisees to the hearing of Conformists I offer it then in these particulars 1. These Pharisees Ministry was not of it self actually exclusive of and a direct intrusion upon the Ministry of faithfull teachers Suppose they had chased away all Israels Lawfull teachers and by perjurious violence thrust themselves into their rooms would our Lord have bidden own or hear them If our Informer say so he will contradict himself and overturn the scope of his reasoning in this dialogue for he thniks that the ministry of Presbyterian ministers is intrusion and therupon pleads for disowning and not hearing them 2. He pleads for owning Curats as Christs ambassadours cloathed with his authority to deliver his message but Christ doth here at least for any thing he hath said from this text only enjoyn to hear the Pharisees interpretation and decision of that nations Municipal or civil Law anent the rules of external righteousness and civil policy which two are very different 3. Christ having guarded the Law from their corrupt glosses and the disciples from their snares shewes in this precept how to make the best advantage of that dispensation now ready to vanish away since he was shortly to erect a gospel ministry and remove all that legal dispensation and then none of them were to be heard But this man pleads for disowning our faithfull sent gospel ministers under a standing relation to this Church and the obligation of Christs standing command and commission to officiat and this in favours of intruding hirelings usurping their places and opposing these faithfull Ambassadours in their masters work and message Now who sees not the difference betwixt these 4. They were not in a stated opposition to a faithfull body of teachers acknowledged and owned by the sound Church of Israel and testifying against them seeking to root them out and together with them a reformation to which all had recently vowed adherence 5. There was no badge or Test of complyance wâ—…b all their abominations particularly appointed and enjoyned by the Rulers in this act of hearing them as there is in our case in relation to the hearing of Curats rendring as I said the not hearing them and adherence rather to a faithfull Ministry testifying against them a case of confession especially this difference will be apparent if our National vows and Covenant expresly obliging to adhere to these faithfull ministers in opposition to them and their course of backsliding be duely pondered Next as for what he sayes of Simeon and Anna Joseph and Mary their attending the temple Worship at that time as his argument there from is removed by what is said so to clear this further I add 1. That its wide reasoning from the godly their lawful concurrence with that Church now under the rust of old corruptions in what was good and sound to our deserting a sound Church and ministry to comply with abjured corruptions and Schismatick innovators reintroduced after they have been cast out 2. It s as wide reasoning from their not separating from Gods ancient Church upon the ground of corruptions to conclude against non-complyance with a party who are not our Church tho they usurp her name but are opposed and testifyed against by our true Church and ministry We in this case as I have said do not separat from the Church of Scotland her Doctrine Worship or ministry but only from Schismatick backsliders from the union reformation of this Church But in the case of these old saints worthies separation from the temple would have imported an absolute separation from the ministry Church of Israel In a word the utter impertinency of all his pleading in this argument and from these instances appears in this that he supposes that its meerly for Conformists personal faults we disowne ordinances administred by them as if they were therâ—… by polluted which has no more truth in it then that its meerly for Presbyterian ministers personal faults as pulluting the worship that he pleads for disowning them but upon the grounds of the present case and circumstances wherein they stand he pleads for disowning Presbyterian ministers and they
that number and not their joynt polities and form'd thoughts addressed also mainly to the plain and unlearned readers Yet for its scope and substance I doubt not but it will be found such as is able to speake with the Enemy in the gate and succsesfully to undergoe their assaults if any such be made upon 't One thing is indeed to be regrated wherof I could not but acquaint the reader in this place that Because of many difficulties which the overseer of the first part in Answer to the first Dialogue at the presse did labour under Both in respect of the Copy and several other wayes there are some considerable Tipographical errours which have creept into it and several Latine and Greeck words misrepresented of which errors such as do considerably marr the sense are noted among the Errata The other parts t' is hoped will not be so bad create the Reader such difficulty I shall also here acquaint the Reader that I have seen a manuscript entituled Positions relating to publick worship maintained by Presbyterians In former times and contradicted by the practice of many in these dayes driving the same design with this Informer in his third Di. alogue and upon the same grounds whereof I had written a considerable time since a full Examen but cannot here present it both because that pasquil is not extant and especially because it is for substance fullyanswered in this reply The Author upon these general acknowledged grounds of the obligation lying upon all Church-members to attend the ordinances the unlawfulnesse of separating from publick worship for the sins of Ministers or fellow-worshippers the condemning of the Brounists in England by the old Non-conformists there because of a totall Separation though themselves did separat in part their acknowledging of the lawfulnesse of Episcopal ordination for substance c. drawes out a strange and remote conclusion against Presbyterian Ministers of this Church their officiating in their present case circumstances and peoples adhering to them in the exercise of their Ministry The absurdity of which inference and what a sand-rope connexion it is needs not any renewed discovery here which were but Actum agere The impertinent and groundlesse suppositions upon which this inference is founded and the confused shufling together of thatwhich in this question is to be distinguished being aboundantly above evinced and also the apparent inconsistency of this way and Method of Arguing since from all these grounds a destroying conclusion may be drawn out against this pasquiller in reference to the owning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry since the ordinances administred by them are really ordinances of Christ their mission and ordination warrantable the worship not corrupted by their supposed scandals and consequently they are highly guilty who disown their Ministry or plead for it or else to evite the deadly rebound of his own weapons and Arguing he must state the question of new and restrict and limit to the particular state and circumstances of this Church but then he must confesse his arguing upon these generall positions to be but beating of the air and poor childish babling It were not unpleasant to trace the many grosse contradictions incident to this way of arguing and apparent to men of an ordinary reach who have read this paper First attending of ordinances add receiving them from Conformists are all one and identified with them yea tyed with adamantine chains yet in the case of Presbyterian Ministers these two are as far separat as east West Secondly nothing but a substantial corruption of ordinances administred by Conformists can warrand a withdrawing from them this principle sayes the Author hath strong Scripture grounds to warrand it But take this principle over to Presbyterian Ministers and then it loses all its vertue and he will find grounds of separating from them were ordinances never so pure and this is no strange thing the sharpest sighted eye cannot see it self Thirdly a man can never be reconciled to himself who confesses the Episcopal ordination lawful and yet disowns Conformists But once turn the Tables and the game runs crosse a man may acknowledge the Presbyterian Ministers have a lawfull ordination and never crosse that principle though he totally disown them There are also several grosse inadvertencies besides these that are common with his fellowes in this way of arguing which are peculiar to the Author of that Pasquil. Such as his cutting the sinews and overturning the fundation of his arguing in granting all to be true which Nonconformists charge prelatists with id est that they are Schismaticks c. So in the second position Yet holding that this position viz. That ordinances are not polluted by their Scandalls will inferr a conclusion of hearing them hic nunc Wheras this very ground of Schisme is that upon which he mainly pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers his confounding in the matter of Aerius his supposed censure by the ancient Church our acknowledgment of the factum and of the Ius His denying in answer to the objection anent the Covenant that any act under a General head of duty considered Physically or materially may become hic nunc and in its present circumstances sinful exaccidente yet walking all along upon this very ground in condemning the preaching of Presbyterian Ministers and peoples hearing them In calling in answer to another objection the Prelatick party the Church of Scotland as now constitute Yet in the premised concession acknowledging them Schismaticks from this Church Thus stealing back a principle to make shift of answer which he hath already given away to his adversary in this debate In granting to the Presbyterians that this frame of prelacy is worse then the former and gives more to the Magistrate then Gods Word allowes yet calling this establishment of it the prerogatives of Authority the commands of submission thereunto lawful commands These many such like absurdities are obvious to any that have read that chattered Pasquil which might be made further convincingly appear if wee could dilate upon it and present the pasquil it self But this litle toutch may abundantly discover its vanity and insufficiency in the present dispute and that the cause which our Prelats puppets are pleading for is so desperat and tottering that it needs many concessions of its adversaryes and beg'd sup positions to under-prop it withal yet sorotten is this fabrick and bowing wall that it must notwithstanding fall to the ground Reader I shall detain thee no longer from the persual of these sheets save only to tell thee that as the strengthning of the hearts of the Lords remnant in following their duty and amidst their present sufferings is the intendment of this appearance so there is no patrociny intended nor can be drawen by the most remote consequence from what is here pleaded upon the point of separation unto these dreadfullly presaging anti-â—… nisterial principles and practices thaâ—… several in this land are sadly precipitating
judge in matters of faith and practice not Custome and Antiquity Ibid. The Informers reasoning on this head reduced to a formal syllogism The Major proposition the Informer though oblidged offers no proof of It is scannd and likewayes the assumption and the unsoundnesse of both discovered Page 192 193 194 195 196. The Informers Arguments from the Catalogues of Bishops largely scannd and the insufficicy thereof discovered in the Judgement of sound divines Several things do invalidat Eusebius Testimony page 197 198 199 200 201 202. That the first purest Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishops Jeroms Testimony in his commentary upon Titus and the Epistle to Evagrius for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter and a Presbyteriall Government in the Apostolick times largely vindicated from the exceptions of this Informer which are discovered to offer violence to Jeromes Words to be inconsistentent with themselves and contrary to that sense of Jeromes Testimony which is exhibit by learned Protestant divines yea some adversarys themselves Page 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 316 217 218 219 220 221 222 Chap. 14 misprinted Chap. 13 page 223. The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in many points Such as 1 The power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters cleared in several particulars And from the Testimony of the Ancients and eminent Protestant divines Chrysostomes Testimony on 1 Tim. I. Homely II. explaind 2. That they were set up by the Presbyters free choice and election Proved from Antiquity 3. In referenâ—… to the peoples Interest in their choyce 4. That they could not ordain alone 5. That they did not invade Presbyters decisive suffrage Cleared also from Antiquity page 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231. 6. In the point of their ciuil state-offices which is proved to be contrary to the canons called Apostolick other canons of ancient Councills 7. That metropolitan Primacy is a stranger to antiquity also cleared 8. So likewayes Erastian Prelacy page 232 233 234. 9. Our Prelats exclusion of the ruling elder from Church Indicatories crosses Antiquity 10. Their large and Provincial inspection 11. Their laying aside the preaching of the Gospell renders them Monsters to pure Antiquity and exposes them to the censure of Ancient Canons page 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242. 12. In their fastuous pomp and sumptuous grandeur ibid. Chap. 15 misprinted Chap. 14. page 243 The Informers pretended Testimonyes out of Calvin Beza Blondell c. For Episcopacy examined Their Anti-episcopall Judgement cleard from their ings particularly Calvines from his Commentariâ—… upon the controverted Scriptures in this point severall passages of his Institutions and Commentaries vindicated page 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251. As also of some Epistles page 252 253 254. As also of Beza page 255 256 257 258 259 360. The Informers two absurdities which by way of 〈◊〉 Dilemma he offers unto us from our assertion of the unalterablenesse of Presbyterian Government and our concession of a Proâ—…stos early brought in scannd and retorted upon himself Page 260 261 262 263. Some passages of Blondel vindicated and of Chamier and Moulin page 264 265 266 267 268. misprinted 236 the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii anglicani vindicated at some length and in special from imputations of a contradiction imposed upon them by the Informer page 269 270 271 272 273 274 misprinted 237 238 262 263 264 a passage of Bucer vindicate ibid. Chap. 16. misprinted 15. page 275. misprinted 265. Severall Testimonyes of the fathers offered by Mr Durham in his commentary upon the revelation for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicated from the exceptions of the Informer his Exception to Mr Durhames testimony of Augustine examined as likewayes to that of Ambrose and Chrysostome Page 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 misprinted 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 the Informers inconsistences noted page 281 282 283 misprinted 271 272 273. Chap. 17. misprinted 16. page 284. misprinted 274. The Harmonious consent of ancient fathers modern divines and confessions of reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in its essential points of difference from Prelacy exhibit 1. That there is no diffence betwixt a bishop and Presbyter Iure divino Page 285 286 287 misprinted 275 276 277. 2. In their point of ordination jurisdiction that these are not in the hand of a single prelat but that Presbyters have essentiall joint-interest therein page 288 289 290 misprinted 278 279 280. 3. In point of the peoples interest in the election and call of Ministers Page 290 291 misprinted 280 281 4. In relation to the ruling elder as appointed by Christ. Page 292 misprinted 282 5. As it stands in opposition to Erastian principles and the present prelacy in that respect and maintains a spirituall Authority in the hands of Church officers distinct from independent upon the civil powers of the world ibid. SECOND PART Chap. 1. pag. 2. A Twofold state of the question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacy in either or both Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these Oaths against it That prelacy is abjured in the national Covenant proved from severall clauses of it page 3 4 5 6 That it is also abjured in the solemn league and Covenant proved from several passages thereof and the then state of our Church page page 7 8 9 10. The standing force of these Oaths upon the present and succeeding generations proved 1. from their nature and essenc page 11 12 13. 2. From the subject they affect 3. Their matter and object 4. Their end and scope and even as to Presbyterian Government page 13 14. Chap. 2. page 16 The Informers Arguments against abjuration of Prelacy in the National Covenant Some reasons of his against an Oath in general or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed page 16 17 18 19 20 Mr Croftons Testimony in his Analepsis for the obligation of the Covenant upon the posterity page 21 22. The Informers reasons against the abjuration of prelacy in the National Covenant examined The Author of the Apologetical relation vindicated together with the Assembly 1638. page 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. Chap. 3. page 42. The Abjuration of Prelacy in the solemne league and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of the Informer The Informer alledges it is only the English Prelacy that the Covenant oblidges against how im pertinently cleared page 43 44 45. That Timorcus affords no help to him in this answer cleard ibid. Nor Mr Crofton which is also cleard page 46 47 48 49 50. From several passages of Mr Crofton in his Analepsis The Covenant excludes our Prelacy and oblidges to Presbyterian Government in his principles proved ibid. His objection anent the sense of the 2 Article offered by the Parliament of England Answered As also his Exceptions to our Argument taken from
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
governe them by ecclesiastick Discipline which he makes to be the Bishops office 2. Their sole power in ordination and Government here supposed by him did certainly presuppose the Christian Church in fieri whereof they were to be founders First They were as Christs immediat extraordinary Ambassadours to convert and bring in Churches then to plant officers the Gospel Government in them Now who will say but this power was necessary for the first planting of the Churches and so comes under the Character of these things which this man acknowledges to be expired Surely where no other officers were to concurre the Apostles of necessity behooved to ordaine solely and their Apostolick Inspection over them did necessarly depend upon and flow from their Apostolick extraordinary mission and infalibilitie So that this power in so fare as Episcopall like was indispensibly needful for the first founding of the Churches and consequently must be expired by his own confession the nature and exercise of this power supposeing and requiring their peculiar mission infallibilitie and gifts of tongues which are acknowledged by this man to be expired privileges necessary ry onely at that time Moreover the Apostles power in ordination and government did include extraordinary miraculous rodes and censurs a power in coerceing the rebellious thus Peter stroke Ananias and Sapphira dead for their lying which was a fearful Apostolick Censure put forth by his Apostolick authoritie at that time Paul stroke Elimas the sorcerer blind for withstanding the truth besides their power in ordination at that time included their miraculous conferring of the Spirit by the Imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1 6 Act. 19 1 2 6. Now all these Apostolick priviledges which this man must needs acknowledge upon his own ground to be expired and extraordinarie being necessarily included in essential unto the Apostolick power the nature and exercise thereof must be expired also Wee shall offer here to the Informer a distinction of the learned Iunius who in his answer to Bellarmins argument for the Apostles Episcopal singular power from that word Shall I come to you with a rod distinguishes the ordinary and extraordinary rod secundum illam c. de Concil lib. 2. Cap. 16. that is according to the commone ordinary rode Peter was a fellow Presbyter 1 Pet. 5. But according to the singular and extraordinary he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira In respect of this commonrode saith he Paul saith 1 Cor 5. You being gathered together with my Spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus but as to this singular one he saith Shall I come to you with arode 1 Cor 4 21 this common rode he denyes to have him in the hand of any one man whither Apostle or other or that they had any sole or singular preheminence in Churches constitute And this cutts the winde pype of our Informers topick and argument here for the prelats power Which leads to a 3d. Answer 3 We proved already that the Apostles exercised no singular Episcopal preheminence in Churches constitut and what they did in churches not as yet constitut and infieri is not to the purpose by his own confession since it falles in among those things necessary for the first planting of the Churches which priviledges the acknowledges are gone That the Apostles exercised no such single preheminence in churches constitut is abundantly cleared in the 2. Argument against Episcopacie where we shewed that neither in ordination nor excommunication nor in Ministerial decision of controversies the Apostles assumed ane Episcopal power in Churches constitut but had the ordinary Church-officers Presbyterialy concurring with them Wee likwayes proved in the 8. Argument that the Episcopal power is neither formaliter nor eminenter contained in the Apostles authority but is inconsistent there with and contrary therunto there sole directive corrective power over the diocess as being the proper sole pastoures thereof their sole decisive suffrage and Lordly dominion over Church-judicatories besides their civil rule like that of the princes of the gentiles rendering our prelats power ex sua natura in universum different from the very nature of the Apostles authority and the authority of a Gospel Ministery altogether and consequently it could not be transmitted by the Apostles to the Church as any peece of the Gospel Church Government and by further consequence they are none of the Fathers or Children whom the true church or the Apostles brought forth but the Spritus brood of Satanical Antichristian pride As for what he addes of the Fathers making Bishops Successours to the Apostles Iunius will tell him De cler cap 14. Not. 15. That this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs institutionquia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in ecclesia succederetur because Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles in the Church according to degree And that the fathers understood it of a succession ex simili non ex pari a succession of similitude not of paritie and of a similitude secundum quid or imaginary according as Prelats were then moulded CHAP. X. The Informers great argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopal office disproved from the office of Evangelist ascribed expresly to the one and by good consequence to the other from many circumstances of the sacred text and the judgement of Interpreters The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent from the necessity of this power the concernment of of after-ages therein c examined The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head several wayes discovered THe Informer presents unto us Nixt the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete and the Douhter alledging that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete Bishops He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward taken that is had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus as also the nixt taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels hath been so fully answered and baffled by many That it is a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts We gave already a hint in the St Aâ—…gument of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus which is abundantly cleared by many from their unfixed motion and officiating their occasional transient imployment in these places Paules actual revocation of them both there from the condition of these Churches as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution Particularly that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall I prove from these grounds 1. In Churches already constitut this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur qui putant saith Calvin Instit lib
