him Besids will any say that the Deacons joyned with these Bishops in the period of this verse were not at Philippi or belonging to that Church but with Paul But they are mean men and their credit needed not to be saved by such a conceit as this All the fear of that Father was â—…east these Bishops at Philippi be found meer Presbyters of that Church And how to ward off this blow hoc opus hic labor ese Well what further answers he He tells us nixt That others think they were Bishops of theChurches about conveened at Philippie which Paul knowing of salutes them with the Church Since he first salutes the Saints as intending mainely to write to them and then the Bishops So wee see the Prelatists saile every point of the compasse to save the credit of these Bishops If Bishops cannot be gotten sett beside the chaire with Paul when addressing the Epistle this gloss standing clearely antipod to the Text the nixt shift is rather then these Bishops be degraded to meer Presbyters to send for some other Bishops to Philippi at this tyme of Paules Writing that this casual Mustere of Bishops of other Churches may warde off the deadly blow which the cause will gett by seating all these Bishops at Philippie as officers of that Chuch and to compass this designe they must be but occasionally saluted here and not as fixed members or officers thereof upon the Apostles Information comeing to late to his ears from our Informer and his fellows that there were several Magnates there besides the ordinary Presbyters at Philippi But which also odd they must become so humble as to fall behind the Saints the persons mainely written to Had our Informer left out this clause which notwithstanding his answer did require Our Prelats Parliaments order Who are before because behind the most would have saved their reputation still But many of the Ancients are more ingenuous Thodoret confesses that Presbyters are here understood because their could not be many Bishops in one-city on Philip. 1. Oecumenius on Philip. 1. Tells us That we are not so to understand it as if there were many Bishops in one citty but that the Apostle calls the Presbyters Bishops Chrisost. ibid. acknowledges That they were Presbyters who were called thus because the names were then common and the Bishop himself was called Deacon and that the distinction of names came afterward This conjecture is sib to that other shift to take off the strength of our argument from Act. 20. viz. That these Elders were not Church Officers of Ephesus onely but the Bishops of all Asia mett together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul from thence least if the Episcopal authority be found seated in these Elders of Ephesus at Pauls last farewel it breake the Diocesian Prelat all in peeces But as it is well replyed that since Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church it is a groundless conjecture to call them any other Elders then of that Church to which he sent and that there is no hint in the text of any other Elders there at that time So this fancie is as fond when applyed to this passage and may receave the same reply What shaddow of proof can be produced that therewere any other Officers there at this time then the Bishops or Ministers of this Church And what Logick I pray or sense is there in this inference that because the Apostle first salutes all the Saints or the Church collective in bulke and then the Church Officers Bishops and Deacons or the Church representative in special that therefore he salutes these Church Officers as casually there and not as Officers of that Church Beside had the Apostle saluted them as casually present they would have been saluted with every Saint in Christ Chap. 4 21. rather then in the inscription The English Annotations thus sense it That by the Bishops and Deacons we are to understand the whole Ministery at Philippi consisting of Presbyters to whom the government of the Church was committed and Deacons who not only had the care of the poor but also assisted the Ministers in their Ecclesiastick function But our Informer hath a third Answer wherein He grants that these Bishops and Deacons were Officers of this Church and askes where were the ruling Elders here and if we say they are included in the word Bishop then he tells us that upon better ground he can affirme that Bishops here signifies both the superiour Bishop and the ordinary Minister who may be called Bishop as well as Epaphroditus is called ane Apostle Answ. 1. Our Argument from this place and such like beside the Scriptures silence as to the Diocesian Bishop is That the Scripture Bishop doth therein stand so described and qualified that it is impossibe to understand him of any other officer then a meer Presbyter which is most manifast here It being impossible that a multiplicity of Bishopes could be at Philippi as is universally acknowledged And if he grant that these Bishops were officers of that Church in Philippi he must either say they were meer Preebyters which is all wee seek and the yeelding of his cause or he must prove that either here or els where the word Episcopus or Bishop designes the diocesian Bishop and place a multiplicity of such Bishops here against the old Cannons particularly that of Nice But 2. As to what he sayes of the ruleing elders it is utterly impertinent and answered already We proved the ruling elders office as distinct from the preaching elder by clear Scripture grounds and did shew that the Scripture points out two sorts of elders giving them both this generall name of elder then distinguishing them into such as rule and such as labour in the word and doctrine But this Informer will never prove that Episcopus or Bishop designes two sorts of Pastors a higher and a lower or that there is any difference of degrees in the pastoral office So that he cannot include here his Superior imaginarie Bishop of whose office the Scripture is utterly silent As we may the elder in the Bishop And till he make the Diocessian Prelat appear in Scripture we must still hold that when Ministers are called Bishops they get the proper specifick designation and characteristick of their office are not called â—…o in a general figurative sense or Catachrestice as Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle or messenger But how viz. their messenger sent to Paul who ministered to his wants Phil. 2 25. So 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. Titus and others are called the Apostles and messengers of the Corinthianes viz as it is there inumar in that bussines of the collection for the Saincts at Jerusalem for which end they were sent to the Corinthians So the Spirit of God in Scripture both in holding out the distince office of Apostle properly so called for I hope our Informer will not upon this ground make different degrees of Apostles as he doth of Pastors
abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto are examined CHAP. I. Atwofold state of the Question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacie in either or both these Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it That Prelacie is abjured in the National and Solemne League and Covenant proved at large And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon the present and succeeding generations THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold 1. Whither the Prelacie now established by Law in this Church be abjured in the national and solemne league and Covenant 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it yea or not Wee shall a litle touch For the 1. Our National Covenant sworne by King Iames in the the year 1580 and by the Estates of this land and many times thereafter solemnlie and universally renewed both by our Church and State doth clearly exclude Prelacie The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacie and wherein our obligation lyes are these 1. In General wee professe to believe the word of God to be the onlie rule the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth as then received in this Land maintained by sundrie reformed Kirks States chiefly by our own Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine and especially all kind of Papistrie in generall particular heads as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie disowned upon this ground and vowed against as contrary unto the word of God and the gospel of Salvation contained therein Wee renounce the Popes worldly monarchie and wicked Hierarchie and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against the word of God 3. Wee vow to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine faith religion Discipline Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine and Discipline of this Kirke and upon our Eternall perill to maintaine and defend the same according to our vocation and power all the dayes of our life Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacie is evident these wayes 1. All doctrines contrary unto or beside the word of God are here rejected and disowned All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel recived and believed by the Church of Scotland and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against Gods Word But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God both in its Diocesiâ—… and Erastian mould as hath been proved at large And we heard that this Church of Scotland since it received Christianity did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine never knew a Prelat Ergo Prelacie in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie whereby the Prelatick Government is most clearly pointed at which is evident thus 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall this man will not deny it is by Arch-Bishops Bishops Primats Deans c and it being distinct from his Monarchie for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough and moreover it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it that assemblies and the body of this Protestant Church entertained assemblies declaring that the Word Bishop was not to be taken as in time of Papistrie And Iohn Knox whose sense and Judgement herein was certanlie retained and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers accounting Prelacie to have quid commune cum Antichristo Ergo Prelacie is here vowed against simpliciter and in it self considered 2. If he grant a hierarchie to be here abjured sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke ergo So must a prelacie or hierarchie be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio as thus brought in whither by the Pope or any other 3. This hierarchie is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrarie to her pure Doctrine Now as we shall shew the Discipline which this Church then owned was Presbyterian So that that Discipline or Hierarchie which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government is here abjured but so it is that prelacie ex se sua natura stands thus opposit unto it ergo by the hierarchie all prelacy is abjured 3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we professe to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline as well as her Doctrine and vow and sweare adherence unto both Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church was Presbyterian Government or discipline Is evident these wayes 1. Discipline by generall assemblies and Synods having compleat parity of all Ministers with a joynt decisive suffrage is Presbyterian Discipline but this was that Discipline owned by our Church For her first Nationall Assembly compleatly Presbyterial in its mould was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 1580 When this Covenant was sworne there were many assemblies exercising their power 2 That is presbyterian Discipline which did judicially condemne prelacie as having no warrand in the Word and ownes no Church officers as lawfull but pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons But so it is that this was the judiciall decision of our generall assemblies long before this Covenant for the first book of discipline containing the Basis of presbyterian Government was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie layes down a mould of Presbyterian government And therafter in the assembly at Dundie Anno. 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Prelat was particularly condemned by a solemne act and abolished as unlawfull and void of Scripture warrand ordaining under paine of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside as ane office to which they are not called of God and cease from preaching and administring Sacraments under hazard of the same Censure or using the office of a Pastour till they receive admission de novo from the generall assemblie Now in the nationall covenant this existent discipline being sworne to be maintained who can say but that Prelacie is most formallie abjured therein Especially if it be considered that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn at which timethese