by the ancients But if he had offered us Testimonys speaking of sole power of these Bishops in ordination and Iurisdiction leaving nothing to Presbyters but the key of doctrine of Bishops with a negative voice in judicatories haveing sole Dominion over a diocess the only proper Pastoures thereof and Prelats of Erastus his Cutt Then I should confess there were early such Bishops as he pleads for and we should acknowledge their power to be a commentary upon the Scriptures he pleads from But with this proviso that he could quiparat them with their first progenitours and shew us these priviledges in the scripture-Escutciones of their founders But till then I thinke our conviction must be suspended That Presbyters have the key of Doctrine he will not deny That they have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and that key likewayes entrusted to them hath been proved from Scripture 1. Tim. 4. 14. Luk. 22. 66. Act. 20 28. 1. Pet. 5 2 1. Cor 5. 5. Now let him say did these first succeeding Bishops in their supposed diocesses alwayes take this power in ordination and jurisdiction from the first Scripture Bishops and stood invested therwith in after tymes How then comes jerom to say That even in his time elders were subject to the Bishop only by Custome not by Dispensation from the Lord. In his Coment on Tit and on Isa. 3. That they had even in his time a caetus presbiterorum a meeting or Court of Presbyters and ane Apostolick senat How comes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbytery to be mentioned Councancyr Can. 18. How comes Ambrose a father of the Church upon Ephes. 4. to assert That after the Church was enlarged Cepit alio ordine Gubernari It began to be governed after another maner then at first and that non per omnia conveniunt c. That the Government then in the Church was not every way suitable to the Apostles appointment me thinkes these assertions might convince the Informer of the folly of this argument But 2. What if some of these first successours be found but meer Constant moderators What is then become of his Series of a Succession of Diocesian Bishops from Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels saith not jerom ad Evagrium Alexandriae Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu Collocatum Episcopum nominabant c That the Bishop at Alexandria was only a Presbyter Chosen to preside c. Ambrose sayes that this distinction betaixt Bishop and Presbyter cam in by Counsâ—…l Cubi prius therefor he holds it was not derived from divine 〈◊〉 and therein gives the lie to our Informer for that he sayes was different from their present custome Augustin Epist 10. sayes with jerom that by Custome of the Church Episcopatus was Major presbyterio the Episcopacy was greater then the presbyterat How comes â—…irmilianus apud Cypr. ep 78. to assert that the presbyters possident ordinandi potestatem posseses the power of ordination and these presbyters he calls praepositi the presidents or rulers Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod nonfacit presbiter what does the Bishop except ordination which the presbyter doth not yet even in this presbyters then concurred with them and shared in that power Saith not Chrisost upon 1. Tim inter Episcopum et presbyterum interest ferme nihil-between the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference As for his lines of Succession they will say nothing untill he prove these Bishops to be Episcopos principes Prince-or Lord Bishops and nor Episcopos presides or Moderator Bishops which will be a hard task since he must answer Blondel who largely proves that before the year 140 there was not a Bishop over presbyters even the Constant president far from the power of the present diocesâ—…an Policarp himself his supposed Bishop of Smyrna makes but Two orders of Ministery Bishops and 〈◊〉 in his Epistle to the Philippians Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that the first Bishop who came in after the Apostles was nothing but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moderator of the presbytery In a word as many learned men doe prove the discrepancy of the ancients among themselves and their variety of names and speech in relation to these first supposed Bishops and that several authores are Spurius and counterfit who are Brought in to give Testimony in this point So it is certain that this man and his fellowes in pleading thus for Timothies Episcopacy doe put the blott of dread full Apostacy upon him in making him fall as the Angel of Ephesus is charged from his first love so that if they will not runn on this inconvenience and stage this eminent Saint for such ane Apostat contrary to the Scripture account of him they must wholly quit this plea. As for what he adds of Several writers acknowledging the Angel a Single person we have shown how vaine a reason this is to prove his point But the Doubter objects to some purpose that Beza and others might take the Angel to be but Moderator To this he answers that the Angel must needs be a Bishop because he is cheifely commended or discomended as haveing a cheif hand in what was right or amiss in these Churches That the power found in Timothy and Titus proves it was so with these Angels That Beza sayes these Angels power was more eminent then the rest of their fellowes Ans. 1. As for Beza its true he expones the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the president but adds Sed hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus c that is But that Episcopal degree which was after ward by human invention brought into the Church of God nether certainly can nor ought to be hence concluded nay not so much as the office of a perpetual president should be of necessity as the thence ariseing oligarchical tyrranny let our Informer marke this whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certan ruine not of the Church only but of the world also maks manifest And this also is all which Dr. Reynolds acknowledges Now I think he will find no advantage nor credit here to his Diocesian Bishop since Beza maks him but a human invention yea and the poysonous egg out of which Antichrist was hatched 2 As for his Reason That this Angel is chefly reproved or commended as haveing the Chief hand in what was right or amisse He must prove before this Reason wil pass current that one single person is Chiefly reproved or commended and likewayes that his having the commendation or reproofe adressed to him will evince a Chief authority or Chief hand as he calls it in government Wee told him that in Beza's and Dr. Reynolds judgment the Angel is only the preses Morâ—…derator receaving the Epistle or address Now will ane Epistle containing commendations or reproofes of a Synod and addressed to the Moderator make him Chief as to what is commended or taxed in
such a president or primat as diotrephes affected to be distinct from the Divinely appointed Bishop And therefore whatever he might suppose to be creeping in at that tyme he must needs upon this ground interpret it to be a recesse from the divine appointment and in so far a Corruption As for what our Informer repeats here againe ad nauseam That Bishops were immediatly the Church before all the Apostles were gone and imediatly after which is a commentary upon Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels and Diotrephes I answer I beleive indeed as to his last instance that there were Diotrephesies earely enugh and Beza's Episcopus humanus or fixed president but that there was either in the Apostles time or ane hundered years and more afterward I speak far within compass his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction in a Diocess he will assoone joyn the poles together as prove it by any faithful and authentick Testimony CHAP. XII The Informers appeal to antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That antiquity is at most testis facti but not judex veri may witness matter of fact but is no judge of what is right therein proved from the Testimony of Scripture and the fathers The Informer's reasoning on this head reduced to a formal Syllogisme and discussed That in the first purest age the Church was governd by Presbyters withtout Bishopes proved by Testimonys of the fathers particularly of Ierome His Testimony at Large vindicated from the exceptiones of the Informer OUr Informer hath by this time got out of the straites of his Scripture Arguments for prelacy and his pretended replyes to Scripture arguments against them Wherin we have seen how pittifully he lies been Bruillied in his endeavours to put the fairding of some Scripture Characters upon this Monster The Diocesian Prelat Now he wil lanch out in to the vast Ocean of Antiquity wherein he supposes and not altogother amisse that this Leviathan can swim much better And therefore he fills up the Third part of the pamplet with a tedious legend of human Testimonyes in relation to Bishops But in this his argueing from antiquity he playes the same petty Sophister as in his pretended Scripture proofes For he is still pleading for a versatil Chimaera of his own braine and dare not state the Question as to the Prelat now existent in his Diocesian and erastian mould like to whom if he will shew me but one Prelat among all his ragged Testimonies I will yeeld the Cause to him So that we are not concened in his Testimonies They being all Mute or Ambiguous as to our debate Wee shall therefore proceed to Consider the substantials of his Argument on this head and add some Chapters which will be found abundantly to cutt the sinneâ—…es of his reasoning from pretended Testimonies of the Fathers and vindicat our Cause even in point of Antiquity 〈◊〉 I Suppose this man if he will not renounce his protestant profession cannot but grant that it is not Antiquity as he call it or human Testimonies but the Scriptures of truth which most judge in this debate So that I hop I may suppose that he lookes upon his Antiquitity as ane accessorie appendix onely to his Scripture arguments and that the Scripture is not for him but against him I hope it is conuincingly apparent from that is said above we must to the law and the Testimony in this and all other points of faith Antiquity without the first Scripture antiquity deserves not the name Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod pri nium said Tertullian That is adulterat which is Last and trere which is first I am the way the truth and the Life said Christ but not I am Custome And Cyprian tells us that Consuetudo sins veritate est vetusias erroris Antiquity without truth is but a mouldy error Our Lord himself rejected this argument it was said of old and apposes unto it but I say Well may we then oppose the Scripture sayings to our Informer's it was said of old and by our Lords warrand reject his pretences from Antiquity to warrand any thing which the word condemnes and for this we have good warrand of antiquity it self for the fathers universaly doe hold that onelie the Scriptures must judge in points of faith Sunt libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus there being in them all things to be believed and practised utrique servimus ibi quaeramus ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram is great Augustins advice The books of the Lord are they to whose Authority we both consent which we both beleive To which we both submit There let us seek the Church There let us discusse our Cause Jerom on Chap. 23 of Matth. tells us quod de scripturis authoritatem non habet eaedem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which derives not its authority from Scripture the contemneing of it is as ready as the proof is offered and on the 1. Chap. of Hag Quae absque athoritate Testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius Dei Such things as men of there own accord find out forge upon pretence of Apostolick tradition with out the authority and Testimonies of Scriptures the sword of God strikes throw the same Besides this discovers the plea from Antiquity to be very Impertiment in this debate Because the Question betwixt us is not defacto but de jure not what sort of Bishops have been as to matter of fact introduced into the Church of old or of late but by what warrand and right they have possessed their places We alledge and prove that the present Prelat now existent stands condemned by Christ the great lawgiver his rules in point of Church Government set down in his Testament Now to answer this Charge with humane Testimonies as to Custom or practise of the Church even granting that his Testimonies did prove the matter of fact viz That our present Prelat is exemplified in the ancient Bishops what is it but to oppose humane corruption to Gods ordinance The practise of men to Gods rule and mens Testimonies who are liars to the divine Oracles of the God of truth This man thinkes it a Herculean argument when he drawes his human Testimonies as to prelacy neer the Apostles time as if he had travelled to Hercules pillars and wonders how we can suppose that the Church could so soon alter the divine institutions But I pray how long was it after Gods Holy law was proclaimed from heaven by his own terrible voice that the wholl Church of Israel together with Aaron himself set up and worshiped the golden Calf contrary unto the very express letter of the Second command Now suppose that idolatry several hundered years afterward had pleaded this Antiquity or ancient Custome of the Church of Israel after frequently imitated and which had its plausible pretexts of intention to
that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery Blondel at large mantains the same only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb And least our Informer or any else alleadge that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme This eminent light of the reformed Church adds but whither that device of man profited the Church or no the times after could better judge and that the effects issueing upon it dicovered that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery The same saith Sadael viz that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme opened a gap to ambition So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers adds That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self which though at first it did not appear yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church See the appendix to jus divin Minist Evangel In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators 2 That even this much they doe condemne as a deviation from the first appointment and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator and our present diocesian erastian prelat is so plaine and obvious that nothing further needs be said to clear it Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats To clear it further its evident if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government that 1 They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters Episcopi Presbyteri una eadem est ordinatio That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination we heard is Ambrose assertion 2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients As it is by our new hierachical pleaders The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the Pastour of the whole diocess and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him so Dâ—…wn defens lib 2. c. 4. p. 67. Field of the Church 56. c. 27 Sarav de trip epis p 87. Spalaâ—… l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5 And Chrisostom Hom. 17 on Matthew calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs vicars Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayes Dominum sacerdâ—…tes in sua ecclesia c. That the Lord condescended to elect constitut to himself Priests in his Church 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum sed assessores Episcopi not Councellours only as are our Curats and scarse that but the Bishops assessors Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap 44. Calls them Principes Princes or Chieff Augustin Serm 86. Calls the Brethren ineremo Patronos rectores terrae Patrones and Rectors of the Earth Chrisostom expressly shews on 1. Tim. 1 Hom 11. Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi c That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church The homily begines thus postquam de Episcopis dixit eosque formavit quidnam illos habere conveniat a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit Cur id quaeso quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dixit â—…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt that is after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have and from what it is necessary they should abstain omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters he passes over to deacones Why so I pray even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed and what he said before concerning Bishopes the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters I know he addes sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam and Bilson and by Bellarmin before them But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere that is that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended viz to this power and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters The learned Iunius de cleric cap. 7. not 611. tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Presbyterorum non Episcoporum quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio The hand suffrage is here the Presbyters but if it be meaned of ordination then ordination belonges to them And having proved this construction sence of the greeke from Suidas he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters although because they stepp up by their suffrage they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves who upon the ground of order not of power saith he are set over them by there owne suffrag He also tels Bellarm. de cleric ca. 15. not 29. That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes yet the Bishop ordained onely signo sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained but not ordinatione veritatis or by the true ordination which that signe represented Some add that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators he did not rightly expound his text while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one theâ—… same Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops from whom Gratian
in decretis caus 16. Quest. 1 cap. shewes that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum c That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing 2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and election And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters they ascribe it to Custom and to the Presbyters own choic consuetudini non dominicae dispositionis veritati to Custom not the truth of divine appointment as Ierome speakes Irenaeus who lived ann 180 lib 4. cap. 43 tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt Who have succession from the Apostles and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity Ambrose in cap 4. Ephes. affirmes that non per omnia conveniunt c. the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters And Augustine ascribes al his difference from Ierom who was a Presbyter unto Ecclesiae usus the Churches Custome and grantes that in this onely Episcopatus Presbyterio major est the Episcopacy is greater then the Presbyterat Tom. 2. operum Epist. 19. ad Hieron And Ierome holds in his Epistle to Evagrius Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse c. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria and post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae after the death of mark the Evangelist And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal practise and appointment while a live he tels us also that it was paulatim by â—…ent degrees that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata The episcopall care was put upon on Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 15. calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome whâ—…ch prevailed with other cites 't is remarkable that by Ephiphanius confession Haeres 87. non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes Alexandria had not two Bishopes as other cities But the Informer wil not dare to say that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes 3. It is also clear that in these first times when the Episcopus praeses was set up and for some ages afterward not only the Presbyters but the people also had a great interest in their choice Cyprian epist. 68. speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes That plebâ—… maxime habet potestatem the people have mainely a power and that plebe presente that is in the peoples presence they were set up Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate that is from the divine Authority And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election Athanas epist. ad Orthodox condemned the comeing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane Ecclesiastick constitution but ane Apostolick precept See Smect page 26. proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae videmus de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony This he sayes we see descends from divine Authoritie ibid diligenter de traditione divina Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente c. That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition as almost through all provinces it was observed that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he was ordained c. He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome lib. 4 epist. 2. Grat. dist 62. Can nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi nec a plebibus sunt expetiti No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan Flavianus by those of Antioch Chrisostom by the Constantinâ—…politans This Custome was so rooted that when Emperors afterward obtruded Bishops without the previus election of the clergie and people the most famous Bishops much stomached it Ubi ille Canon saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus Where is that canon That he who is to be Bishop should be sent from the court Let our court prelats mark this And our curats answere this quere Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Interest in the choise of our Prelats so that they are but novell none of the ancient Bishops in this point 4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone This is beyond debate as to the first Episcopus preses But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordaine That their power of ordination was not singular appeares from the 4th Councel of Carthage Can. 22 which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy and Can. 3. they are not to impose handes without them The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi of baptizing manum imponendi or of laying on hands ordinandi that is of ordaining epist. 78. and in Egypt in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone see Smect p. 27. upon this ground Ambrose said that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone and have they not de facto frequently done so so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen 5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was not sole and singular as that of our prelats nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage as they doe who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice and not that unless this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and prudence and may doe with their advice what he pleases Wheras Cyprian Epist. 6. and 28 professes that he neither could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie And the 4â—… councill of carthage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie Can. 23. where was the negative voice here see Ruffin hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim proves from Canons of ancient Councills the Fathers That neither 1. In censuring presbyters Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members Nor 3. In
in all his antiquity A prelâ—…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat having no intrinsick spirituall authority and in all its administeration acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Governours Dar he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spiritual power distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them given up to be pro libitu disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority as being totally distinct from and not a part of the civill Government Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures never before seen to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages 9. Let me add how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages any of the ancient Bishops did deny wholly exclud ruling elders from Church Iudieatories We have proved this officer to be juris divini from Scripture And the full consent of Antiquity also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers on 1 Tim. 5. As a devation from the Scripture-patern proceeding from the pride negligence of Doctors Origin his Testimonie lib 3. contr Celsum is remarkable who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam mores eorem qui admittuntur inquirunt ut qui turpia committunt eos communi caetu interdicant qui vero ab istis abborrent ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted that such as committ these things that are vile they may discharge them from the publick assembly and embracing from their heart such as are farr from these things they may render them every day better Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church though not Ministers and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous and what are these but ruling elders So Augustin Epist. 137. writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus clero Senioribus universae plebi Eccleâ—…ae hippo ensis To the beloved brethren the Clergie the elders and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So Contr. Crese Gramattic omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Siniores Scitis All you ' Bishops Presbyters deacons and elders doe know Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma who can be nothing else but ruling elders For the same purpose the learned in handling this theam doe cite Barronius Ann 103. Where he enumerats Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi Seniores Bishops Presbyters Deacons Elders So also Tertullian Apolleget adversus gentes c. 39. Cyprian Epist. 39. Optatus lib. 1. p. 41. and many others See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland Christoph justell observ not in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric p. 110 111. jus divinum Regim Eccles. Smectim c 10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces but city by city for most part yea severall Cities had more which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly Clemens in Constit. l. 7. c. 46. shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery Council African Cap. 21. appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoyned Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History Nazianzon a little towne neer Caesarea yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen In Chrysostoms time the diocess contained but one citie Homil. 3. in acta nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator c. doth not the Emperour saith he Govern the World but this man is a Bishop only of one city Sozom. Hist. Bcclesiast lib. 7. cap. 19. Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus Bishops in little Dorps 11. The Ancient Bishops placed preaching among the chief partes of their office and were not idle drones as ours are Theophilact on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse that the office of preaching which is the chieff of all others its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it As ours Court-prelats so our non-preaching Prelats are strangers unto and condemned by the ancient Canons Photii Nomocan tit 8. cap 12. de Episcopis qui non convertunt haereticos de Episcopis clericis qui non docent populum he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks and teach not the people some of these Canones are as followes The 58. canon of those called Apostolick runes thus Episcopus vel Presbyter qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit eos piet atem non docet segregetur si in socordia perseveret deponatur The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety let him be set aside and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed Balsamon upon this Canon tells us that Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata c The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people c therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats they were not then the prelats underlinges as our curats are now hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety were to be set aside and if continuing to be deposed The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium curam sibi commissam sit segregatus c That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not