such was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves as from their confessions we have made appear For confirming this further because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point In that piece intituled The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40. He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in delivering in writting and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland together with the Doctrine And pag. 41. he cites the corpus confess pag. 6. Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine and 54 years unity without Schisme that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the word of God was by litle and litle received and according to that Discipline the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King Rulers of the church These English Non-conformists Beza the Author of the syntagma in Croftons sense and himself together with them thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government which Mr Knox introduced to have been the government of this Church since the reformation and which King Iames also owned For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Arch-Bishops their approving the order of the Church of Scotland he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world Again pag 39. he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline as the great badge and Test of her government and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland viz. that they were not concerned in and had litle knowledge of that government he tells them that he wonders how an university conversing in all books could profess they had no knowledge of these books So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England the government engadged unto in that article is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government Again pag. 141. he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant and that in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain France and Ireland for himself and Successors and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation he asks the learned in law whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. c. So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant and to reach all his Majesties dominions For he tells us in the preceeding page that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus hath rendred it nationall Again Timorcus pag. 70. asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant anno 1648. sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer and doth evidently demonstrat compared with these passages of Mr Crofton that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England both imposers and takers parliament and people understood that article of Presbyterian government The Doubter here poorly grants that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry we are bound to it in that sense Upon this he assumes That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning Ans. we have already made it good both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expresâ—…ie the nations universall taking it so and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament as well as by the recommendation of the assembly from the total extirpation of prelacy and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts in consequence hereof that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and government cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent Especially the league being framed and entered into by us for our further security in relation to what we had attained And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time and this being also their scope and designe discovered in their treaties with England when that Covenant was entered into I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it whither ever any demurre here anent or any other sense of this article was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath or whither the imposers thereof in Scotland would have engaged in that league with the English upon any other termes then these and in this their sense of that 1. article Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league Nay when as Timorcus tells us it was debated branch by branch phrase by phrase in the convention house in the parliament in the assembly of divines was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland Presbyterian government was not to be understood in a word dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England did in the sense of this oath and even in imitation of the Scottish or rather the Scripture patterne plead for and had begun to set up Presbyterian government and are closs to their principles to this day But
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
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
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
after the doctrine was reformed Why lived they so long without a beloved hierarchy and which is yet more strange why Imployed they their pens and their paines so much for Presbyterian government and not rather for the hierarchy why were both Calvin and Beza so active in that which Iohn Knox did here in opposition to prelacy But stay hath not the Informer told us that Masone and Bishop Andrews doe assert That Calvin and Beza assumed ane Episcopall power at Geneva How comes Durel and Hooker then To suppose a compleat parity among the Ministers to havt begun and continued at Geneva for want of a Bishop foresooth He must grant that some of these accusers are ingrained liars and accusers of the brethren in this point So he must deliberat whither he will bestow this upon Mason and Bishop Andrews or Hooker and Durepl For what he adds of these that have written for Presbyterian government that they designed only to prove it lawfull it is a gross Calumny their designe is to prove it a divine frame of government appointed in the new Testament which I hope he will say is necessary as well as lawfull since Christ promises to the end his presence with those officers cloathed with his commission And him self holds that the end of that Government practised in the new Testament and its grounds are Moral and perpetual For Blondel his calling Episcopal preeminence an apostolical constitution which the Informer cites page 84. no such wordes being in the printed copy as he acknowledges who will be so foolishly credulous as to take it upon the Informer or Durells bare word that it was in the written on Unless we will admitt the Informer as the Papists doe by the Scriptures in their unwritten traditions to add his unprinted patchments to any author and thus to dispute pro libitu and make his weapons from testimonies of authors as once a certain Chiftain's sword is said to have done to