and attendants although a great Bishop is highly condemned as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29. The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct 41. provides that Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum vil emsupellectilem c. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe c. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide meritis quaerat and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works Sozom. lib 6. Cap 16. Relats of Basilius Magnus Bishop of Caesaria that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods thus Horum nihil me Cruciari potest equidem opes non habeo preterquam laceram vestem Paucos libros None of these things can torment me truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books See the historia motuum page 143. to 174. Now from all that is said I think common ingenuity will acknowledge and this Informer himself if he be not ane utter stranger to it that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church as east from west and by consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronize our present prelacy is a most gross nonsequitur and notorius fallacy CHAP. XIV The Informers pretended Testimonies out of Calvine Beza Blondel c. For Episcopacy Examined Their anti-Episcopall judgment cleared from their writings The Informer crosses Bishop Spotswood and Tilen His two absurdities which by way of Dilemma he offers to us from our assertion of the unalterablees of Presbyterian Government our concession of a Proestos early brought in Scanned retorted upon himself The Authores of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici vindicated at some length WHereas the Informer is bold to affirme that Calvinâ—… Beza Blondel and other eminent divines who have written against Episcopacy are reconcilable to it yea to a hierarchy of the highest stamp Wee answer 1. The full and harmanious consent of Ancient and modern divines and reformed Churches for that which we plead for in point of Church-Government shall be exhibit in the last Chapter 2. As for Calvin's judgment in relation to Presbyterian Government It is so fully known to the world in his writings that we think there needs no more to put a brand of impudence upon any then to deny it And we doe appeal to his judicious commentes upon all the controverted places of the new Testament betwixt them and us wherein all that we plead for either as to the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in name and thing the Presbyteryes power in ordination and jurisdiction the extraordinary Evangelistick Power of Timothy and Titus the divine right of the ruling elder the peoples right in the call of Ministers the unlawfulness of Prelats sole power and dominion over their brethren the unwarrantablenes of Ministers state offices c is clearly asserted Let any consult him upon Matth. 18. 17. Matth 21 22. Luk. 22 25. Act. 6 2 3 4. Act. 14 23. Act. 20 17 28 29 30. 1. Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. with Rom. 12 6 7. 2 Cor. 2 6 7. Eph 4 11 12. 1 Thess. 5 12 13. 2 Thess. 3 14. Heb. 13 7 17. 1 Tim. 1 3. c. and 4 14. 2 Tim 2 4 2 Tim. 1 6. Tit. 1 6 7. c. and such like places where he will be found to give sentence for us against the Prelatik party and expounding them just as we doe 3. These adversaries doe grant that the Government in this Church which famous Mr. Knox owned and all his dayes contended for was Presbyterial Government And it is as well knowne and acknowledged by themselves that he had the sense and judgment both of Calvin and Beza in that great bussiness Spotswood in his history tells us that John Knox framed our rules of disciplin in imitation of what he had Seen at Geneva Tilen in his petulant piece intituled Paraensis ad Scotos Genevensis discipline Zelotas makes this undenyable He calls Calvin and Beza all along our Masters and alledges that we can hear of nothing but out of their scool c. But that they owned Presbyterian Government as the onely Government appointed in the house of God he never took the confidence or had the forehead to deny When John Knox was desired by some to write to Calvin and others about a certain difficulty he answered that he came not here without all their Iudgments in what he had done and that they might think him unconstant in writting for a resolution in that matter Now John Knox look't upon Episcopocy as a limb of Antichrists Hierarchie and as haveing aliquid commumune cum Anti Christo. Something in it common with Antichrist So that what the Informer mentions of Measson and Bish Andrews their asserting of Calvin and Beza's Episcopall Government at Geneva and their preeminencie in ordination and jurisdiction is a gross calumny The eminent parts of these famous divines might make their judgement have great influence in determining others but that either Calvin or Beza did ever incroach upon the decisive power of their fellow Presbyters or acted any thing pro imperio or solely is a calumny which any who ever read their lives can sufficiently disprove Their laboures and practise as well as their writings was for mantaineing the due right of Presbyterian Government against enemies of all sortes In the life of Galleaceus Caracciolus It is reported That Calvin being consulted by him in a case of conscience requireing secrecy in a great measure would give him no determinat answer tho a ruleing elder in that Church without consulting his Brethren As for that which the Informer cites out of Calvines Inflit. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 2. where He acknowledges that Jerom teaches that the proestos is ane ancient institution and that he repeats what Jerome sayes a Marco c. It s a pitiful proofe to conclud therupon that Calvin acknowledges diocesian Prelats as Ancient as Mark. For Calvine knew well that Jerome speaks but of the proestos first set up and the Informer hath not proved that either Calvin or Jerom gave their approbation to the setting of him up And for what he adds That Calvin sayes ne ex equalitate ut fieri solet dissidiâ—… orirenter That they were set up least from equality discord should arise as usuallie there doth granting that he acknowledges they were more then meer Moderators that is fixed Moderators What then Are our Prelats no more Or will his acknowledgment of the factum prove his acknowledment of the jus and though mans corruption abuse parity to discord what then our corruption will abuse the best ordinance of God As for what he cites from Instit. l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 11. Our Informer hath not proved That Calvin by Episcopi and
calls ane evasion Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolick Church As wee disowne Stillingfleet in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church versatile various or alterable So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Churches decision what Apostolick practises are imitable or morall and what not A dangerous popish principle and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself But for the apostolick government by the Common Concell of Presbyters wee hold it morall and perpetual upon the same grounds of the Churches union and edification which himself doth plead As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear but his own pitifull shifts and of others of his way in pleading for this Hierarchy wee hope by this time are sufficiently apparent As for Durells offer To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all forraigne divines we lett it pass as a peice of prelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets Ad pompam non ad pugnam quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu Durel and the Informer cannot stand befor their evidences who have made the Contrary appear For what he adds anent our Superintendents as haveing upon the matter ane Episcopal power I referr him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against Spotswoods Calumnies printed at the end of Didoclavius page 30 31. Where he will find the difference betuixt them and Prelats cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction unless he hath resolved Ne si persuaseris persuaderis So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the admission of Superintendents How he hath deryved his Prelacie from Scripture and through antiquitie to reformed times Churches in their confessions Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist Anglic Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter at length cleared from Fathers Schoolemen reformed divines even from Episcopall divines in England the Informer had done better not to mention that peice then to have made such a simple insipid returne Anent the Scoolmens notione whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery or a different degree of the same order for though this were granted that the scoole-men tost such a question dare he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine and late reformed divines cited in that learned peice in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop Presbyter jure divino intertained any such notion as this Againe had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that peice and unto himself â—…s he ought to have been he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consulâ—… Artic. 14 Which breaks this his answer all in peices and because his squeemish eyes lookt asquint upon it I shall here sett it downe that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines An Episcopaâ—…us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter theologos canoniâ—…as non convenit convenit autem inter ownes in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed post modum schismatis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum c That is Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastick orders It is not agreed between the Theologues Canonists but it is agreed among all that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops Presbyters but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schisme the Bishop was set ever Presbyters c. Now whither these disputants did agree That alwayes from the Apostles time there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters as this Informer is not ashamed to affirme Let the greatest adversarie judge by this account of such ane impartiall witnes How could he say that these Fathers might be of this mind and likwayes these later divines that alwayes from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rationall man to intertaine viz Bishops and Presbyters re nomine in name and thing the same in the Apostles times and in their doctrine and yet that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles and distinct from them in their times What will he make of all Ierome Scripture proofes through the Apostles times and writings anent this compleat parity of Bishops and Presbyters of the saying of Ambrose That Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunâ—… est in Ecclesia The writtings of the Apostles agreeâ—… not in every thing with the ordinance or appointment he means of government which is now in the Church What will he make of Bishop Iewel telling Harding in his defence against him That in calling it a haerefie to affirme Bishops and Presbyters to be one He reflects upon Ierome and other Fathers whom he cites against him yea upon the Apostle Paul and makes him also a Haeretick What will he make of that assertion of Beza Episcopus papam peperit The Bishop brought forth the Pope Of Whittaker That the setting up the Prelat yea the first proestos or president to prevent Schisme was a remedy worse then the disease Now if he will reconcile these sayings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters to have been in and from the times of the Apostles he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus But our Informer hath not yet done with these Authors and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceaved themselves deceaved others he tells us 1. They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve themselves by discrediting these authores But this man is hard put to it if he deny that which is so Notoâ—…ly true made good by so many of the learned Were Iunius and Scalliger who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds hard put to it who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors mistakes 2. He sayes Though in some things Eusebius was mistaken most he be so in every point wherin he maks Bishops superior to Presbyters drawes their succession from the Apostles Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the Apostles we spoke to it already and for Eusebius speaking alwayes in that straine the reverend authors of that peece with others doe tell the Informer that all that Eusebius sayes is that it is reported that his learned censurer Scalliger maks it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente not attentivly that he takes his measures in this point his relations upon trust from Clemens fabulus Hegesippus not extant 3. The Informer thinks it strange that they can suppose Irenaeus Iohns contemporarie and disciple to be deceaved as to Church government Answer Had he but looked upon the 4.
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
Now surely the Apostle James was not of the Presbyters meerly or chosen from among them But to undeceave our Informer as to Bucers judgment in this point and to fortify the answer adduced I shall present unto him that which Bucer asserts De Gub Eccles p 432. viz That the Fathers call these first Proestotes or Moderators yea even the Apostles themselves Bishops N. B. in a large generall appellation Becaus they first preached the gospell to those Churches and that to prove a succession of the true doctrine they named the most eminent Ministers the Bishops to shew that there was in these Churches a Constant tract from the Apostles both of sound doctrine faithfull teachers thereof Eminent I say for gifts and zeale or suffering for the gospell N. B. not in any Episcopall authoritie except what was in that prostasie often mentioned Now whither Bucer was for ane Episcopacy in the highest degree even in the Apostles time and the Episcopacy of Iames Let any judge And whither or not this Informer hath acquitt prelacie of being both a groundlesse and godlesse usurpation in Gods Church as his now prosyleted Doubter sayes he was taught to call it the appeal is likwayes made to the judicious and impartiall to judge from what is offered from the begining hereanent CHAP. XV. Mr Durhams citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel Bishop and Presbyter vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation pag. 223. having gone throw the Epistles and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word Angel presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments both from these Epistles and parallel texts to prove the identity of angel Bishop and Presbyter Which this Informer passes over sicco pede finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomack But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth Several clear testimonys of most eminent Ancient fathers asserting the very same thing then Seria res agitur with our Informer and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr Durhams hand offering several exceptions against his testimonys which in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations and for the more full confirmation of this truth we shal now examine and repell Mr Durhame sayes That not only Ierome but likewise others of the Ancients such as Augustin Ambrose Chrysostom were of Aerius minde hereanent To this he answers That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmin But knowes he not that Medina is cited for this by many others as Dr Reynolds particularly And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina and examine what truth is in his citations if he intended to repell this Testimony Well but what sayes our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame He answers 1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms minde iâ—…is nâ—… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops as he hatâ—… already cleared Ans. We have made it appear thaâ—… Ierome makes the first Bishops meere fixed Moderators and likewise ane humane invention or custom discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters And iâ—… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and Iurisdiction let any judge 2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coulâ—… cite Augustiâ—… as of Aerius minde since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground Haeres 53. Aâ—…s Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augustiâ—… cited by Mr. Durhame as he pretends to answer to somâ—… of the rest of these fathers What sayes he to Augustinâ—… words are they not his Or doe they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop Presbyter To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretick for this while he offers not to remove Augustins cleare assertion of the same thing is but to sett him by the ears with himself not to answer his Testimony Next as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretick for this he should know that the learned doe Consent that Augustin in this followes Epiphanius who first imputed heresie to Aerius and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastick constitution anent their difference as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies himself not positively determining that this was a heresie For as is consented unto by the learned and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how farr the definition of heresie doth extend He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers but applyes not the definition of heresie to every one of them Far lesse could he doe so in this point which was his own judgement as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince That Ierom and Augustin were of Aerius minde as to Bishops is the judgment of very many sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus saith Whittak Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30. Ierom truely was of Aerius minde on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer Saravia himself de Grad cap. 23. acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about Bancrofts Sermon asserting with the Informer That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresie by the whole Church proves from Ierom and other writters who were contemporarie with Epiphanius or flourished after him That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter aâ—… hereticall only as he found it related by Epiphanius wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also Iewell against Harding the jesuit asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick who proves that Jerome Augustin Ambrose were of the same minde Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome also with himself whom this man makes to speake contradictions so as he may come faire off 3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length Becaus Though Ambrose or one Hilary sayes that Episcopi Presbyteri una est ordinatio that they are both priests yet the Bishop is the first So that every Priest is not a Bishop for the Bishop is the first priest
solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their new episcopall order In a word we heard from Cassander that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question doe both accord that as to a jus divinum or divine right there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree And so though it were granted which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert that the Fathers tossed this question it will nothing help him nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation which speaks of a jus divinum As for what he adds That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion Let him hear how Bellarmin no friend to Presbyterian Government represents his assertion de Cler. Cap 15. Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine eminentia Cap. 5. Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse sed etiam Ambrosium Sedulium Primasium Chrysostomum Theodoretum Oecumenium Theophylactum atque ita inquit Medina isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio deinde in Waldensibus postremo in Joanne Wickleffo damnavit ecclesia That is Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie But also Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecomenius and Theophylact And thus saith Medina these men otherwayes most godly and most expert in the holie Scrptures whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned first in Aerius Next in the Waldeneses And lastly in Iohn Wickleff Let our Informer note here 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least all these Fathers were Aerians 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses these famous witnesses against Antichrist And of John Wickleff and such like eminent reformers Afterward he adds That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned So we see the Presbyterian Principles are with him one of the Heresies of Protestants Peter Swav in the History of the Council of Trent pag. 664. edit Francfort relates That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution Michael Medina answered That it was no wonder that Jerom Augustin and others of the Fathers fell into that heresie not having throughly searched the matter that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion Finallie to make these Fathers one with themselves whom this man enforceth in his next passages cited page 71 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher to speak palpable contradictions we must say with Whittaker that they call the Apostles so because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did And because their power quadam similitudine or by a certain similitude or likenesse as Junius expresseth it was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned Tilen in his Specul Antichr ortum aperiens Aphoris 88. Tells us that episcopos Presbyteros re nomine eosdem fuisse non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti sive positivi ut vocant juris est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution as they call it or of positive right A fitt looking-glasse this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote his paraenesis and changed his note And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer CHAP. XVI The harmonius consent of ancient Fathers Modern divines and confessions of Reformed Churches for Presbyterian Government in all its essentiall points of difference from Prelacie is exhibit IT is clear that Presbyterian Government the pure ancient and genuine Government of this Church in every essentiall ingredient of it as it stands in opposition to prelacie is approved by such a consent of antiquity and modern diuines that it would take up almost as much roome as this Informers pamphlet to reckon up their names That we may present them in 〈◊〉 compendious view take it thus 1. That jure divino there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter hath a very large consent of antiquitie collected by many of the learned whose testimonies we may see in Bishop Jewel against Hardin edit Ann. 1570. p. 243. And Reynolds in the forementioned Epistle at large cited Petries Hist. part 3. p 469 470 471. Where there is exhibit a full consent both of the Greek and Latin Fathers for this point of truth The Doctor in his conference with Hart holds That the president chosen out at first to moderat is be whom afterwards the Fathers called Bishop and that the name Bishop common to all Ministers was by them thus appropriat to this president Next for modern writers the same Dr Reynolds tells us in the formentioned Epistle that those who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 Years have taught that all Pastours be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equall authoritie and power by Gods word Citing the Waldenses in Aen. Silv. hift of Bohem. Chap. 35. Pich Hierarch Ecclesiast lib. 2. Cap 10. Marsil Patavin Defens pacis part 2. Cap. 15. Wickleff in Thom. Waldens Doct. Fil. Tom. 1. lib 2. Cap 60. and Tom 2. cap 7. And his Schollers Husse and the Hussits Aeneas Silvius Loccit Luther Advers falso nomin Scot Epise adversus Papat Rom. Calv. in Epist. ad Phil. Tit. 1. Erentius Apolog. Confess Wittenberg Cap. 21 Bulinger Decad. 5. Serm 3. Musculus Loc. Com Tit de Ministerio Verbi Then he adds Jewel Pilkington Dr. Humphrey in Campian Duraeum Jesuit Part. 2. Raâ—… 3. Whittak ad rationes Campian 6. Confut Durae lik 6. Mr Bradfoord Lambert Fox Act. Mon. Fulk Ansr. to the Rhemeflits To these may be added Cartwright against the Rhemists Bishop Bilson himself against Seminartes lib. 1. p 318. Bishop Morton in his Catholick Apologie Part. 1. Cap. 33. Erasmus upon 1 Tim. 4. To which add that in the Oâ—…cumenick Counâ—…les of Constance Basile it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive suffrage in Councils as well as Bishops because that by the Law of God Bishops were not greater then
they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
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
proceed his Doubter alledging that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them he cryes out at all Bound as a paradox and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it and asks if we think them bound Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant Deut 29. who were not there as well as these who were there young and old wives little ones from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water It seems this man either hath not read that chapt or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incorporation although not personally sworne by every individuall Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacie or alledgeance If so then a man could not be guilty of treason which is certainly a breach of this fealty unlesse he had personally sworn which I know not who will assert But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity he tells us that this is a strange fancy Iuramentum being with casuists vinculum personale binding those that took it only that accordingly the Covenant sayes we every one for ourselves and not for our selves and others That the father who was against Bishops his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement who is for them in a disputable point or oblidge him to act contrary to his judgment Ans 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary as well as personal is evident in scripture and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it which is not only thus evident but acknowledged also by Casuists Was not that oath and Covenant Deut 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto and by consequence engadging their seed for ever Deut 5 2 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive even that Covenant at Horeb though they were all near dead with whom it was made Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan the oath to the Gibeonites such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan 2. Sam 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such cannot be doubted it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance which no time can alter evacuat or limit and having the publick faith of Church and state interposed therin by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath And likewise being in its nature promissory in relation to duties midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging it is palpably evident that it is reall and not personall only 2. For that expression every one for our selves it is very impertinently here alleadged to exclude the posterity for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be the glory of God the advancement of Christs kingdome the happiness of the King and his posterity the true publick liberty safety of the kingdomes c. wherin every ones private state is included which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them Next in the close of the first article the posterity is expresly taken in when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love c And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity and therefor his negative inference viz for our selves and not for our posterity is opposit unto the very sense scope and words of this oath so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities conditions and relations wherein in order to the work of God the then engadgers stood 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fathers engadgement is a poore shift For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact in matters of a farr lower nature then this This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute and oblidge for our selves and posterity that it shall stand in this posture Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame owned by the primitive Church But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded be prelimited by the father or els must he act contrary to his judgement let the Informer see to this If he say it s not a disputable point to hold the present prelacie and that therefor the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant and that consequently his objection is naught and the horns of his horned argument are crooked so that it pushes us with neither of them We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practice in many things not indispensably necessary will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children witnesse that case of the Rechabites And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter Nay who knows noâ—… that the great morall precept honour Thy Father and thy Mother imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such in order to obedience to parents and gives unto parents a large and extensive authority hereanent But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these or act contrary to it so this objection in the Informers sense and according to his scope will blurre out a great part of the 5t Command But what needs more the matters here engadged unto are important truths and dutys not disputable points as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them and therefor we are under perpetuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same But if this man will abide a quere here and a litle retortion of his notion further thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and professors of this nation in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity by so many laws and acts or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement Sure fathers have at least as great if not a greater authority to limit their children then the Prelats
formally depend upon him yet as a humane device they made way for him and eatenus are a part of his Hierarchie which the opposition of some Bishops when he first attempted supremacy doth nothing invalidat Besides that the question here betwixt the Apologist and that Pamphleter was about prelacie as it appeared befor the Reformers in its then being and would but not of the first proestotes or moderatours What he adds here anent Calvin his owning of a hierarchie and pronouncing Anathema upon them who would dissowne it if cut off from its dependance upon the Pope is answered already upon the 1. Dialogue Heâ—…e I shall only adde that if Calvin in that passage opposed unto the Popish Bishops Such as take Christ for their head what curse will he not judge them worthy of who owne and plead for such Bishops as pretending to renounce the Popes headship take for their immediat head a civill Pope and make him as to all spirituall maters a more absolute head then the Pope himself As for his argument from these Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Aberdeen their declaring that the Doctors might take the Nationall Covenant and yet debate and vote in relation to episcopacie in the ensuing assembly I wonder what blurred this mans eyes that citing pag. 395. of the Apollogy he could not look back to pag. 393. where he might have found this argument of his Master the author of the Seasonable case answered which this casuist drew from that pamphlet emitted anno 1638. under the name of his Majesties Commissioner so that we have it here in the 3â—… concoction and yet it is as raw as at the first The answer in short is I remit it at length to his reading in that peice that it was not the nationall Covenant it self that the Doctors scrupled to subscribe and consequently anent which that debate was stated betwixt the Ministers and them but the addition containing the application to the present times which as to prelacie was expressed thus a forbearing the approbation of the corruptions of the publick government of the Church by this they thought they were expresly specifically bound against prelacie this these Ministers denyed but never said that prelacie was not abjured in the nationall Covenant it self or the negative Confession Let this Absolver read the answers of the Ministers wherein this will be cleared The Doubter next objects that the decision of the assembly 1638. put it out of doubt that prelacie was abjured in that Covenant and that all Episcopacy was meant by the Popes hierarchie To which he answers 1. That prelacie being of divine or Apostolick right that decision is null from the beginning Ans. wheras he sayes he hath proved prelacie to be of divine or apostolik right I will presume to say I have proved the contrary so that the Covenant is so far from being null upon this ground that it is rather an accessorie tye to disown a corruption to the disowning wherof wewere before by scripture grounds preoblidged But passing this he next alledges that it was more then that assembly could do to declare this Who so 1. sayth he how could they put a sense upon ane oath taken 58. years before and few or none of the first takers alive or if alive few or none members of that assemblie how could they know that their exposition was according to the mind of the first imposers But why will this Plageary tell us still over and over the arguments of the Seasonable case without noticing the answer therof already exhibit unto him did not the Apologist tell him that this reason supposeth the sense of that Covenant to perish with the first framers And whereas that casuist added to make the argument stronger which this his disciple forgot that the oath being vinculum personale they could not give the sense of dead men To this the Apologist answers that there is also a vinculum reale as this nationall oath was and that it oblidging all the Land and the posterity we were accordingly in order to performance bound to Search into its meaning and that this was the proper work duty of a general assembly That that casuist himself acknowledged which this borrower should have noticed that this was the judgement of Ministers concerning its sense when prelates were first obtruded upon this Church so that its true meaning from hand to hand was come to them and that they were the more in tuto to judge of it And whereas the argument of the Seasonable case had a Limitation in it which this man forgott viz unless that assembly could produce authentick evidences that this was the meaning of Imposers the Apologist told him that they did produce authentick expresse evidences that such was the meaning of the first takers I would know how this man comes to descant upon the sense of ancient writers in this pamphlet and to determine anent sentences of private writers dead severall centuries of years agoe He is very confident in fastning his Glosses upon Jerom's words I trowe that Author is dead more then 58. years agoe And for as clear as his words are against the divine right of prelacie yet this man thinks he is Cock sure that this was not the meaning of Jerom's words which presbyrerians alledge Quis talia fando temperet a risu But the Seasonable case goes on to object next and this resolver followes up at his heels That all which that Assembly produceth Sess. 16. to prove this to be the meaning of that Oath amounts only to this that the Church about that time of taking the Covenant and also afterward was labouring against Bishops but proves not that episcopacie was abjured in the words of the oath Now why would he not do his Doubter such a small piece of justice as to put into his mouth the large answer of the Apollogist to this argument from pag. 406. to 409. But this would have made him too stiffe a Doubter for this Resolver or Informer but had he nothing in the Surveyer to resolve this Well the Apollogist here tells him and his Leaders in this argument that the Covenant supposeth a Government then in being to the defence of which it oblidgeth that that Government was not prelacie but presbytery he clears by a large induction of our assemblies acts and procedour as the Assembly 1638. did before so that that matter of fact being clear there is No doubt but that the nationall Covenant binds to defend and preserve presbyterian Government then owned and existing even as its engadgement to defend the King must needs be understood of King James who was then reigning That this was the government then Existent and owned by this Church we cleared in short already and need not here repeat it But 3. this Informer passing over a more plausible objection of his Master the Seasonable case enquires by what warr and that assembly could put upon others their sense of the Covenant they might
were But what is meant by discipline in that Covenant The substantialls of it sayth he and necessary policie as exprest in the first dook of discipline 9. Cap. which is unalterable tho particular formes as some think may be changed But 1. Why will this versatil Informer bemist his reader what dark and generall expressions Whither means he the essential necessary Policy according to that phrase of the book or a necessary Policy exprest and asserted in that book If the first I would ask him 1. Why condescends he not upon that essential and necessary policy and gives no account of its nature and extent as it is contradistinguished from that which is not necessary but mutable 2. If by substantials of Governmentâ—… he mean all Church-officers of divine appointment according to the Scripture account of their qualifications their authority and its due exercise with what sense or reason can he suppose or any els that this wil not determin a particular form cansubsist without it how can a particular form be more formaly and explicitly described then thus But next if by necessary Policy he understand the Policy held out and asserted in that first book I would ask him 1. Why excludes he the second book which was at this time extant and received and which doth in severall chapters viz. 5 6 7 8. treat of the Pastor Doctor Elder and Deacons office which he will no doupt own as substantiall peeces of Church-policy being so clearly asserted in Scripture 2. Why answers he not to the account character of that first book given by the Apoll pag. 10. who tells him that it overthrowes prelacy in the establishing of Church-sessions the way of election and triall of Ministers and severall other things contrary to the episcopall method will he by this silence consent that prelacy stands in opposition to the substantialls of Church Government and the utterly necessary Policy therof to a policy indeed unalterable to use his time phrase if he say that he understands by this phrase that policy which is necessary in either or both these books but not the intir Policy delineated therin how will he prove that the Covenant-obligation in the Intention of the imposers reaches the on and not the other Next I would ask this Informer whither thinks he that particular forms of Government are alterable yea or not if not how comes he to distinguish them in this from the essentiall necessary Policy which he cals unalterable if he think them alterable why doth he not positively assert this but presents this opininion as the thoughts of some only and censurs Stilling fleets opinion herin pag. 76. Besides if by substantials of Government he unstand the disciplin asserted in that book he justles and deals stroaks what his reverend father B. Spotswood in his character therof exhibit in his History pag. 174. For first he sayes it was framed in imitation of the Government of the reformed Church in Geneva which all know was Presbyterian 2dly He sayes it it could not take effect as being but a Dream And did he call the substantialls of Government but a Dream thinks this man Surely either the Bishop or our Informer dreams 3dly He wisheth Iohn Knox had retained the old policy and therefore in his sense this policy was distinct from Prelacie On the other hand the framers the Ministry owneing it supplicat the Parliament after it was drawn up for the restauration of the Discipline of the ancient Church and for discharging the Popes usurpation and of all that Discipline that did flow therefrom as inconsistent with the Discipline of the ancient Church and the Disciplin contained in that book How absurd is it to suppose that it was only substantialls which was at this time existent and no particular forme it being a forme of Government and the Discipline of this Church which the Covenant oblidges unto and the Apologist as well as the Assembly 1638. could have given him a large account and proof of a particular forme at this time existent In a Word let us have all the substantialls of Government i. e. AllChurch officers divinely appointed with their due power and Assemblies higher and lower and it will quickly justle his prelacie to the door and make him him and hisFathers feest he dint of the true Church of Scotland her sword and censures for what they have done if they repent not CHAP. III. The Abjuration of Prelacie in the solemne League and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Also Mr Crofton and Timorcus acquit of affoording any Patrociny to his cause Dr Sanderson stands in terms of contradiction to him in this point BUt now this our Oedipus and doubt resolver who hath acquit himself so dexterously in absolving us from the nationall Covenant marches up after the Seasonable case to try how he can play the absolver as to the solemne league And his Doubter making a wide step to the 2d Article wherein he allegeth Bishops are abjured and that Protestant Bishops are meant To this he answers That it s not every kinde of Protestant Bishops that is there intended and that Timorcus pag. 14 16. holds that all episcopacy is not abjured but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive episcopacy viz the precedencie of one over the rest without whom nothing is ordinarly to be done in ordination and jurisdiction that they assert its only the English kinde of prelacy expressed in the Article for that end that is abjured which we have not in Scotland That Mr Vines and Gattaker assert that its only that complex frame consisting of all the officers there mentioned that is abjured that the Assembly of divines was reconcilable to moderate episcopacie That Timorcus holds that the English parliament our commissioners were not against all Episcopacy citing likewise Mr Crofton pag. 70 71. hence he concludeth that the English preshyterians would not cry out against conformists as guilty of perjury Ans. I. It is a very pityfull shift to measure our obligation in Scotland against Prelacy by the 2d Article of the league which relates to the Church of England wherein only that prelacy was existent For since Scotland from the time of our reformation never had such a Prelacie as the adversaries acknowledge they must consequently grant that the prelacie which that article engadgeth to extirpat is not solely or mainly the Prelacie which we stand oblidged against in that Covenant but a Prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian Government and under that formall consideration which in the first article we are engadged to preserve In order to which preservation of our reformed discipline from our own Prelacie the 2d Article which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland is subservient as a mean to its end This is convincingly clear for I. Extirpation and Preservation being opposite terms and the last being made use of as to our Church of Scotland must needs relate to Presbyterian Government as
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
opposition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of the Lords worke and interest but how is it performd when we thus strengthen their hands in their avowed opposition therunto 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty such as enter into this league when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren wound and offend them and shake off a faithfull Covenant-keeping Ministry 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine worship and union when thus owning false prophets and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge and such as cause Divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnd Prov. 19. 27. Rom. 16. 17 18. 9. How maintain we the priviledges of our Church and her Reformed Government when owning intruding prelats and their creatures as Ministers of this Church and disowning her true Ministers now taking her by the hand This practice is ane approving of Curats call and mission rather then that of presbyterian Ministers which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant Next owning and adhering to Curats in this our case and according to our principles hath an accession to much guilt otherwise such as 1. The owning of a palpably blasted and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time 4. A casting of our selves on tentations of greater complyance 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for Gods worke and denying a sympathy with them yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground 6. A disowning the Ministeriall authority and tearing the commission of Christs faithfull Ambassadours and depriving our selves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours c. 5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists and of our Rulers demanded conformity therin unto the present course of defection will be found to fall under great scripture obligations such as 1. The obligation of persevering in integrity and holding it fast Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawfull and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood establisht this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erastiani me and also as a Disowning of faithfull Ministers 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin exprest Jude 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curats in this case 1. All Direct or interpretative consent to sin is here Discharged 2. A practice otherwise lawfull will on this ground become inexpedient hic nunc We must not eat in the case of offence tho we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions the owning of Curats hath an accession to their sin beyond that of ane apearance or a touch It being both a Deserting the presbyterian Ministry and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy and all the corruption and defection of the time which is therby advanc'd promoted 't is also in this case of competition a deliberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian interest 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty exprest Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice All truth must be avowed practically avowed We must walk circumspectly or exactly as the Word imports we must avow truth duty on the greatest hazard even the smallest mater is great when a testimony is concernd in it were it but the circumstance of an open window Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard And as this testimony must be full so must it also be constant Demas shame is that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ and embrace this present world And beside whatever truth or duty is opposed that becomes the speciall object of this testimony Hence Ministers and Professours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding and people's disowning them and adhering to Conformists is so palpably cross therunto as nothing can be more 4. This practice is inferd from the scripture obligation to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren exprest 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur saith Polanus Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning of calling truth in question of acting with a Doubting conscience or which weakens his plerophory or assurance is here discharged And neither the lawfulness nor Indifferency of the thing it self nor mens Authority commanding it Nor the weakness yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled will warrand the Doing of that out of which offence arises Paul Declares all meats lawfull yet will not eat in case of offence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice is equivalent to any civill Declarator or Law which alters not the nature of scandal Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat doth harden them in their apostacy and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them or may provoke them to act against their light and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty as matters now stand the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinfull 5. disowning conformists will clearly follow from the scripture obligation to turn away from seducers and such as turn aside from Gods way 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evills adhering to these in the last dayes putting among the rest of their black Theta's Covenant breaking concludes his discovery with this grand precept ver 5. from such turn away We must beware of false prophets the concision and of such as walk not according to the received ordinances Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christs sheep do flee from the stranger and hear not his voice Iohn 10 27. 1. All promoters of wayes contrary to the simplicity of the gospel are here commanded to be eschewed 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practicall unfaithfulness as well as false Doctrine Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that practically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away and consequently eschewed the saints must be fortifyed against these that ly in wait to deceive God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and
strengthen the hands of evill doers Ezek 13. 22. such as stand not in his counsel Ier. 33. 22. cause people to err by their lies and lightness Ier. 26. 32. Now upon the forementiond suppositions its clear that Conformists are leading aside from our Reformation opposing the principles priviledges of this Church they are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn away they are speaking peace to the wicked and healing the wound slightly and are ruling with force and rigour Ezek. 34. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. Witness their present violence 6. This practice of Presbyterian Ministers officiating in opposition to this course and peoples adherence to their Ministry is inferr'd from the scripture obligation of many terrible charges and adjurations laid upon Ministers in reference to a faithfull diligence in their Ministerial function and a suteable Ministerial testimony concerning the sin and duty of the time which is necessarly inclusive of their peoples reciprocal diligence in attending their Ministry and their obedience and faithfull adherence accordingly They are commanded to cry aloud and shew the people their sin Isa. 58. 1. and as they would not have the blood of souls upon them to give faithfull warning touching sin and duty and their peoples case and hazard especially in times of great sin and judgement when God is terribly pleading his controversy with them Ezek. 3. 17. hence they are enjoyned to be instant in season and out of season reproving rebuking and exhorting with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1. And as faithfull watchmen on Ierusalems walls never to hold their peace day nor night till she be establisht and made a praise in the earth Isa. 62. 6. to fulfill and make full proâ—…fe of their Ministry Colloss 4. 17. And as these comands in order to Ministerial diligence do singularly oblige herunto in this case so the scripture woes and threatnings thundered against Ministers negligence and unfaithfulness are very convincing and awakening See Ezek. chap. 3. and chap. 13. 5. 6 Hence on the forementiond suppositions it clearly followes 1. That Ministers are oblidged to be constantly instant in season and out of season in their Ministerial testimony against this course of defection 2. This case of defection and persecution ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have access as the scattered preachers Acts. 8. Went every where preaching the gospel after that persecution that arose about Stephen 3. This Ministerial testimony upon the forementioned grounds must be levelled at all the corruptions of the times and all the branches and degrees of our defection 4. The duty and obligation of the people of God is reciprocall and commensurable therunto And if hearing Curats and disowning Presbyterian Ministers be not inconsistent with this great obligation let any Iudge 6. That partâ—… in a Reformed Church which having overturnd her Reformation hath shut out laid aside and persecute away sound adherers therunto both Ministers and professours and will not admit Ministers to officiat but upon the sinfull terms of complyance with their way cannot charge the sound party with schism in standing where they were owning and prosecuting their respective duties as Ministers and flocks in opposition to these overturners and backsliders For this would justify the most ingraind schism that ever was heard of Now so the case is here for all Presbyterian Ministers are cast out and they and all sound professours adhering to them persecute unless they will retract their principles and conform to prelacie Ministers in taking up a new tenour and exercise of their Ministry in a precarious servile dependence upon Erastian prelacy headed and influenced by a meer civil papacy And people in subjecting themselves to the Ministry of the servile deputes of Erastian prelates as a badge of their hearty complyance with and submission unto this blasphemous supremacy and consent to the overturning of the pure constitution and reformation of this Church So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty against Schismaticks disowning it Do not our Divines tell the Romanists on this ground that they have seperat and persecute us away from them and that therefore the schism lyes upon themselves not on us So the case is here Let this man say what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her former judicatories anent a party owning such principles as Conformists do and persecuting or casting out all that oppose them and dare not concurr in their course of backsliding in overturning the sworn Reformation of this Church I dare appeal to the Informer himself if such would not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks And he can assigne nothing now to turn or cast the scale no ground of disparity unless he place it in this that prelatists are the greater number and have the civil power on their side And if this pityfull plea will carry it the Romanists have long since outweighed the protestant Churches in this debate which this man will not for very shame admit 7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and disowning Curats hath nothing of the ingredients of schismor sinfull separation from this Church included therein as matters now stand and as the question is stated on the forementioned hypotheses Which will appeare in these cleare positions in the point of schism which are evident in their own light being applyed and brought home to our present case 1. Schism is a starting out from under due relations to a Church and from her Ministry and duties accordingly But in this our case and practise under debate Ministers and professours are pursuing the duties of their respective relation to this Church as it stood reformed and establisht before these innovations and the Apostat prelatick party are doing the contrary 2. In a sinfull Schismatick separation it is alwayes supposed that the withdrawing is from those who are holding the communion of the true Church otherwise we lose the basis and fundation of all sound definitions of schism But here the persecute party are owning the Reformation of this pure Church against a party of separatists who have broken her order union and National vows and who are also censurable by all her standing acts 3. In a proper Schismatick separation the principles and practice of these from whom the separation is made are supposed to be subservient to that Churches union right establishment and for maintaining her communion but to separat from those whose principles and practice is a stated opposition and in so far as an opposition to her purity and Reformation is to maintain her true union and communion and not sinfully to separat from it The Assumption as to this practice under debate might be cleard by a large induction of particulars If we take a view of the two parties Presbyterian and prelatical their carriage in relation to this Church It will be evident 1. In general That Conformists their principles and practice is a