wound and kill a great way before the point He distinguishes the Government he pleads for as divinitus institutus or of divine appointment from any other frame as humane only which will say that this divine institution must stand and all other frames of Government give place to it The same may be accomodat to that which he cites out of Beza pag 85. who looked upon the very Episcopus humanus as he calls him or the first proestos as the first rise of all the popish Hierarchie and mischeiffs That sentence of Beza de min. grad Cap. 21. pag. 343. stands Intirely thus imo Câ—…nctos sic id est Archiepiscopos Episcopos hodie appellâ—…tos modo sanctissimorum illorum Episcoporum meaning Timothy and Titus c whom Saravta termed Bishops Beza allowing the designation in a sound scripture sence exemplum imitentur tam misere deformatam domum Dei ad amussim ex verbi divini regula pro viribus inâ—…aurent ut Ecclesiae Christianae fidos pastores cur non agnoscamus observemus omni reverentia prosequamur Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime nonnulli nobis objiciuut euiquam uspiam Ecclesiae c. certainely there walking up to such rules and patterns as are here prescribed as the proviso's upon which Beza Proefesses to reverence and owne them would so sned off the Episcopal heteroclyt excrescencies of our diocesian Erastian Prelats and smooth them to the Scripture Episcopacy as quite to destroy their power and office pleaded for by this pamphleter As his acting so his writing for Presbyterian Government accordingly was not to prescribe his owne which Beza disclaimes but Gods example How will the Informer prove that Beza's denying his prescribing of their example of Church Government at Geneua meerly as such will infer his not commending a divine frame of Church Government This was not to prescribe his example simpliciter And how will he prove that Beza looked upon a Government which he held to be the egg from which Anti Christ sprung as Dei beneficentia or Gods beneficence He makes him a very gross ignoramus for what man of the meanest capacity would say so And if Beza held the first Episcopacie or proestos to be a recess from the divine institution he certainly condemned it in so far And the diocesian Prelat he holds to be Satanicall Therefore when he seems to condemne the desowning of all order of Bishops he must understand it of a condemning scripture order the beautiful subordination among Church officers or that divine order that is among them But here again I must needs take notice that in this passage of Beza in his dispute with Saravia the Informer hath sned off that which wounds his cause to death for the words following doe discover another ground of this distinction of Bishops from Presbyters viz Beza and Jeroms humane Custome then what the Informer would persuade For it followes immediatly neque hoc scelere tenentur qui de episcopalis muneris sive prostasias finibus regendis de discrimineinter ordinem gradum postulant ut ex verbo Dei decidatur Whence it is evident that he does not understand Bishops set over Presbyters to be Iure divino or speaks of them in this place As for the passages of Beza's letters to Bishop Whitegift and Grindal which the Informer after cites pag. â—…6 I say 1. That certainly Beza's principles so largely expressed from Scripture anent Church Government and the contrariety of the episcopus humanus or humane Bishop far more the Diocesian Satanical Bishop to the divine rule in his principles will necessarly infer that in this great mans Judgement none of these Prelats had qua tales or as such a lawfull spirituall authority from God 2. It is as certaine that all Beza's pleading and arguments strikes against the diocesian Prelat or Arch prelat as in that capacity and against this office and policy in it self abstracting from its union unto the pope so that he could own no authority that way committed to them of God 3. It followes that since he judged the episcopall hierarchy unlawfull he held the first parity unalterable since he pleades for it upon morall perpetuall Scripture grounds and institutions And by these his solid Scripture grounds when ex professo handling this point and theologically we are more to determine of his Judgement then by Missives Wherein the circumstances of time and severall exigences might engadge to some insinuations in point of a civill deference and respect But however that be we are to look unto intentio and natura operis in his writings or the native designe thereof rather then critically to scanne or straine every practical conformity or disconformity therunto And the Informers answer to what we offer anent the assertions of Bishop Mortoune Bilson Iewel who write for the parity of Bishop and Presbyters by divine right viz That they held the Episcopall office themselves charging them thus with a practical breach of their principles most make him retract this
that Prelacy is condemned in the word and consequently the matter of these Oaths and likewise found contrary to the priviledges and reformation of this Church to maintain which the se Prelats themselves who exacted such Oaths stood engadged and such like grounds they prove them to be Materially sinfull iniquitatis vincula and from the beginning null or never obliging and do not pretend as he to loose from Oaths antecedently lawfull and binding Besides Prelats being removed this Oath supposing their existing power and office was ipso facto null and void as the souldiers military Oath to the captain upon the disbanding of the armie and so its root was plucked up Sublata causa tollitur effectus Sublato relato tollitur Correlatum So that he gets but a Wound to his cause in kicking thus against the pricks But he tells us that he will come yet nearer with an other argument and so he had need for the preceeding have never yet come near our cause nor his designe Well what is this Commissaries he saith were abjured in the Covenant as officers depending upon the abjured bierarchy yet we ownd them before Bishops were restored and why may not he the abjured Bishops also But will he suffer a Reverend father Bishop Lighton to answer for us and shew him the disparity of our Commissariot a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by superiour civil Governours as a part of the politicall constitution of the Kingdom with a Church office In his first letter anent the Accommodation printed in that piece entituled The case of the accommodation examined he will tell him that though we have the name of Commissaries yet they excercise not any part of Church discipline Which he sets down expresly to