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
fundation other prayers according to every ones occasion Agustine epist. 121. tells us that liberum est It s free to ask what was in the Lords prayer alijs atque alijs modis some times one way somtimes another Likewise Justin Martyr Apol. 2. tells us that he who Instructed the people pray'd according to his ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We might also tell him of Bishop Andrews success or rather disappointment in seeking an old Jewish Liturgie which when sent to Cambridge to be translated was found to be composed long after the Jews rejection so the Bishop being asham'd suffered this notion to die and the Liturgie never saw the light See Smectim and Didoclav pag. 615 16 17 18 19. seq 2. What consequence is this that because we disowne a Schismatick party of Innovators introducing these corruptions mentioned Ergo we disowne them as no Churches wherein these have been admitted Must we bring in or comply with every corruption once purged out the retaining wherof may be consistent with the essence of a true Church what consequence or reason is here Again doth not he and all his brethren stand in direct opposition to the order and government of the Presbyterian Church of this Nation and unto all that own 's the same will he then admit this consequence that he unchurches her before prelacie came in and other reform'd Churches govern'd Presbyterially So we see himself must acknowledge this his reasoning naught The Doubter alledges that these things mention'd are of later date then the Apostles To this he answers that Bishops were from the Apostles time The contrary wherof we have proved either as to diocesan or Erastian Bishops such as he means yea even a proestos which in the Apostolick age had no place as we have made appear Next He tells us that Polycrates in the debate about keeping of Esther with Victor Bishop of Rome alledged Iohns authority But how proved he this is the Question not what he alledged surely bare alledging as in other cases so specially in divinity is bad probation Then he asks if we will hence infer that they were no good christians who used these things suppose that they came in after the Apostles times I answer we thinke that in so far as innovating they were not Sound Christians and so must he thinke unless he will be wise above what the Apostles have written Then he tells us that from Rom. 14. It appears that albeit some thought he should say understood and knew that by their Christian liberty they were fred from the ceremoniall Law and therefore made no distinction of dayes or meats yet Paul enjoyn'd them to bear with the weak to account them brethren and not despise them and the weak were not to Iudge the strong Ans. 1. How proves he that the points in controversy viz. prelacie laying aside our vows and Covenants Erastianism liturgies and festival-dayes for mystical ends and uses are such nothings or indifferent matters as meats or dayes were at that time wherin pro re nata the Church might use her liberty As for diocesan Erastian prelacy we have made its antiscriptural complexion to appear so that it is not within the compass of any Lawfull liberty of the Church to embrace or establish it We have also made the binding force of the Covenants appear and that the laying aside of them consequently is a horrid guiltyness which this liberty can never be extended unto Likewise the liturgies and imposing of set formes of prayer and adstricting publick Worship therunto have been sufficiently impugned from Scripture and divine reason by several of the godly learned and discovered to impeach the spiritual liberty of Gospel Worship The holy dayes also have with the same evidence been impugned by our divines who have proven that they do impinge upon our Christian liberty are contrary to the fouth command enjoyning worke all the six dayes except on such occasionall fasts and feasts as are held out in the word likewise are reprobate by the New Testament prohibitions about superstitious observation of dayes The Jewish dayes being abrogat as the Informer cannot but grant how dare we impose upon our selves a new yoke If it were here pertinent to dilate upon these points our principles herein might be abundantly fortifyed and the truth cleard to his conviction and by consequence the impertinency of this parallel argument and his pityful pâ—… 1. 10 principii in equiparating the points now controvered with these things which are the object of Christian liberty The Informers gives us nothing here but magisterial dictates Again that tolerance which the Apostle speaks of as to dayes and meats relates to that time and case only of the weak Jews when the ceremonies tho dead were not yet buryed as they were to be honourably especially while the temple of Jerusalem stood and the legal worship therein by Gods providence was continued But as these observances were ever discharged to the Gentiles except as to blood and things strangled for that exigence only of the weak Jews so after when christian liberty was known and this particular exigence was over and the ceremonies buried It is within the liberty of no Church to unbury them or tolerat these or such like observances in others Finally this very text condemns him tho his begged supposition were granted For 1. The eater must not despise him that eats not why then do Conformists pursue Nonconformists with such grievous punishment and Lawes they not only despise but persecute to the death and vilely reproach them who art thou that judgest another mans servant why then do they Judge censure Nonconformists so highly in their pulpits and pamphlets and the Informer in this as Schismaticks of as deep a dye as ever the Church was infested with 2. He that but Doubts is damned if he eat saith the Apostle Why then do they so violently press consciencious Doubters to their way 3. If thy brother be grieved saith the Apostle with thy meat thou walks not charitably Why then are they so uncharitable as to grieve Nonconformists with prelatick exactions if the Judging and despising the forbearer be forbidden much more are their cruell edicts and constraining Lawes whereby they burden the consciences of tender forbearers in this case The practice of Victor as to the Asian Churches was no doubt highly uncharitable but it was so mainly because of his censuring about such a trifle as Esther-observation we see from this schism the sad effects of innovations and that the Churches unity peace is best keept by adhering to the simplicity of the gospel and so our departing from the gospel simplicity in point of government and introducing abjured prelacy is the chief ground of the present schism and confusions in this Church But now followes our Informers main charge of external schism in sâ—…parating from the Churches communion in word and sacraments contrary to the apostles direction Not to forsake the assemblies Heb. 10. 25. It
eyed So when a faithfull Minister is thus duely called and setled people are obliged to owne his Ministry by a due attendance upon the ordinances administred by him which is all that decency union and order and that act of our Church after mention'd doth call for which notwithstanding cannot be supposed to exclude all occasional usemaking of other gifts bestowed upon faithfull Ministers which were as I said cross to the communion of Saints and beleevers interest in one anothers gifts and graces But 4. our question here being stated upon the supposition of the greater part of this National Church their apostacy defection from our sworn Reformation and a great part of Ministers and professors adhering to their principles viz. to which of the two parties on this supposition people are to adhere in worship sure the Lords palpable blasting the backsliding party their gifts as to any saving success and on the contrary his as palpable owning and sealing with his blessing the Ministry of his faithfull servants adhering to his truth is a loud call in this broken state of our Church and case of defection and persecution to come out from the one party and way and adhere to the other So his Doubter in this and the next objection should have argued thus In this case of defection and overturning of our Reformation God being pleased to seal with a palpable blessing on our souls the word from Ministers adhering to their principles we may safely look on this as a call from God to hear them rather then the prelats perjurd hirelings whose Ministry we have found palpably blasted since they complyed with â—…his course of perjurious back siding and opposition to Gods work In this case certainly its an argument very pungent and founded on that of Jer. 3. 31 32. Where the Lord threatneth the prophets who caused the people to err by their lies and lightness and whom he hath not sent nor commanded tho they prophesie with this that therefore they shall not profite the people at all So the Argument going upon the supposition of our Churches broken and persecute state and a competition betwixt a faithfull Ministry and a party of Schismatick Innovators and overturners of our Reformation will infer nothing against our Churches setled order under Presbyterian government nor the assemblies act 1647. presupposing the same and it s not meerly the gifts but Gods saving blessing attending the same which is the ground of this argument and that practice pleaded for thereby Now as to his answer It s palpable that it meets not this argument in the least and besides his exclusive gloss is very impertinent viz. because we are to seek the best and edifying gifts fâ—…r our selfs in our siation therefore we are not to seek the best in others also What consequence is this Sure the Informer will not deny simpliciter that people are to seek after the most edifying Minister and this will follow on the very ground of our edification which we are to design in seeking the best gifts in and for ourselves Nay the one is the great mean subservient to the other a faithfull edifying Ministry is Gods Method for winning to the best gifts for my self and therefore as a mean leading to this end fals within the compass of this command to seek and Covet the best gifts So a greater then he Voetius concludes it a duty to seek the best edifying Ministry on this ground De politeia Eccles. pag. 52. And likewise on these Scriptures Luk. 8 18 1 Thess. 5. 22. And removes objections to the cotraire His 2d answer is That the Apostle is there pressing unity and not to despise the meanest gifts more then the meanest member and to avoid Schism verse 25. Ans. Then it followes that in the sense of this precept which we have explain'd seeking the best gifts is consistent with unity and avoiding Schism and consequently in this our case it s no wayes inductive to schism but consistent with a due esteem of the meanest gifted Minister who is faithfull to withdraw from scandalous innovators who have already fixt a Schism in this Church by opposing her sworn reformation order and unity Nay as matters now stand this is the surest way to keep our Churches union and integrity Since this their course has such a clear tendency to the ruine of her Reformation and pure constitution in doctrine Worship discipline and Government as is above clear'd His 3d Answer is that edification is to be sought in an orderly way not in a way that marrs the Churches peace and that though our sense of this generall direction were granted it s thus to be understood Ans. Let our sworn establisht Reformation its principles rules and design sit in Judgement and determine who are greater enemies to this Churches peace and order they or we Was not this Church priviledged with a beautifull order of Government pure Gospel-Worship and sound doctrine before Prelacy was introduced Well then the way to this Churches true peace Union and order must be in opposing their pretended order who are letting in the enemies and have broken her walls and hedge Many of them said and swore that the Presbyterial Government of this Church was a beautifull order unto which since they stand in opposition they are the most orderly who disowne them As for that which he adds of peoples neglecting Ministers set over them in the Lord he must prove that Conformists are such Ministers who are both scandalous for the far greatest part in their carriage having no visible badge of the Lords call and do owne principles and carry on a designe point blank contraire to our reformation have left the peoples conduct in the way of truth given up all their Ministeriall authority to abjured prelacy and make it their work to destroy and waste the Lords vineyard Tho it were granted that they had been so set over people yet since they are tracing wayes of Schism and innovations condemned by our Church Christs flocks cannot owne or be subject to them as their soules spiritual guides they being men that have corrupted the Covenant of Levi and made many stumble at the Law And besides since that complyance in subjection to conformists and disowning of Presbyterian Ministers which he doth here plead for is in very deed a despising faithfull Ministers set over their flocks by the Lord and standing in a Ministeriall relation to them and whom consequently the Lords people are called to honour and obey this same reason whereby he would persuade to adhere to the conforming party pleads more strongly against them And his rule aftermentioned not to do evill that good may come of it will conclude that we should not under pretence of keeping parochiall order or for eviting confusion deprive our selves of the blessing of the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours to adhere unto whom in this case we are under so many obligations As for the Canons after'cited by him against Ministers
of his own blow in this retortion strikes his argument stark dead and he must grant that the question is which of the two contending parties have best right to officiat as Ministers in the Church of Scotland according to her principles and Reformation and according thereto it will not be difficult to determine who are the most orderly to be heard the disorderly have no reason to complain 2. He sayes we must not think the meanest gifts useless But he must grant that men may sinfully render them useless as he alleges Presbyterian Ministers do and we prove that conformists do so 3. He tells us that the best gifts cannot work without the spirit and that to doâ—…e on gifts is to idolize men as those 1 Cor. 1. 3. Then he tells us how Zanchius was offended with that frenchman of Geneva who said he would leave Paul should be come there and hear Calvine But what will this arguing reprove must they be stigmatiz'd as Idolizers of men and gifts who will not Idolize abjur'd prelacy and perjur'd apostats and in owning them while wasting and destroying a purely reform'd Church discountenance a faithfull Ministry contending for her reformation and signally bless'd therein surely his instance anent Zanchius may be well apply'd to such as will hear none but Curats and wholly disowne Presbyterian Ministers Again if the best gifts cannot work without the spirit and the spirit works ordinarly and best with those who entertain him and as having their senses exercised habitually wait for his breathings in duty what hope is there that profane men and greivers of the spirit in walking contraire to God his people way and interest as are most Conformists should have the spirits seal attending their Ministry What more He tells us 4. That sometimes the spirit will act with the mean gifts more then the greater as Peter Acts 2. is found to have converted more in one sermon then we read that our Lord himself did tho he spoke as never man spoke That Christ 〈◊〉 complain'd of small success Isa. 49. 4. 53. 1. upbraided people for unbelief Math. 11. 21 22 23. Ioh. 5. 40. that after the sermon on the mount we read not that many were converted tho they were astonisht that the Centurions faith was commended above that of Israel and from the east and west many will sit down with Abraham while the children of the kingdom are cast out Ans. 1. He must grant that this argument taken from the spirits working great things by smal means will not plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers to whom many of his Scioli Rabbies impute weakness of gifts because they think that aliunde or upon other grounds such Ministers are not in this case to be heard Well then let him take home his argument as insufficient untill he prove that hic nunc Conformists are to be heard rather then Nonconformists and prove his groundless suppositions above mentioned wherein he begs the question and disprove our true suppositions above also rehearsed or this argument will signify Just nothing 2. For his Instances as this man would be sober in such comparisons so we must tell him ther 's a great difference betwixt little no success a Ministry with small effects and a Ministry palpably blasted as to any saving issue and betwixt sincere designing of success and mourning over the want of it making it a complaint as our Lord wept over Jerusalems impenitency and disobedience and the Ministers designing himself and no such thing and wanting this impression mentioned Sure as it will be hard for him to point us to any of their constant hearers who have been converted by their Ministry so it will be as hard to point out any of their preachers who have the peoples spiritual profit for their design or their unprofitableness as their burden complaint to God And since both these are conspicuous in Presbyterian Ministers It s quickly resolved which of the two are standing in Gods counsel and travelling in birth to beget souls by the gospel and to have Christ formed in them But he would have us praying for Conformists and laying aside prejudice Ans. I think we are Indeed called to lay aside prejudice at their persons and to pray for their repentance but to pray for a blessing on their Ministry who are in such direct opposition to the Lords people work and Interest were a mocking of God and hardning them in their sin and consequently hearing and receiving the ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church were a strenght ning of their hands in their disobedience Beside will he allow people upon their praying for Presbyterian Ministers to hear them I trow not then it seems laying aside prejudice and praying for Curats may consist with not hearing them His next childish objection put into the mouth of his Doubter that tho some withdraw all will not is not worth the noticing It were good for our Church all her members did so understand their duty and obligatons as to deny that subjection to Conformists which he pleads for And that such pastours as they who destroy but feed not had no flocks For they have not brought back the straying nor heal'd the sick c. But he tells us he hath proved that none ought to withdraw How insignificant his preceeding proofs are hath been discovered and if his ensueing be no better It s certain that Successus defuit ausis and that he hath overshote his marke in this undertaking The Doubter enquires next what obligation lyes on him to be an ordinary hearer in his own congregation In answer to which the Informer tells us first of our obligation showen by him to maintain union and of the Acts of the ancient Church and our own Which I have already answered Next he tells us of the reciprocal obligation betwixt a Minister and his congregation which cannot be so easily broken the Minister is to labour diligently and faithfully among the people of his charge Ezek. 33. 8. Heb. 13. 17. the people of his charge are to attend his Ministry to esteem him highly and love hâ—…m for his works sake Mal. 2. 7. 1 Thes. 5. 11 12. Heb. 13. 17. He asks how we obey this charge when we disowne discountenance and turn our backs upon our Ministers and will not receive the Law from their mouth Ans. That there is a reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and his flock is easily acknowledged but the Informer forgot the main and necessary point here to make this weapon strike home and the argument run straight without a byass viz. What makes up this tye according to the Scripture pattern This he should have condescended upon and made it good in the case of Conformists and then his arguing had been pertinent and formidable to the Non-Conformists But what will this poor general say that there is a reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock while he hath not made appear what is the Scripture
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
be taken as joint acts of Paul Barnabas and of the Churches together with them viz. That they all concurr'd in making them Elders by suffrage and in prayer and fasting and commending themselves to the Lord. 3. How proves he that the relative they in our translation is referred to Paul and Barnabas only rather then the Churches sure this is a blind proof and as we use to say a Baculo ad angulum they ordain'd elders Ergo Paul and Barnabas only ordain'd by Imposition of hands since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it s resolved by the learned cannot hardly in propriety of speech import laying on of hands in ordination which was proper to Paul and Barnabas and the Septuagint whom Luke followes expressing the laying on of hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Informer must acknowledge this from the sequel of his own reasoning for he tells us that Paul and Barnabas could not elect Ministers very true and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in its native acceptation signifies election by suffrage as he hath acknowledged must relate to the people Since there could be no hand-suffrage betwixt Paul and Barnabas 4. Giving and not granting that this was an act of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage our argument stands good and this will not in the least yeeld the question as this man foolishly imagines for to read it thus Paul and Barnabas ordained elders by suffrage is all one with this that they ordained such to be elders as were chosen by the Chuch The people declared by hand-suffrage whom they would have to be Elders and Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders As the Consul who held the court among the Romans created new Magistrats that is did receive the votes and preside in the elections Since as I said the hand-suffrage cannot in any propriety of speech relate to Paul and Barnabas alone See Calvines Institut lib. 4. cap. 53. paragr 15. and Mr Gillesp. ubi supra who further tells us that this may be either an action of the Church only as the Syriack makes it or a joint action both of the Churches and of Paul and Barnabas as Iunius makes it or an action of Paul and Barnabas in this sense that they did constitute elders to the Churches by the Churches own voices in all which senses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands good for us To which we may add that Calvine renders the word cuâ—… suffragiis creassent when the had made by votes Adding that Paul and Barnabas ordained Ministers to the Churches for they did preside over and moderat the people's election Presbyteros dicuntur eligere Paulus Barnabas an soli hoc privato officio faciunt quum potius rem permittunt omnium sugragiis Ergo in Pastoribus creandis libera fuit populi electio sed ne quia tumulâ—…uose fieret praesident Paulus barnabas quasi Moderatores That is Paul and Barnabas are said to ebuse Elders but do they this solely and by themselves and do not rather remit this to the suffrages of all therefore in the making of Pastours the people had a free election and choise but left any thing should be done tumultuously Paul and Barnabas do preside as Moderatours So he sayes we are to understand the decree of the Council of Laodicea which seemed to inhibit the people's elections The Dutch Annot. upon this passage do tell us that this was a custome among the Greeks in chusing their Magistrats that the people by lifting up their hands give to understand their voting so it seems that from thence this custome was also used in the primitive Church that the setting forth of Ministers of the Church being done by Apostles or those that were sent by them for this purpose was approved by the Church by the lifting up of their hands which use long continued in the Church as the Ecclesiastick histories testify And having told us that others understand this of imposition of hands which they set down as the secondary and less probable opinion they add that this also was done with consent of the church as appears by the fasting and praying which was done by the whole Congregation and was also done in this chusing of the Elders referring to 1 Tim. 5. 17. Acts 10. 41. upon which passage they shew that the Greek word in Acts 14. 23. signifies properly by lifting up of hands to choose or ordain and is here used concerning the choosing of ordinary Ministers by the suffrages of the Church to which this extraordinary choosing of Apostles is here opposed as being done by lifting up or stretching forth of Gods hand alone Upon Acts. 6. 6. where mention is made of laying on of hands they tells us that as this was usual in blessing Gen. 48. 14. in sacrifices Lev. 1. 4. and in installing into offices Numb 27. 18. Deut 34. 9. So the Church pointing at the Apostolick Churches practice in investiture of Ministers did thus dedicate them to God his service and used thus to wish his blessing 1 Tim. 5. 22. The English annot upon this text under debate do shew that the word signifies making of such a choise as was made or confirmed by lifting up of hands to signify suffrages or consent and having told us of the general signification of the word in reference to ordination or appointing chap. 10. 41. they add that the Syriack reads the text thus and they appointed to them Elders in every Congregation Whence they collect that Paul and Barnabas did not all alone in ordaining Church-government other Christians shew'd their consent or approbation of the persons who were ordained Elders by lifting up their hands as very wee l knowing of what behaviour they had been among them so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies say they to disallow by some act election or decree Adding that Suidas interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his Interpreter renders electio delectus per suffragia confirmatio populi totius consensus an election choosing a confirmation by voices consent of all the people Let our Informer here observe 1. That the choosing of Ministers by suffrage and consent of the Church is imported and held out in this passage under debate in the consentient judgment of Interpreters and that this greek word as in its ordinary so its special acceptation in this place will clearly infer so much whatever authority in ordination and election as to Paul and Barnabas and of Ministers consequently the circumstances of this text will bear out and infer 2. That this interest of the people in the election and call of Ministers is comprobate by the judgement and consentient practice of the ancient Church as the history therof doth verify 3. That that passage Act. 10. 41. doth in their sense nothing invalidate this right of the people held out in this text the one place speaking of an immediat choosing by God the
other of mediat and ordinary by men the one pointing at ordination and appointing of the Apostles to their office in a general sense the other of the special or specifical mould of the call and election of Ministers 4. That this right and interest of the people in Ministers call as it is founded upon the ancient practice and unrepealed priviledge of Gods Church under the old Testament so it hath besides this and such like instances and exemplary recommendations of the new-testament a constant moral warrand of the peoples knowledge anent the case and behaviour of their spiritual guides His 3d answer to this text is That if we understand it of a hand suffrage we lose by it Why so because we give advantadge to the Independents for popular election of Ministers wherea we give this power not to all the people but to the session And he tells us that therefore understanding Presbyterians have forborn to pressthis text Ans. 1. We have proven that a congregational Eldership is Iuris divini that by consequence this election strictly taken must be their priviledge See 9 Argument against Prelacy on the 1. Dialogue Who these understanding Presbyterians are who do not understand this place as warranding the people's interest in the election call of Ministers the Informer hath not given us an account since his Doubter is none of them and if he mean the Authors of jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici he will finde that they do clearly assert this truth propos 1. so as it do not exclude the due right of Ministers herein See pag. 127. and 129. And the Assembly of divines in their directory for ordination of Ministers 4. Branch do require the people's consent and approbation as necessarily antecedaneous to the ordination Besides could the Informer be ignorant that there are several other weighty Scripture grounds arguments pleaded by our writters to fortify this right of the people why did he not then put these also into the mouth of his Doubter and give us an account of his own and his Episcopal Masters ' skill in dissolving them Moreover tho it were granted that all here did concurr in this suffrage where no Eldership was yet constitute as Mr Gillespy Judgeth probable miscell pag. 14. it will nothing infringe the power of the Eldership in Churches constitute there being a vast difference betwixt the modus rei in Churches constitute and these in fieri or that are to be constitute Again 2. We told him that the word imports a judicial suffrage by extending of hands and that in commitiis among courts senats and representatives of the people as in the Roman senate in which the Consuls presided And that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Magistrat created by suffrages in the courts solemnly held for that purpose That the Roman senate did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome saith which Doctor Potter expones made their Gods by suffrage Charity mistaken page 145. Again supposing Elderships here existent this phrase may be well referr'd to the people as importing their consent and approbation reserving still to the Eldership their Juridical suffrage and decisive vote in election Mr Gillespy ubi supra clears this shewing that in Athens it selfe the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did but like well the persons nominated as when a Thesaurer offered some to be surety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the people shall approve This he proves from Demosth. advers Timocr from which oration he makes it good that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the court of Iudges are plainly distinguished so far that they might not be both upon one day and that tho the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not they but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or judges did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain or appoint a Magistrat In a word we give in this mater the Ministers call the suffrage and election to the Eldership I mean in a Church constitute and the consent which is distinct from the decisive voice as the learned acknowledge Gamachaeus in primam 2dae ouâ—… of Thomas quest 15 shewes this to the whole people and the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands making the man a Minister and giving him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had it not before to the Presbytery according to the Scripture pattern which is toto coelo different from the Independents principles in this point If any object that the giving the suffrage and election of Ministers to the Eldership excluding the people makes the breach greater betwixt the Independents and us then needs it being sufficient to clear us from their principles that we allow not either to the Eldership or congregation the formal authoritative mission and imposition of hands And that our arguments upon this head seems to give to the people not onely consent but suffrage in election I shall desire first that Mr Gillespies answer be considered Miscell page 24. to an objection about our homologating with Independents in this point Who sayes that in this point of election we do not homologate with them who give to the collective body of the Church women and children under age onely excepted the power of decisive vote or suffrage in elections we give the vote onely to the Eldership or Church representative so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of the congregation So that he makes the attributing of this decisive voice suffrage in elections unto the people to be down right Independency the march stone of their difference from us He tells us afterward that the consent and knowledge belongs to the whole Church without which Ministers may not be intruded the counsel and deliberation which is distinct from this consent to the ablest wisest of the congregation especially the Magistrates But he distinguishes from both these the decisive vote in Court or judicatory the formal consistorial determination in the case of election and this he sayes belongs onely unto and consists in the votes of the Eldership And that the Independents contrarily give the conference and deliberation to the Eldership as we use to do in Comittees but the decision to the whole Congregation Adding further that such as have written against Independents do thus state the difference betwixt them and us in this point viz. not whether matters of great importance and publick concernment ought to be determined with the peoples free consent for this we grant but whether the cause must be brought to the body of the Congregation to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church citing Laget in his defence of Church-government chap. 1. and Mr Herle Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines in that piece intituled the Independency on scriptures of the Independency of Churches page 3. where he sets down this forementioned consent to the Minister who is to
be chosen as that which we allow to the members of the congregation in common Adding further that Independents place the whole essence of a calling in election accounting ordination to be but a solemnizing of it wheras we place the potestative mission not in the Churches election but lawfull ordination So that in the judgement of these Divines the reserving to the Presbytry the formal authoritative mission is the not the sole point of difference betwixt the Independents and us nor can a man be cleard from Independent principles in their judgement who extends the decisive juridicalâ—… vote in election beyond the Eldership and gives this decisive suffrage strictly taken to the people Besides the absurd and dangerous consequences following upon this opinion allowing the formal juridical elective suffrage to the people are evident such as 1. That this goes in some respect beyond Independents opinion as to the peoples power in elective suffrage who though they give it to the collective body yet â—…with a restriction excluding women children and persons under age not to every individual 2. That this will inferr that every point of government and every cause relating immediatly to the congregation must be brought to the multitude or body of the people to give their voices therin together with the officers of the Church for upon the same ground that the elective suffrages belong to them so must every piece of government Now Mr Laget ubi supra expresly states this as the Independents principle and as that wherin they differ from us 3. This cuts off all right and power of a juridical eldership which is by our writters asserted and made good from the scriptures and makes all their authoritative decisive suffrages in this and other points of government in reference to the congregation an invasion of the peoples right and unlawfull usurpation of their power for if this formall decisive suffrage belong to all the collective body jure divino how can they give it away 4. This will by consequence bring the collective body to have their formal decisive juridical suffrage in superiour Church-judicatories Presbytries and synods in every point wherin the congregational eldership and session have an immediat interest Again since consent and knowledge is allowed by our writters to the whole congregation and deliberation and counsel to some eminent members the elderships elective suffrage which in their judgement is necessarly connected with this cannot be said to impeach the due right of the collective body of the congregation in this point unless as I said we step over the march-stone and bring in the whole collective body of the congregation to have a decisive suffrage in government In a word the scripture arguments and other grounds here hinted which do clearly conclude the people and congregations right as to a call in general will not infer that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonges to every one of the people or the whole collective body so far as to import a formal decisive suffrage for it being the due right of the peoples representatives the Eldership in whose choise and election the people have a great Interest and to which they give a formal consent the congregation doth in and by them give their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffrage and what is proper to some part of this organick body the Church may be well said to be the due right and action of the whole in a general sense each part concurring suo modo A man is said to see though the eye onely be the proper organe of sight because the eye subsists in and with the body and cannot act without or separated from it So the people in a general sense and mediatly elect by the eldership the whole collective body concurring in what is proper to them herein We heard from MrGillespy ubi supra that among the Greeks the people in consenting to a choise of governours were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that although upon the supposal of the divine right of a juridical eldership representing the congregation which right is abundantly proved from scripture the formal Cousistorial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by juridical suffrage belongs to them yet the whole collective body their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner formerly explained stands good His last answer is that if we think the peoples election sâ—… necessary that none can be a Minister without it then we null the ministry of the whole Christian world for above 1000 years upward and the Ministry of this Câ—…rch ever till the year 1649. For untill then patronages were not taken away Ans We have proved that the People's right in the call and election of Pastours is the pure Scripture pattern continued in the Church of God for diverse ages which is enough to prove that as it ought to be endeavoured after and established by Churches who would imitat this pattern of the Lords tabernacle shewed upon the mounâ—… So where it is obtained it ought to be held fast against any contraire innovations That the people's interest in the election and call of Ministers and teachers had place from the Apostles even unto his own time in a good measure may be proven besides what we have said already to clear this by a very unsuspect witness Marcus Antonius de dominis de Repub. Eccles lib. 1. cap. 22. Num. 10. he saith in electione ministrorum etiam Apostolorum tempore ipsorum instituto plebem totam multitudinem magnam habuisse partem And lib. 3. cap. 3. Num. 12. Iam vero post concilium Nicenum in electionibus eundem prorsus veterem morem perpetuo Ecclesiam ad nostra pene tempora servasse ut a clero populâ—… fieret ex patribus ac rebus gestis conciliis juribus ex Romanorum Pontificum attestationibus decretis jam sumo comprobandum That is that after the Council of Nice the same ancient custome was own'd to his times by the Church as to the peoples interest in this election and call of Ministers he undertakes to prove from the Fathers from history and Councils and Laws and the very decrees of Popes In the Council of Paris Anno 559. There was such a decree Quia in aliquibus crivitatibus consuetudo prisca negligitur c. Because the ancient Custome and decrees of the Canons are neglected in some cities they appoint the decrees of the Canons to be keept and the ancient Custom ut nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem populi clericorum electio pleniâ—…ima quaesierit voluntate c. That none be ordained a Bishop without the will of the citizens but such onely whom the people and Clergy shall chuse with full consent That the people had a right to require call and elect their Pastour in the ancient Church Didoclav proves from the Example of Eradius Ambrose Flavianus Nectarius c. From pag. 3â—…6 to 331. shewing that Cyprian saith of Rabbinus that he was chosen Bishop
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
they would not have allowed and commanded the faithfull prophets and members of that Church to oppose them and cleave unto their respective duties and unto one another in the following thereof As for what he adds that there was then no command to separat from the worship while it was not substantially corrupted I wonder if he will charge a corruption of the worship it self or in the substance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Ministers and professors from whom he notwithstanding thinks its duty to separat so that untill he prove as I said Conformists their better claim to officiat as Ministers of this Church then Presbyterian Ministers this argument lights heavy on himself and the censures put upon Novatians and Donatists falls upon their dividing and destroying party The case of these Schismaticks being as far from ours as east from west were Novatians or Donatists first cast out by a violent backsliding party for not concurring in a course of backsliding in overturning a Churches sworn reformation and were they enjoyned commanded to owne the course of these backsliders I think the Donatists Novatians their violence against adherers to the union of the true Church is a fit emblem of the present practice of Conformists how can this Man say that there were then greater corruptions them now Can there be greater corruptions in government then a papacy of the highest degree as is their premacy and hierarchy can there be greater corruptions in practice then perjury and such grosse prophanity as Conformists are blotted with for the most part greater corruption in principles then Popish Arminian errors c. The Doubter objects that if we may not separat from a corrupt Church what mean these scripture commands enjoyning separation such as 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 11 2 Thes 3. 6 Rev. 18. 3 We have already said that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter assert that we may separat from a corrupt Church in every case but this we say that in whatever case and in how far soever we cannot joyn with a corrupt Church without the contagion and stain of its corruptions in so far and in that case a separation is necessary and falls within the compass of these scripture commands And that in this our case the demanded conformity as to Presbyterian Ministers and professors cannot be yeelded without the stain of prelatists their sin is above cleared So that he needs not tell us here that every corruption is not a sufficient ground of separation For we have heard our Informer acknowledge that a Church may be in that degree corrupted as will render a separation warrantable yea and necessary I could wish he had condescended upon that degree of corruption and showen us here the maximum quod sic minimum quod non as to the ground of this separation and how far these corruptions may strike at a Churches vitals and yet her life and essence as a Church subsist And here I would close in a litle with this Man and enquire that since a Churches corruptions will with him in some cases render a separation necessary upon what ground is it necessary and from what prior principle is this concluded sure it must be upon this ground left union with that Church blott the soul and make us share in her sin So that in this case we are not obliged to hold union and fellowship with her when it is infectious as is most clearly imported in that command 2 Cor. 6. and if separation be upon this ground allowed whether the corruption be lesser or greater eatenus or in so far we are obliged to separat for Majus minus non variant speciem rei Next I infer that a non-union to a corrupt party who cannot be called the Church or at lest whose being the Church is magnalis sub judice will be a fortiori warranted and upon lesser grounds then separation which supposes an anterior obligation of union and actuall union out of this case and abstracting from it But for these scriptures mentioned he sayes they will not prove our point and to that of 2 Cor 6. 14. he answers that our Lord is speaking of separating from ungodly fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian assemblies But doth he not enjoyn that separation because of the hazard of Infection by their sin and why not also from christian assemblies where there is the same hazard of this Infection did he not acknowledge that the case of a Church or christian Assembly may be such as will render even a separation necessary Now if in this case the tender separater should plead this text and that corrupt Church or assembly of Christians give our Informers answer viz. that it pleads only for separating from fellowship with Idolaters not of withdrawing from christian Assemblies how will he extricat himself and reconcile this answer with his concession But for these texts 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 6. he sayes they are meant only of needless fellowship in privat converse with scandalous persons but allowes not to withdraw from the publick worship because of the presence of such scandalous ones as if this did pollute the worship though it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them back Ans. The ground here is the same and acknowledged by him whatever be the withdrawing which is more immediately enjoyned viz. lest their fellowship prove contagious scandalous or in any measure sinfull so if fellowship with a Church in her Assemblies be thus infectious these scriptures do enjoyn a separation upon the same ground and by necessary consequence from what he hath acknowleged And therefore this answer is nothing to the purpose unless he will retract his concession that there may be corruptions in a Church and her assemblies which will render a separation necessary Next as for what he adds that ordinances are not polluted by the presence of scandalous ones It is not for him nor against us since he acknowledges there may be a Lawfull yea necessary separation from a Church her assemblies in worship tho not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the presence of scandalous ones because of the reason which we have already heard and we do also upon other grounds then this of a pretended pollution of the ordinances by their scandals maintain our disowning Conformists in their worship to be a duty as we have heard even that they are forcing all to a sinfull complyance with them in a schismatick departing from the unity of this Church and perjurious overturning the work of reformation and will neither suffer Ministers nor professors to joyn with them in worship but with an express aknowledgement in the intent of our Laws and owning of this defection Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly which our Informer pleads as a sufficient ground to disowne Presbyterian Ministers
will warrand separation but that this with many others presumptuously maintained and avowed will warrand a non-union unto a schismatick party of Innovators destroying and overturning a well reformed Church and rooting out a faithfull remnant of adherers thereto As for the want of the circumcision and the passover for sometime in the Iewish Church which he next pleads as that which did not cause a separation not to stand upon the particular impediment of circumcision while in the wilderness or an inquiry into what speciall lets might have had an influence or a sinfull influence upon the disuse of the passover yet Conformists case who are but a schismatick unsound part of this Church rejecting an approved ordinance and duty in complyance with and subserviency unto a perjurious course of defection is so far discrepant from this that any may see the disparity As for that of 2 Kings 23. 22. That there was not holden such a passover as that of Josiah from the dayes of the Judges that judged Israel nor in all the dayes of the Kings of Israel nor of the Kings of Judah It s only spoken comparativly in respect of the spirituality and sâ—…lemnity of that passover and doth not suppose ane absolute disuse of this ordinance through all that time A learned Interpreter upon this passage doth paraphrase the verse thus that there was no passover celebrat with so solemn care great preparation and universal joy the greater because of their remembrance of their miserable times under Manasseh and Amon. And that from the dayes of Samuel the last of the Judges as it s exexpressed 2 Chron. 35. 18. None of the Kings had with such care prepared themselves the Preists and people to renew their Covenat with God as Josiah now did And as he will not be able to prove that out of the case of persecution invasion dispersion or captivity and the inevitable necessity flowing from these there was a warrantable disuse of these holy ordinances so professors their not separating from that Church even upon a sinfull disuse will never come home to his purpose as is already oft cleared 5. He adds that upon this ground we would separat from all other Churches and from our own Church before the year 1645. And then he would please us again by telling us that he could wish all sermons were as Lectures the chief points of a long text being propounded which would be more edifying then when they rack thè text and their brains a native and kindly character of his party and their preaching to seek matter from their text to hold out the time But we have oft told him that it s not this defect only or without the circumstances of our present case that we plead as a ground of disowning them And if he account the Lecture-method of preaching the more edifying with what conscience have they deprived Gods people of this exercise method of preaching upon my Lord Bishops orders It seems his ipse dixit is the first rule of edification with our Informer and his fellows a principle well suited to lawless and Lordly prelacy which must have all ordinances mancipated to its arbitrary commands So that our Informer giving the supreme Magistrat a papal power over Church-Government and solemn sacred Oaths and vows in the preceeding Dialogue and the Bishops a dominion over Worship in this puts pityful fetters upon Christs glorious bride and as in this point and most of his reasonings in begging the question he but skirmishes with his own shadow so in thus wounding our Church by his dangerous laxe principles in his pretended healing but truely hurtfull and trifling Dialogues he shewes himself to be a physician of no value CHAP. V. The Informers answers and reasoning upon the point of Scandal and offence in reference to the owning of Conformists considered His dangerous principles both as to civil and Ecclesiastick power in this point His answer to the Doubters argument for Presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner controverted taken from the practice of Christ and his Apostles examined His absurd principles â—…nent the Magistrats coercive power over the exercise of the Ministerial office Having discovered this mans unsoundness in the points above examined wherein we have seen how in opposing the Lords work his faithfull servants their laboures in promoting it he hath dashed against the Scripture and sound divines and stated himself in opposition to both We shall next discover some more of his errors which are the issues of the former of the wicked designe for promoting wherof they are presented The first that offers it self to be considered is in the point of Scandal From which we argue against the owning of Conforâ—…ists as is above exprest And this grand doubt-resolver will needs discusse it but with what success we shall presently see His Doubter in the next place offers to him an argument against hearing Conformists taken from the offence and stumbling of many godly flowing from this practice of hearing them since they look upon it as a sin and tells him that the Apostle sayes we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others We have already proposed and some way improven this argument from the scandal of the weak in this case To this he first answers that when we are forbidden to give offence It s meant of not doing that which is of itself sinfull whereby we grieve the godly and lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our evill example but when we do our duty in obeying God we cannot give offence to any and if they take offence Its their own sin and weaknes but none is given As here he sayes it s their weaknes to offend at maintaining unity and peace that this rather gives a good example and to ly by from hearing Conformists for fear of offence of the weak is to omit duty and harden them in sin Ans. The Informer offering this reply from the sense of that scripture generally hinted by his Doubter seems at first view to restrict the command of not giving offence to that which is in it self sinfull wherin it might easily be made appear that he contradicts sound Divines scripture and himself Especially the passage to which the Doubter referrs being of a far other sense and scope But lest this censure should appear too Critical and upon consideration of his second answer I shall not medle with what he sayes here in thesi or this assertion in it self considered But to the assumption application of this passage in his answer I return to him this in short that he doth but here still beg the question in supposing that the owning of Curats is in this our case a duty and a maintaining of peace and order in the Church wherof we have made the contrary appear and that maintaining the true union and peace of this Church is to owne her true and faithfull Ambassadours contending for her reformation true order and union against