distinguish them from the Commissaries abjur'd in the 2d Article of the Covenant Now the difference of this owning our Commissaries in Scotland from owning and swearing fealty to the Bishop as a Church officer in all his Spirituall usurpations is so palpable that any may see the impertinency of this instance even in Bishop Lightons Judgement Moreover we abjure in the Covenant all Ecclesiastical officers depending upon that hierarchy But will he dare to say that the Commissary whose administration is properly Civil and when the Covenant was taken had not the least dependance upon a Prelat was an Eclesiastical officer depending upon that hierarchy Surely the meanest capacity may discover the vanity of this argument The Doubter objects this that the Commissaries did not then depend upon the Bishops and therfore might be ownd as not contrary to the Covenant To this he answers that upon this ground of a non-dependance upon Bishops we might have ownd a Dean at that time or a Bishop as having no dependance upon an Arch-bishop and that he cannot see why any member of the hierarchy under the highest might not have been owned and retaind on this ground as well as the Commissary Ans. The disparity is manifest to any of Common sense the Dean sua natura is an Ecclesiastick officer and the very office denotes a relation unto and Ecclesiastick dependance upon a prelat in spirituall administrations so that Prelacie being laid aside and the hierarchy smoothed to Presbyterian Parity and Government the Dean is a meer Chimaera and so is the diocesan Bishop and can no more subsist the basis and fountain of his very office qua talis or as such being removed and extinct But the Commissary a civil officer and Magistrat his administration of its own nature civill depends upon and is regulat by superiour civil Rulers and so in that case subsists intirely as a part of the civil Government where prelacie is abolished and can no more be scrupled at because a prelat did somtime usurpe an authority over that office then the office of the Lord high Chancellour or any other civil office of state and inferiour offices theron specially depending because somtime a Prelat was Chancellour and usurped authority in these matters ought to be disowned or scrupled at upon this account 2ly He sayes this answer comes near to what he said before anent the English divines who hold only that complex frame to be abjured in the 2d article which consists of all the officers there enumerat Ans. 1. It is more then he hath proved that the English divines do owne even sigillatim or apart all these officers or looke upon themselves as only obliged against that complex frame consisting of all the officers enumerat in that article We heard before out of Timorcus whom Bishop Lighton in that letter and the Informer himself cites as holding that our Prelacie is consistent with the Covenant and whom they appeal unto in this debate that they disowne all Prelacie where one single person exerciseth sole power in ordination and Jurisdiction all Prelacie beyond a Proestos and particularly the name and thing of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters Arch Deacons Timorcus in the 7. Chap. adds all Bishops not Chosen by the clergie and people all Bishops who act by Deans prebends and exercise their power by Chancellours Commissaries c. Doth not the article it self abjure all ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy So that though we did come near to what they say in this answer we come never a whit nearer him 2ly we told him already that the Commissaries office is properly Civil though usurped upon by the Prelat so that when purged from this usurpation and running in the channell of a meer civil administration influenced and authorized by Superiour civil Governours as a part of the political constitution of the kingdom it falls not within the compass of an Ecclesiastical officer depending on the hierarchy by his own Confession and Bishop Lightons How then was the owning of him before the introduction of Prelacie contrary unto the Covenant But because he suffered not his poor Doubter to tell him that the Commissary besides that in our late times he did not depend upon the Bishop is really and upon the matter with us a Civil not a Church officer he thinks to surprise him with a third answer That now the Comissaries do actually depend upon the Bishops yet we scruple not nor decline their Courts and authority and if we decline them not as according to our Principles we are oblidged how are we free of perjury and if we can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant why may not he also a Bishop Ans. What poor tatle is this we told him already that the Commissariot is of it self a lawfull Civil administration not ane Ecclesiastical function and the prelats usurped authority cannot render this civill office unlawfull Wheras the dicoesan Bishops office is a pretended Ecclesiastical function and in its very nature a gross corruption and contrary to the word of God as is above cleared Which disparity is palpable to any that will but open their eyes Do we abjure any Civil courts or officers in that article are they not termd expresly
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
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
so far from tying congregations to conformists as this man alleages that they tye them to their own faithfull Presbyterian pastours and by consequence to disowne prelats and their intruding hirelings as none of the lawfull Pastours of this Church I might here add that the account of the Pastours duty and the ground of the people's subjection and obedience exhibit to us in these scriptures which he mentions doth sufficiently exclude their party from any claim therunto What do they hear Gods word and warn the people from him who are generally so ignorant of his word walking contrary to it themselves and hardning others in rebellion against him are they watching for souls as they that must give account who are loving to sleep and slumber and dare not say most of them that ever they enquird at any soul how it is betwixt God and them do their lips keep knowledge who have departed out of the way and caused many stumble at the Law are they labouring and admonishing as to sin and duty who are ringleaders in a course of defection Sure if the duties of subjection reverence and obedience suppose such characters of Ministers and such qualifications as are here exprest people are hereby abundantly discharged from such subjection and obedience as to Conformists who are so palpably destitute of these qualifications So that the Informer falls utterly short of his intended advantage by this citation of Mr Durham and the scriptures therin mentioned do wound his cause tâ—… death and cut the sinews of his reasoning This man is so unhappy as to fall still by the rebound of his own arguments and the scripture-weapons which in pleading for this cause will never be found the weapons of his warfare wounds him every time he handles them which as it hath before so it shall presently appear further in some more of his arguments and answers upon this point which we now present CHAP. III. The Doubters argument from Curats not entring by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14. 