all ordinary places appointed for divine worship nay scarce any place of residence in their native land free from the fulmina thunderbolts of Prelats mad rage But what sayes he to this argument he tells us 1. That tho Christ preached thus yet it was not to separat from the Iewish Church nor did he disowne the hearing of their teachers but allowed to hear Scribes and Pharisees with a proviso to beware of their leaven that he sent those who were miraculously heald to the Priests and did not bid disowne them Ans. 1. Whatever be concluded as to Christs disowning or seperating the people from the teachers of the Church of the Jews at that time wherin the Informer hath offered nothing which will amount to a demonstration of what he affirmes and his assertion tho granted will not fortify the conclusion he aimes at yet this is certain and undenyable and in so far his Doubters parallel argument stands inviolable against him viz. that our blessed Lord preacht after this manner which he condemns Since he condemns in universum simply Presbyterian Ministers preaching and peoples hearing them in this manner abstracting from the disowning of Curats and their Ministry so that this answer meets not the objection as levelled against his principles And he cannot deny but that in so far as Christ and his Apostles were owned their ordinary Jewish teachers were separat from and disowned but he condemns all owning of Presbyterian Ministers and withdrawing from Curats as ingraind Schism and sinfull separation This answer is the more forcible if it be considered that our Lord had liberty of their Synagogues to preach in yet he frequently left them and preacht in privat houses and in the fields and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may use this liberty whom in a peice of cruelty beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees to Christ they have banish't from pulpits 2. As for our Lords not putting people to separat from that Church or the teachers thereof we have already shown how far it is from his purpose and what a wide consequenceit is from a non-separation from the Jewish Church and teachers tho corrupt while that legal dispensation stood which was shortly to be removed and the Gospel Ministry erected in its place and from our Lords tollerance thereof as Gods ancient Ministry though now corrupt to which he was to put an honourable close to conclude that a people are to disowne a faithfull Gospell Ministry and Church in complyance with a number of destroying Innovators ejecting them and razing a sworn Reformation which all that Church are bound to defend This is such a palpable inconsequence as any may upon first view discover it 3. There was beside what is said this reason in special wherefore our Lord would not have the Jewish Ministry at first universally left because he came as a Minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers he was to come to the temple as the Kings Son and Lord of all the Prophets who went before him the Law being to go forth from Zion and the word from Jerusalem Jesus came first to his own Therefore the Jewish Ministery and teaching was to stand for a time to make this apparent and as Christs great witness for his authority and the Doctrine of the gospel either for their conviction or conversion hence he appeald unto the Scriptures which they heard dayly read and preacht Search the Scriptures for they testify of me And when he enjoynd the healed leper to go and shew himself to the Priest it was to offer the Sacrifice which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them So that to make the substituting of the Gospel to the legal dispensation and ordinances apparent and its Ministry to the Jewish Ministry and Priesthood to which Christs death and resurrection only was to put a final period it was necessary it should be own'd in some measure And Christ could not wholly disowne it without stopping a great part of his mediatory fulfilling of all righteousness for he was as head of the circumcised people and as of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh to obey the Judicial and ceremonial Law and therefore he duely attended the passover and all the solemn feasts which could not subsist in their exercise without the standing of that old Ministry Now how far this is from our Question and inferring the owning of Curats in our case is obvious to the meanest capacity What he sayes of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees is already answered But now this Informer will offer some special reasons of Christs-preaching after this manner to cut short our argument here the first is Because he was to bring in the Doctrine of the gospel and preach himself the true Mesâ—…ah which was needfull to be done and because of the opposition of his doctrine by the Jewish teachers Ans. 1. Altho he was to bring in the doctrine of the Gospel into the world yet as he was sent first and immediatly to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and to exercise his Ministry toward them mainly upon which ground at his first sending forth the Disciples he commanded them to go to these lost sheep not in the way of the gentiles so he had the synagogues and Temple to preach in and frequently did so and yet notwithstanding went to the fields with great multitudes and to other places then these appointed for their ordinary and publick Worship and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may do the like who are denyed our Conformists Synagogues or ordinary places of Worship they being upon important grounds obliged as our blessed Lord was to officiat and bestirre themselves in the exercise of their Ministry And therefore 2. Since he reasons from the necessity of the Work which Christ was about and the opposition which he met with therein from his enemies these samegrounds pleads strongly for Presbyterian Ministers officiating in the manner contraverted because the preaching of the gospel by Christs faithfull Ambassadours was never more necessary and never met with greater opposition from its enemies and therefore upon his own grounds it followes that Ministers ought to embrace all occasions of preaching and in any place where they can have accesse Sure he dare not restrict the necessity of the work and the persecution from which he infers the Lawfulness of preaching after that manner to that particular necessity and persecution attending the first planting of the gospel or affirm that these grounds may never again recur for legitimating of this practice since thus he would condemn ouâ—… first Reformers Come we to the 2d Reason which is this Christ was head of his whole Church and was not to be limit in the manner of his Ministry as ordinary teachers but might preach where and when he pleased since all belonged to his Ministry and that none will say that he is pastor of the whole Church but the Pope nor can any meer Man do what Christ did in
every thing But our meetings he sayes are in despite of the Law and we add disobedience to our schism Ans. 1. We shall easily acknowledge that all Christs actions are not imitable such as those of divine power as working of Miracles and the actions of divine prerogative as the taking of the ass without the owners liberty the actings of his special Mediatory prerogative such as the enditing of the scriptures giving of his spirit laying down his life instituting Church officers Col. 3. 16. Joh. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18 19. These are not imitable nor yet such actions as were meerly occasional depending upon circumstances of time and place as the unleavened bread the time and such like circumstances of his supper But we say there are actions imitable as 1. in general Christs exercise of graces which have constant and moral grounds and are commended to Christians for their imitation every christians life as such ought to be an imitation of him the precious mirrour of grace Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me for I am meek c. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us Joh. 13. 15. I have given you an example that ye should doe as I have done The christian must walk as he walked 1. Joh. 2. 6. 2. In particular Actions on Moral grounds flowing from the relations wherein Christ stood do oblige and are examplary unto those that are under such relations viz. Christs subjection and obedience to his parents and paying tribute to cesar do exemplify children and subjects their duty as in that capacity so his Ministerial acts and faithfull diligence therein do exemplify Ministers duty Now the question is as to this manner of Christs preaching in this case that is not in the ordinary and authorized assemblies of that Church but in the fields and in houses whether the grounds of it will not sometimes recur and oblige ordinary Ministers for it s ratio exempli we are to look unto rather then the meer circumstances of the Individual act as Chamier tells us Tom. 3. lib. 17. de Jejunijs And for evincing this in our case our Informers own answer is sufficient if we shall but suppose which neither our Informer nor any of his fellows have ever been able to disprove that Presbyterian Ministers are under a relation to this Church as her true Pastors and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly His grounds are the necessity of the work and the bitter persecution of Christs enemies both which grounds are still vigent in relation to Presbyterian Ministers as is said For what he adds of Christs acting this as head of his Church and not limit in the exercise of his Ministry as ordinary Ministers none of which is an universal postor It is very insignificant here For 1. every piece of Christs Ministry his very teaching and teaching in the temple was as messenger of the Covenant who was to come unto that temple and in the capacity of head of his Church yet are examplary for Ministers duties according to their measure 2. He dare not say that our Lords preaching after the manner instanced in the objection of his Doubter or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors was meerly founded upon this ground and did flow from no other cause and principle but this viz. that he was not limited in the way and exercise of his Ministry for he hath already assigned other Reasons of this viz. the necessity of the work and his persecution simply considered so that if he should assert this his 2. answer would contradict his first and besides he will not deny but that such as were not heads of the Church and who were in an ordinary peacefull state thereof limited in the exercise of their Ministry did preach after this manner for the officers of the Church of Jerusalem Acts. 8. in that scattering and persecution went every where preaching the gospel So did our first Reformers not to stand upon that moral precept given to the Apostles who were not heads of the Church viz. when they persecut you in one city flee to another and the Informer will not say that they were not to carry the gospel-message with them in this flight Now that which those who were not heads of the Church but Ministers yea and ordinary Ministers have done the parallel of and warrantably surely that Christ did not upon any extraordinary ground now expired But such is this way of preaching Ergo c In a word as its easily granted that ordinary Ministers are fixt and limit to their charges in a setled state of the Church so he dare not deny that a Churches disturbed persecute condition will warrand their unfixt officiating upon the grounds already given and he should know that others then the Pope were universal pastours and even in actu exercito of the whole Church viz. the Apostles as himself acknowledged nor can he deny that ordinary Ministers are in actu promo related to the whole Church as her Ministers given to her by Christ and set in her As for what he adds of our meetings that they are against the Law he knowes that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Christ should be excommunicat From the violence and persecution of which Law himself infers our Lords officiating in the manner contraverted and he can easily make the application to our case and answer himself The Doubter thinks it hard to be hindred by the Law from hearing the word of God and other parts of worship or that Ministers be hindered to preach iâ—… being better to obey God then men He answers 1. that the Law allowes and commands us to hear the word preachâ—… in our own congregations in purity and defends it which is a great mercy and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in a way contrary to it Ans. 1. Granting that the Law did allow some to preach faithfully what saith this for their robbing so many thousands of the Lords people of the Ministry of some hundreds of faithfull Ministers will a piece of the Rulers duty in one point excuse their sin in twenty others and loose the people from their obligation to duty towards Christs Ambassadours This is new divinity 2. The law allowes none to preach in the manner he pleads for but with a blotâ—… of perjury in taking on the Prelats mark and complying with a perjurious course of defection and allowes none to deliver their message faithfully in relation to either the sins or duties of the time which is far from allowing to preach in purity and in this case we must rather adhere to Christs faithfull shepherds upon his command tho cross to mens Law then follow blind unfaithfull guides in obedience thereunto and this upon that same ground of Acts 4. 19. which he mentions But he sayes that answer of the Apostles will no way quadrat with our case why so 1. Because the Apostles had an immediat extraordinary
indeed proves that the Magistrat may civilly punish a Minister for crimes and consequently cut him off from the exercise of his Ministry but that he can simply and immediatly or by proper elicit acts discharge the exercise thereof can no more be proved from this instance then that the man who gives bad physick or hurts the Ministers person and eatenus stops the exercise of his Ministerial office hath an authority to inhibit the exercise of his Ministry As for our Informers restriction anent the Kings inhibiting a minister to preach in his dominions 't is a very poor and transparent sophistical cheat for no man ever said that he can exercise any magistratical power upon those who are without his dominions whether ministers or others And thus should his dominion in Gods providence be streached over all the christian Church he hath authority by this courtdivinity to silence the gospel sound in a clap and extinguish a gospel ministry when he pleaseth and then this man would do well to ponder how this consists with the nature and designe of Christs great commission to his first ambassadours his Apostles in reference to the gospel message and unto all ministers untill the end of the world and his promised presence accordingly as also whether the Apostles and ordinary ministers afterward did warrantably counteract the Magistrats opposition in this exercise of their Ministry and what our lords answer would have been in case such an objection anent Princes discharging the exercise of their Ministry had been offered by the Apostles at the first giving out and sealing of their great patent and commission to preach to all nations and whether our Lord would have told them that their commission did not bind in that case The Informer is afraid to set his foot on such slippery ground as to assert that the King can depose absolutely but yet averres that he can restrain the actual exercise of the Ministerial office and surely if this be granted in that extent he pleads for it will abundantly secure self-seeking polititians from the trouble of a faithful Gospel-Ministry they will be content to part with this nicety of a simple deposing But if in the Judgment even of some of his Rabbies whom I could name the most formal ecclesiasticall censures do amount to no more then this legal restraint of the exercise he doth but pityfully resarciat his lapse and mend the matter by this whimsey As for what he adds of Beza's letter to the non-Conformists in England not to exercise their Ministry against the Queens authority and the Bishops The often mentioned difference betwixt the then State of that Church and our present condition doth quite invalidat his proof since certainly in some cases the counteracting the Princes command as to the exercise of the Ministry requires a very cautious consideration but had our case in its present circumstances and latitude as above delineat been propounded to Beza touching the overturning the Reformation of this Church so fully setled by civil and Ecclesiastick Authority and confirmed by Oaths of all ranks by Prelats and their adherents ejecting all faithfull Ministers who will not be subject to that course Sure Beza who as we heard requested John Knox never to let Prelacy be introduced into Scotland and all faithfull Ministers to contend against it after it was cast out would have judged Minsters obliged in this our case especially after Prelacy is thus vowed against to keep their possessions to preach the gospel and testify against such a wicked course as well as it was the duty of our first Reformers to preach against the will of the then Bishops and persecuters Besides it s the Doctrine and principles of our Church that neither the Magistrate nor Prelats censures can loose a Minister from the exercise of his Ministry which is above cleared So that our Informers great Diana which he is all this time declaiming for viz. The imposing of an absolute silence upon the true Pastors of this Church that Conformists onely may be heard and ownd doth so stoop and bow down that the underpropings of his slender artifice and poor mean pleadings cannot prevent its precipice and ruine CHAP. VI. The nature of Presbyterian Ministers relation to this Church and their call to officiat therin vindicate from the Informers simple cavills Mr Baxters rules for the cure of Church-divisions impertinently alledged by him The Testimonies of the jus divinum Minist Anglic. And of Mr Rutherfoord in his Due right of Presbytery anent unwarrantable separation insufficient to bear the weight of his conclusion THE appearances of our Lords Ambassadours in his message and for promoting his Interest have been much opposed by Satan in very various Methods and versatile disguises in all ages but that Presbyterian Ministers of a pure Apostolick Presbyterian Church should be opposed in the exercise of their holy function and Ministry received from Christ and this exercise impugned from pretended Scripture grounds and Presbyterian principles may seem strange if these latter days had not produced many such prodigies of errors and wickedness The progress of this personat doubt-resolver his impugnations will discover so much which we now proceed to examine This Informer next alleages That Ministers among us make themselves Ministers of the whole Church and the Doubter alledging That a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church he Answers from Mr Rutherfoord Due right of Presb. page 204. That tho a Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church yet not a Catholick Pastor of it that by ordination and his calling he is made Pastor and by election he is restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of his flock And that Mr Durham on Rev. page 106 107. thinks there is odds betwixt being a Minister of the Catholick Church and a Catholick Minister of it as the Apostles were and the Pope pretends viz. to have immediat access for the exercise in all places that â—…ho actu prime they have a commission to â—…e Ministers of the whole Church yet actu secundâ—… they are peculiarly delegated to such and such posts But we have made our selves Ministers of all the congregations of the Countrey I answer this doctrine crosses not our principles nor practice in the least For first when we assert that a Minister is by election restricted to be ordinarly the Pastor of a flock and especially delegat and fixt to such a post particular watchtower it is not so to be understood as if there could be nolawful exercise of his Ministry elsewhere for first this were flat independency c. 2. All save they of this perswasion grant that the Minister receives no new authority as to his Ministerial acts and officiating in other places but a new application only Hence in the 2d place is to be understood of the Church her ordinary settled state under a settled Ministry but when there is a destroying enemy within her bosome wasting her and the fathfull Ministry are put from their
things in their case considered it would be a hard task to produce these Canons stricking against that practice as it stood circumstantiat considering their Schismatick withstanding the Reformation of this Church their Arminian principles and defending popish ceremonies which errors they had openly vented and obstinatly maintaind His next charge of ordaining others to perpetuat our schism is a manifest calumny this true organick Church is by this practice only propagating a lawfull pure Ministry in opposition to their destroying Schismatick course the blessed fruits whereof and its seals upon the hearts of the people of God have been conspicuous and we hope yet further will And no less gross is that calumny which follows anent our great mixt communions and admission of ignorant vitious persons unto them who he sayes by our way cannot be kept back there being none admitted at any seasons of this nature which have been very rare but upon sufficient testimonies from faithfull Ministers or elderships But is he not ashamed to object this to us whereof his party is so notoriously guilty who are knowen to admit yea call promiscuously to fill their empty tables which tender souls dare not approach unto both gross ignorants and notoriously profane to the shame and scandal of Religion and the contempt of that holy ordinance our persuading people not to owne Conformists as the Ministers of this Church we hope doth now appear better grounded then all this Informers persuasives to the contrary And that we have been in any measure succesfull in this speaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our married land For that which he cites out of Baxters preface to the Cure of Church divisions anent the odiousness of Sacrifices presented to God without love and reconciliation to brethren and of making a peoples communion in worship the badge and means of uncharitablness and divisions we thâ—…nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord needfull to acceptable worship but an association with scandalous Schismaticks and backsliders in their wickedness we think is no less dangerous and obstructive to reall fellowship with God in duty especially since God presses our coming out from among such and our being separat from the contagion of their sin with this motive that he will receive us And as there is a holy brotherhood which we must associat with in order to communion with God so there is a congregation of evill doers which we must hate Yea we have Davids precedency as is before observed to hate them with perfect hatred and count them our enemies But who can sufficiently admire these mens talk of unity and love who having first broken and divided this poor Church have been these so many years persecuting to the death yea sweeming in the blood of the faithfull Ministers and professors therof because hey durst not joyn to their way and conform to their supposed trifles and indifferencies Surely prelacy being the grand Idol of Jealousy provoking God against us and the fire which hath kindled all our combustions and hath opened the veins of the Lords servants and people to bleed for many years occasioned such horrid dispersion and unheard of oppression 〈◊〉 the Lords Church and people in our Land with what fâ—…ces can these upholders of this course look up to the God of Love and peace and how can they lift up sucâ—… bloody wrathfull hands to him But now his poor half proselyted Doubter confesses that there is much truth in what he has heard from this sound Informer forsooth And takes leave with a profest resolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him Whereupon he dismisses him with some of his healing advices prefacing with an admonition to seek illumination from God But had this man been serious in seeking this from God he had not vented in these trilling Dialogues such weak notions and reproaches against Gods truth and people But since his Doubter returns him no answer therunto I shall make up his want and shortly offer my thoughts upon them His first advice is not to be too confident of our own opinion as undoubtedly right but consider what he hath said in his three conferences Ans. If it be truth which we hold sure we most hold it by faith in a pure conscience and not be wavering and â—…ossed children We acknowledge not the Cartesian principle and the popish doubting way as found divinity and a confidence of truth is far from a self confidence As for what is offered in his three dialogues I hope it is sufficiently antidoted by what is said above so that it needs not in the least demurr our persuasion 2. He will not have us think the matters of difference to be the substantialls of Relegion since persons of both persuasions may keep love and fellowship without renting the Church and neglecting ordinances because greater differences have been and communion not broken thereby Ans. If these matters contraverted be not substantialls why then have they made such a substantiall bloody contest for them â—…anquam pro aris focis for so many years and if communion must not be broken in a Church upon this account why have they rent and overturned our Church and persecute away so many godly Ministers and professors for these things denying all fellowship with them in their worship for adhering to their principles and disowning this course of conformity had prelatists suffered Presbyterian Ministers and professors to stand as they were in this Church to enjoy their principles and to follow their respective duties according to their stations faithfull Ministers to preach and Gods people to enjoy the fruits of their Ministry he might with some colour have pretended to this desire of union and fellowship but since prelatists have cast them out and do so cruelly persecute them for adhering to their principles and owning these duties this pretence is nothing but deceitfull hypocrisy He adds that the difference is but a matter of government and if we separat for this we would have separat from all Churches since christianity began and if Christ held no comunion with a Church where prelacy was he hath then seldom had a Church and hath been for many years a head without members Ans. This is nothing but a renewed repetition of groundless assertions for how proves he that our plea is a matter of government only surely their course strikes at the whole of our Reformation as hath been cleared Again how proves he that we would have separat upon this ground from the Church for so long a time tho it were granted that our plea were only a matter of government since he hath not yet produced instances of such a prelacy as we have in any Church Besides since the Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apostolical precepts and practices and yet doth here vilify it unto a meer punctilio and makes it such a sorry business as persons may come and go upon it at their pleasure we may easily discover what nimble Sophisters and
backsliding in this case and especially the joyning to a backsliding party who are not the true Church is much different from adherence to a Church tho backslidden It s a far different case not to leave the communion of a Church because of some corruptions and not to joyn with an unsound party of a Church drawing back from her Reformation So that upon a due consideration of the matter of fact and Presbyterian principles its evident that these Testimonies do levell against Conformists 2. It s a far different case to owne the Ministry of a corrupt Church wherin prelacy is universally owned and wherein there hath been no other way of entry into the Ministry for many generations but by Prelacy and to owne a party of Schismatick Intruders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presbyterian Church and shutting out her faithfull Mininistry surely these Intruders are in this case the Brownists 3. It s a far different case to submit to a Ministry meerly Episcopal and to keep the Worship in a Church long under this Government and to submit to an Episcopal Erastian Ministry and a Church Government fundamentally corrupt deriving all its power from an Antichristian supremacy and meer civil papacy after it hath been eminently and universally disowned by that Church and vowed against Especially when a backsliding party only do thus usurp over the sound Ministry and have ejected them and this Erastian abomination is set up to raze this true spiritual Government of the Church once universally setled and owned 4. It s a far different case to submit to an Episcopal Ministry so far as pure while Episcopacy is universally ownd and no obligation is upon any to disowne it further then its own corruption in that case will amount to and infer and to owne and submit to an episcopal Erastian Government introduced by an Innovating party into a Presbyterian Church against her standing acts solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on by that Church against the same while a faithfull Ministry and the great part of the people are in Conscience of their vows contending against it Surely this superinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal against that defection and renders it the more hainous The high places permitted to David and Solomon before the Temple was built are censured in after times greater light and obligations do in this case cast the ballance These considerations do clearly repell any argument which he would draw from his citations to our case But now to view them The English Presbyterians in that piece do first assert page 10. that all in the same bounds most be under the care of the same Minister and that these limits ought not to be brangled Ans. This shall be easily accorded give us our beautifull Church-order and a lawfully called Ministry and this parochial order shall be observed and obeyed 2. page 11. A man under a wicked or Heretical Minister must remove his habitation rather then brangle parochial order Ans Then it follows in their principles that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schismaticks whose wickedness and errors are palpable men may attend a more pure Ministry without Schism by clear consequence sure he is a loser by this 3. page 12. to appoint Elders in every Church and every city is all one and converts in the city must joyn with the congregation in Churchfellowship Ans. But what if a party in the city call themselves the Church shut out the true Minister and bring in one of their own must not the true converts own their first Minister and oppose these Innovators Surely this Testimony rebounds another blow upon our mis Informer 4. page 25. evil men defacto have been officers Hophni and Phineas Scribes and Pharisees whose Ministerial acts were not null and Christs commission authorized Judas Ans. This will as much plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers as Conformists And if he alleadge that they are disorderly Schismatical c. and therefore must not be ownd in this case I answer â—…he must prove this which he hath not yet done 2. He must acknowledge that the granting that the Ministerial acts of Church-officers are not null by their sins will not plead for hearing Ministers in every case untill aliunde and from other grounds our obligation to owne such men as our Ministers hic nunc be made good which he hath not yet done as to Curats Neither Hophni or Phineas nor the Scribes and Pharisees were rooting out the faithfull Ministry of the Church of the Jews who would not concurr in a course of defection after they had laid down a course to overturn the ordinances which is the case of Conformists in relation to us as is evident Again state the question so that Hophni and Phineas and the Pharisees Ministry could not be owned without partaking in their sin then this man must needs grant that Gods people were obliged to disowne them and had disowned them Now we have proven this to be our case as to the owning of Conformists 5. page 42 43. Israel is called the people of the Lord even after the Calves were set up at Dan and Bethel and Cajaphas was own'd as high priest though they came to the office by bribry and faction and the highpriest had an hand in crucifying Christ. Ans. The same reply and retortion recurs as formerly what will he say if we plead this for presbyterian Ministers whom he will not call worse then these mentioned nor will he say that our Presbyterian Church is worse then that Church So that he must grant this will not reach his conclusion till more be supposed and proved in this point Again tho God in his soveraign dispensation had not as yet cast off the ten tribes having a faithfull remnant among them yet I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Calves or the Priests Ministry whom Jeroboam had obtruded and set up contrary to Gods institution and for keeping up that wofull breach in Gods worship and in Israel which was therby promoted and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatick Ministry Beside that the high priests were men in a considerable measure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law and might in that respect be owned But however it is as we have said bad arguing from the comporting with corruptions in that old dispensation and Ministry especially when drawing near an end to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them and from a non-separating in the first case to conclude against a non-union or non complyance in the second And thus neither will Pauls carriage toward the high prist Acts 23. plead for adhering to Curats upon the same grounds For he will not say that Paul understood not his office in a spiritual sense to be now expired and that he was not to be owned as a teacher who was every way destitute of the truth of the
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
Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies Next Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove that personal faults corrupt not the worship which wee deny not but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion as to the owning of Curats untill he first prove his forementioned suppositions wherein he begs the question and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers untill this Informer prove his suppositions and disprove ours in this debate In a word the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and inferring a conclusion of owning them but it will either first be retorted upon himself or secondly the universality of the argument and the conclusion deduced there from so limited as utterly to irritat his design since he must acknowledge that there may be a Lawfull separation from a Ministry and ordinances altho not polluted by personal scandals And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawfull far less a non union and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case or meerly from this ground that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshipers or administrators thereof is a gross petitio principii ignoratio elenchi and which his case supposeth many things which are to be proved as 1. That Conformists are this Church 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat is properly a sinfull separation 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Ministers And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismaticks who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism or else he must so limit this position as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said Fourthly he presents unto us that passage page 254. where he shews That the godly in England tho separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church and approves their doing so and in keeping communion therwith in unquestionable duties the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth telling us ibidem that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retain the true faith it s to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved that Christ himself is where his ordinances are and some union with him the head that though a privat scandalous brother ought to be cast off yet not an Orthodox Chuch Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples adherence to them untill this Informer prove that the prelatick party are our nationall organick Church which will be ad Kalendas Graecas 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation from a Church so and so polluted Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatick destroying Innovating party or a separation from them rather then a sound Church contending against them which would quite invert his scope and arguing and the ground and hypothesis thereof For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the peoples adherence to them sure he would charge them with begging the question as we do Consormists in this point and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them Fiftly Mr Rutherfoord sayes ib idem We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is ador'd and from baptism where the sign of the cross is yet we are not to separat from the Church Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship tho not absolutly corrupt 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church Ministry to be joyned with and to which we were joynd 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto and disowning of a backsliding party who are not our Church is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions especially when as is said the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent Mr Rutherfoord tells us there that we separat not from the Church when we profess to hear the word and allow the truth of Doctrine and do not Presbyterian professors owne the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Pastors Beside Mr Rutherfoord tells us that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation as Paul separat not from the Jews till they blasphemed yet saith he there was no cause why people should joyn to that Church before that time since they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apostles Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided and rent by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority union and purity introducing Innovations into her contrary to her Reformation and vows and casting out her faithfull Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Ministry contending against them is no sinfull separation from the Church nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere page 253. But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repell what is said viz. that he asserts there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church if true and to go to a purer though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which he conceives purest Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest for 1. He is still speaking of a Church thus intirely less pure in comparison of a more pure But blessed be God their prelatick impurity has not infected all our Church their being 1000 of Ministers professors who adhere to the truth This man will not say that this will plead for a peoples adherence to a party of Schismatick backsliders Intruding upon a pure Church Introducing Innovations into her and ejecting her faithfull Ministry as Conformists are now doing which will be yet more convincingly clear if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord layes much weight upon this that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto a party of Innovators and
of Presbyterians may be admited to judge Ans. How he hath fastned this charge of Schismatick principles and practices upon Presbyterian Ministers and Professors I leave it to the Impartiall to Judge from what is here replyed And how far any thing which he hath affered either from Scripture or the principles of Presbyterians is from reaching the conclusion which he aims at in these trifling Dialogues which all who are conscientious are we hope shy this rejoynder and a respect to truth and dutie sufficiently antidoted against and the learned as well as conscientious may wonder at such prodigiously bold ignorance 4. He wonders that so many of good note and not of the comons only are drinking in the principles of Brounists which have been zealously disputed against by old nonconformists Ans. How hâ—… hath made good this charge I refer it to the persusall of what is here replyed and how far the pleadings of these Non-conformists whom he mentions are from helping his cause I must here add that its astoninishing to find this man pretending a principle of conscience for this undertaking when his conscience could not but tell him that both upon the poynt of Episcopacie the Covenants and separation also he might have found all and more then he hath said fully answered and that he pitifully snakes away from our arguments dar not propose them in there genuin strength Nay he doth not so much as offer fairly to state the question in any of these three great points which he pretends to inform us about but confusedly shuffles them up for his own advantadge And upon the point of the Covenant obligation he poorly followes the arguments of the Seasonable case and some hints from the Surveyer without so much as offring any return unto what the Apologist hath long since repelyd unto them If this was conscientious dealing let any Judge and yet he is not ashamed to tell the world that because Episcopacie and the covenants are by people made the great grounds of separating therefore he premised his two dialogues concerning Episcopacie and the Covenants to shew what a sandy ground they are for separation if prelacie be found at least Lawfull and the Covenants in evry case not obligatorie whereas he hath offered nothing either to prove prelacie lawful or the Covenant not obligatorie but what is by severall of the godly learned abundantly answered and fully bafled sevrall of which viz. the Apollogist and jus divinum Ministery Anglican he seems to have had before him in writeing these Dialogues and yet nather doth he touch the answers of the Apologist to his arguments anent the Covenant nor dar he scan the pungent arguments of the London Ministers against prelacie and likwise there answers to sevrall things which he has offered for it and particularly there learned Appendix in the poynt of Antiquitie which cuts the sinnews of all his tedious legend of testimonies he durst not medle with Beside It wold seem he hath seen Smectymnus upon this subject whose learned confutation of the Episcopall plea as well from scripture as antiquity he passes over sicco pede And as for Erastian prelacie he offers not a jot indefence of it though his conscience could tell him that this is one main poynt of our plea against him So that suppose Episcopacie were in its self found Lawfull as he sayes yet if Erastian Episcopacie be found unlawfull his cause and pleading is lame and lost After this he would amuse his reader with a testimonie of Zanchie and another of Blondell which parts the hoofs of his page first as for Zanchie he cites a passage of his Obser in suam ipsius confessionem cap. 25. aphor 10. 11. wherein he saves first his faith is simply built upon the word of God Next In some measure upon the commun consent of the antient Catholick Church and that he beleeves what has been defyned by holy fathers gathered together in the name of the Lord citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem that these things are from the Spirit of though not of the same authoritie with Scripture then he adds that nothing is more certain from counsells Histories and writeings of the Fathers then these orders of Ministers of which he has been speaking to have been received into the Church with her intire consent and what is he to condemn what the whole Church has aproved I answer beside that he should have set doun these gradus Ministrorum which Zanchius speaks of that his reader might have known what these degrees were or whither they were prelatick degrees or not which no doubt he would have done had he not found that this would have marred his intent for which cause he doth not so much as offer to English any part of this or of the ensuing testimony we say first that any who knowes Zanchies learning and what the voice of the first and pure antiquity is and how far from giving a testimony to the present Diocesian much less the Erastian prelat of whom none can without extrem impudence assert that Zanchie is speaking will esteem this perswasion that the prelacy now existant with us hath the universall consent of all histories councills and fathers to be as far from the thoughts of Zanchie as its necessary to prove his poynt 2. Zanchise ayes his faith simply and mainly leans upon the word of God and so whatever the word is found to condemn as we have proved it doth the present prelacie in many respects Zanchie will make no bones to condemn it likwise own it who will The next passage he cites is of Blondell Apoll. pag. 193. who asserts that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs absolutly to the government of the Church and it s anext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the maner order of its government which the Church alwayes thought permitted to her arbitrement Nather must we think every thing unlawful which humane custom of professors hath brought into the use of divine things That in such things christian prudence must act its part that no Church must be drawen into ane example that from the generall precept 〈◊〉 Cor. 14 40 the Church hath full power to follow what is more decent and commodious Ans. 1. We have before cleard that with Blondell their diocesian Prelat stands absolutly condemned in scripture and in his principles is diametrally opposit to the divine Scripture Bishop which evidently concludes his condemning the present Episcopacie with sole power of ordination and Jurisdiction much more the Erastian prelat altering fundamentally the government it self which he dar not say that Blondell ever dreamed of So that though we should grant because of this testimonie that Blondell will befound to admitt a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constant Moderator which Its well knowen is the outmost length he goes and that the Churches example and practice here anent may be variable it falls utterly short of reaching the lest patrociny to his cause 2. he cites 1 Cor 14. 40.
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.
Presbytry p. 131. l. 13. supple in the proper Scriptural senc l. 32. r. grad p. 137. l. 1. dele had ane office next to that of apostles and doctours p. 139. l. 20. r. his p. 140. l. 21. r. for p. 148. l. 12. r. supple Taking it in ane authoritative Juridical senc p. 150. l. penult r. pray p. 157. l. 14. dele apostolik and. p. 162. l. 27. r. circle stil. p. 163. l. 9. r. with l. ult r. ceremonial ibid. r. part p. 164. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. dele ane p. 167. l. 5. r exemplify p. 170. l. 14. r. Prov. 9. p. 171. l. 14. r labourers l. ult add wee p. 174. l. 34. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 177. l. 10. r. ubi p. 177. l 31. for even r. except p. 178. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 183. l. 30. Ar. it self p. 186. l. 16. r. and pride l. penult add in p. 188. l. ult r. true p. 191. l. 30. r. profligat p. 195. l. 16. r. interval the l. 21. r. nothing p. 196. l. 3. r. bold p. 198. p. 199. l. 5. r. what p. 200. l. 2. dele message or l. 13. add in p. 201. l. 33 p. suppositia l. 33 r. suppositious l. ult what p. 203 l. 17. r. till 204. l. 6. r. consuetudo p. 206. l. 24. r. for 1. p. 211. l. 21. through the. p. 215. l. 25. r. distributively 217. l. 9 dele by l. 19. add is p. 219. l. 6. r. or p. 221. l. 24 add the. l. 25. r. opposed p. 222. l. 25. r. of p. 226 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 227 l. 12 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 229. l. 24. r. deligatur plebe p. 231 l. 30. r. ligandi l. ult in p. 236. 11. r. â—…rum p. 238 l. 26. r. fit segregatus l. 27. r. set aside or cesured p. 241 l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 142 l. 10. r. lowly p 143. l. 10. r. unalterablenes l. 19 r. harmonious p. 245 l. 7. r. commune p. 246. l. 28. r. name p. 247. l. 28. r. office ibid. r. none l. 30 r. us p. 252. l. 3. r. 5. l. 33. supple and besides l. 34 r. this ibid. supple which is p. 261. l. 28. r. forgat 29. r. for p. 261. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 265. l. 10. dele as to soom acts p. 272. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 281. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Part. pag 2. l. 15. supple both p. 7. l. 24. supple anno 40. and 41. p. 24. l. 17. r. 1671. p. 62. l. 4. r. this p. 73. l. 2. r. then l. 20. r. cannot p. 99. l. 18. r. commissaries p. 117. l. 4. dele me p. 124. l. 4. r. consonant p. 132. l. 19. r. Diaeceseos l. 21. supple the. Part. 3. Pag. 2. l. 13. r. our l. 14. r. or p. 4. l. 29. r. declared p. 12. l. 13. supple and are p. 14. l. 28. r. doe p. 26 l. 15 supple ane p. 28 l. 28. r. and. p. 29 l. 16 r. of p. 35 l. 31 supple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 36 l. 1 r. motion p. 37 l. 28 r fourth p. 39 l. 32 r. constitution p. 40 l. 32 supple comparing this with what he pleads from the instance of Solomons deposing Abiathar p. 48 l. 9. r. by p. 53 l. 2. r. obligations p. 59 l 8 r. intrusion p. 61 l. 32 add therof p. 64 l. 27 r chousing p. 67 l. 15 r. petitio p. 69 l. 25 r. they p. 73 l. 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 78 l ult r. Sabinus p. 81 l. 15 r. the p. 83 l. penult r. relation p. 84 l. 15 r. no Bishop p. 90 l. 21. r. Priest l. 27 dele hearing of p. 28 dele and attending their Ministry as such 15. p. 94 l. 11 adde graceless men p. 95 l. 4 dele of p. 103 l. 18 r. ofl 23 r scruple p. 113 l. 1 r. supremacy p. 127 l. 28 r. inquies p. 130 l. ult r. calceorum p. 134 l. 12 r. another p. 138 l. 26 r. authority l. penult r. our p. 160 l. 1 add this p. 162 l. 27 r. Presbyterian p. 165 l. 17 r. they p. 167 l. 27 r. for or r. againe p. 168 l. r adde especially p. 170 l. 10 r. which notwithstanding is 179 l. 29 r. Magistrats p. 181 l. 12. r. a purer Church p. 183 l. 16 r. and which doth p. 186 l. 2 r. thousandes l. 16 r. this p. 190 l. 11. r. more then l. 28 r. offered p 162 l. 8 r. Smectymnuus p. p 162 l. 25 r. the Holy Spirit dele of ibid. p. pe command p. 76. l. 19. After Ambition r. The text being most expresse in it that the inequality which they were striveing about included a dominion and primacie p. 77. l. 13. after touched adde since our Lord was now exerciseing an absolute supremacie over his Church how then I pray will this argument taken from his example Suite his Scope purpose of dischargeing a Supremacie p. 79. l. 20. 21. r. thus did not Christ discharge ane inequality in dischargeing a primacie an inequality of the highest pitch p. 79 l. ult r. Seeming to make p. 80. l. ult After power adde to use his way of speaking p 81. l 20 r. and neither despotick nor princely p. 83. l. 28 29. r. That Church-officers are of superiour or inferiour orders or kinds p. 84. l 26. r. A preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 31 32. r. Such Presbyters have the Scriptural Episcopal authority p 85. l. 17 r. Superiour and inferiour kindes or orders p. 87. l. 6 r. After Church rulers adde we all know how Prelatists and the popish Church apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Clerus l. 9. after denomination adde considered in its true extent import p. 89. l. 5. r. To the highest ordinary office bearers intrusted with the Power of the keys l. 14 r. Whatever Power of order or jurisdiction the Scripture Bishop can lay claime unto p. 90 l. 1. r. The Scripture Episcopal Power l. 9 r. All this Episcopal Authority l. 25 r. Elders or Bishops in a perfect parity and in common So l. ult after flocks p. 91. l. 3. after Presbyters adde when applyed as is said to the highest ordinary officers entrusted with the Power of the keyes l 12 r. preaching Presbyters or Pastors So l. 18 l. 32. after elder adde he must understand the preaching elder or Pastor if he speak to the point l. ult and pag. 92. l. 1. r. When God is pointing out thereby the highest ordinary officer intrusted with the word and doctrine l. 5. r. preaching Presbyter l. 15 r. preaching elders l. 17. r. this highest ordinary standing officer often mentioned p. 92. l. 17. r. When the Word Bishop is applyed to the highest ordinary Church officer entrusted with the Power of the keyes l. 24. r. preaching elder or
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