23. cleared and improven The Informers exceptions upon the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fully examined and the peoples right in the call of Pastours cleared therfrom His reasonings about Patronages and the prelatick ordination and peoples disowning of Scandalous Ministers not censured As also his great argument from Math. 23. 1. and the owning of the Temple-worship scanned and retorted upon him Mr Durham in this point pleads nothing for the Informer His answers and reasonings anent the charge of Introsion examined Our Informer upon this point of separation which he holds to be his fort-royal in the present differences having plyed his Doubter with offensive weapons will needs shew his skill and just dealing in acting the defendant for some time But I doubt that his defensive armour and answers shall be found as thin and penetrable in this debate as his impugning weapons are bluntand pointless Well this fair disputant will hear some of our arguments against the owning of Conformists but be sure they must be of his own mould and digesting for these can best suit the design of that pretty piece of pageantry which he is acting in this pamphlet The first argument which his Doubter offers is their not entring by a call from the people as all Ministers should citing Act. 14. 23. but by a presentation from the patron In answer to this he spends some discourse upon that text which we shall examine But to clear this point the more fully I will premise three things 1. That the people have a divine right to call their pastouâ—… we proved before in the 9th argument against Episcopacy and from other scripture-grounds beside this although it be a weighty ground also unto this we refer the reader 2. That upon supposal of this divine rule and pattern of a Ministers Lawfull call it doth clearly follow that the patronages are a corruption rendring the Ministers call in this respect maimed and not so consonant to scripture as it ought to be 3. Though it be granted that a Minister presented by the Patron and not called by the people hath the essence of the Ministerial office and might in some cases be owned as a Minister yet this will plead nothing for the owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat Because 1. It s certain that according to the principles and reformation of this Church as establisht before these innovations a Ministers entry by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery without the usurping Prelate and by the call of the people without the Patron is the more pure and scriptural way of entry into the Ministry and moreover the only way of entry own'd and authorized by her supreme Indicatories and by consequence its most suitable to Presbyterian principles when there is a competition betwixt the one and the other and Ministers thus Lawfully called are violently ejected by men reestablishing prelacy and patronages formerly cast out and vowed against that people do adhere to their faithfull pastours rather then these Innovators and intruders which will be convincingly clear if it be also considered particularly that as prelacy allits corruptions usurpations now existent and introduced were fully removed and abjured by this Church so laick patronages in speciall were upon most weighty grounds removed by the parliament 1649. in correspondence to our Churches declarator as appears in the Narrative of their 39. act viz. The sense of the obligation lying upon them both by the National and solemn league covenant by many deliverances and mercies from God by the latesolemn engadgement to duties to preserve the doctrine and to maintain and vindicat the liberties of the Church of Scotland to advance the work of Reformation and considering that patronages persentations of Kirkes is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people Ministers of this land have long groan'd That it hath no warrand in Gods word but is founded only on the Canon Law that it is a popish custom brought into this Church in time of ignorance superstition that its contrary to the 2d book of discipline wherein upon solid grounds it s reckon'd among abuses that are desired to be reformed and Contrary to several acts of general assemblies prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of Churches to the free call and entry of Ministers to their charge c. This act the parliament 1662 did ranverse among other pieces of our Reformation Ordaining all Ministers that entered since 49. to have no right to the benefice till they obtain a presentation from the Lawfull Patron and collation from the Bishop Now upon supposal of the Covenant obligation and our engadgement therein to separat from any corruption contrary to our Reformation to give a testimony to that work to with-draw from backsliders is there any doubt but that people are oblidged upon these grounds to adhere to that body of faithful Ministers who are standing to our principles and sworn
withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism tho the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren which is contagious and may pollute us Now are not they walking disorderly cross to the doctrine discipline Reformation of this Church are they not consequently schismaticks are not their scandals infectious when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges or officiat either with or without them or people to enjoy ordinances among them without direct owning their defection and overturning our Reformation and a professed submission to their abjur'd prelacy as is clear in the acts enjoyning Ministers preaching and peoples hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy For that of Rev. 18. he sayes that it enjoyneth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship but warrands not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is I answer The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins as is expressed in the text which will consequently hold wherever this danger is whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flowes for as I said majus minus non variant speciem and we may add that other Known rule a quatenus ad omne valet sequela In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoyned Nay if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only the command of eshewing every appearance of evill will reach this withdrawing unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty Now our Covenant obligations and our Reformation as itstood established being duely pondered it will be clear that Conformists are schismaticks and destroying Innovators and there is no prior obligation to joyn with them but rather to disowne them in this course Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious and that people are obliged to leave and come out from them tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge and so he must acknowledge that this and such like commands will warrand a separation upon the general ground here intimat abstracting from that special case of Romes Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine It s very sophistical reasoning from the denyall of the special ground and nature of Romes contagion from which christians are called to separat to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept which is to reason from the denyall of the species to the denyal of the genus His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself and alledges that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church to which we are still adhering so that they have gone out from us not we from them We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established and our universal vows of adherence therunto so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation not Presbyterian government only they are properly the first dividers and deserters But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge 1. He sayes that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors whom we are bound to obey in things not sinfull So that their obedience is duty and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority and Schisme from the Church But 1. His Doubter alleadging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians not they from them which is a very clear consequence and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismaticks upon any description of Schism which he can assigne And moreover this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatick constitution since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical to be no Schism This I must say is strange divinity but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church her ordinances and over sacred Oaths and vows 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point is a high rebellion against God in disowning at mens arbitrary command the Government of his house appointed in his word and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it and against which all the nations were engadged So that our practice is obedience to God and a keeping of the union of Christs body and theirs is both perjury and Schism He tells us that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacie to be the only Government left by Christ and practised by his Apostles So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government and that of the primitive Church as well as from them To this I only say that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity Again he tells us that in this charge of Schism he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship which is Schism tho the Government were wrong I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism why answers he not our countercharge that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church and that therefore the Schism lyes first and principally at their door for that which he sayes of the Magistats command is as we have heard utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good for any thing he hath said that which he here adds of our being Schismaticks because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship is like wise naught For upon this ground of his Doubter which he cannot disprove viz. That they have made the first breach and separation they are Hactenus Schismaticks and so are to be disown'd in their worship upon that very account and ground upon which he pleads fot disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship tho he can lay nothing else to their charge or alleadge any substantial corruption of the worship And so the recocted crambe which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary their not separating there from c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship and much more then for
emboldned to judge without ground and the person hindred to act in faith or induced to act against it c. So that to assert that the Magistrats command can invalidat these grounds and principles and render the action not sandaâ—…ous which is such otherwise is to give him a Dominion over the conscience and subject it immediatly and absolutly to his Laws which is a principle disowned by all Protestants Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent an emboldning him to sin contrary to his conscience or to judge that we sin when we sin not citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground principle necessarily sinfull in its present circumstances how I pray can the Magistrats command render it not only Lawfull but necessary as he is bold to assert Can the Magistrat by his Law embolden a mans conscience to sin and yet neither the Magistrat sin himself nor the man sin in obeying him Amesius a better Casuist then he will tell him de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6. that nulla authoritas humana vel tollere potest scandali rationem ab eo quod alias esset scandalum vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato That is no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given And his ground is very considerable which doth confirme what I have now said Nullus enim homo saith he potest vel charitati conscientiis nostris imperare vel periculum scandali dati praestare That is for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences or exeem from the hazard of scandal given But now to fortify this raw ignorant assertion as to scandal our Informer brings Act. 15. 28. these necessary things from which words of the councils sentence he drawes ane argument thus that though of themselves they were not necessary but somtimes indifferent yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church so he sayes obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence as the greater duty of the two as divines and Casuists shew and in this case the man who thus obeyes gives no offence but doth duty and if any take it its causeless on his part and occasioned through the brothers weakness so that its scandalum acceptum non datum groundlesly taken but not given and when the Apostle forbids to use our liberty to the offence of the weak he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this 1. It s a strange sottish or rather popish Assertion that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority For the text is most express that the Apostles enjoyned this upon weighty scripture-scripture-grounds and what seemed good to the holy ghost speaking in the word as well as to them so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love and union in the Church and the great rule of edification and not stumbling the weak Iews were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded Now to shew how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this glosse let us hear Calvine upon the place praeter haec necessaria Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of â—…his this place as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree they affirme must be necessarly kept Then he adds atqui expedita c. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil so he censures our New Casuist and his fellowes in this point for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsick necessity which had place not in the thing it self but in guarding of offence which saith he is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree Then he tells us that when the contention ceased Paul shewes that nothing is unclean and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Churches power to statute any thing beside the word of God Telling us further that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent Then saith he in summa the summ is if charity be the bond of perfection and the end of the Law if Gods command be that the faithfull study mutual unity and concord and that every one please his nighbour to edification none is so rude who may not perceive that what the Apostles here commanded is containd in the word of God And at the close he tells us Apostolâ—…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God But 2. This mans Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth for 1. he acknowlegeth that what the Apostles here decreed was for the Good of the Church which if he understand any thing he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediatly before his and the rest of ths Apostlee decision vers 21. viz. that Moses had in every city them that teach him being read every Sabath day So that it was needfull at that time upon the grounds of charity union and aedification to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by Gods Law till the ceremonies were honourably buryed Hence it followes clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time and not by the authority of the council only Neither was the matter enjoynd of a thing indifferent made necessary by their determination but upon these grounds and for the great end of the Churches good which he mentions this abstinence was at this time and in this case necessary And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrand for what else will he make of that expression It seemed good to the Holy ghost Again Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification nor any dominion over the faith of Gods people and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio So that their sentence was only a declarator of Gods mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic nnnc a necessary duty although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Churches obedience 2. He brings
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
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
all the weapons wounds of such as have impugned those principles And upon the debate about the Covenants and Separation the only presents us with soomwhat of their old musty store who have appeared in this cause of late whose notions are more crude after all this mans re-cocting a convincing proof that there was in the first conâ—…oction ane indigestible error Next I find some what more of a seren temper lesse of the sarcastick scolding strain then what hath tinctured his fellew-actors upon this sceen who have bravely scolded it out against the Presbyterians even to a non ultra of that Thersites artifice although now and then he puts out his litle sting too this way In soom things also his Ingenuity deservs its praise in advancing Prelacy so neer the popes miter both in his pleadings from the Iewish Priesthood from antiquity wherein he hath purtrayed the beast in exacter lineaments then soom moresmooth pleaders His Character of the term Curat viz on that serves the cure though not the Minister of the place and of their preaching upon shorter texts that it is a racking of the Text and of their brains to find out matter is honest and apposit for which the Presbyterians do owe him thanks but thereby their doubts in the point of Prelacy the present Separation are so strengthned and like to grow and especially by his feeble resolutions that they verily judge he shall never prove the Aedipus but is in extreme hasart to be devouted in this encounter Actaeon-like to be torn in pieces by the kennell of his own pretended resolutions and Arguings retorted and hunted back upon him They do also look upon the Dialogizing Method so much pleasing him some of his fellowes as a cover but now very dilucid and transparent to hide the childish sophistry of disguising the true state of questions and the strength of Presbyterian Arguments while they must fight with no weapons but of their adversaries choice and measuring When the Knight enters the lists with a huge invincible gyant the encounter looks very unequall and fatall like to the sprightly litle Combatant but the Romance maker can so order the seene that he shall be sure to lay his adversary all a long and come off victorious Our Adversaries have too long ridicul'd our serious Theologicall debates with their play-bookes wherein they do but render themselves ridiculous what hath the chaff to do with the wheat When will they offer a fair and formall enucleation of this controversy and discusse our Arguments long since offered unto them which do stand to this day unanswered How long will they beg Principles beg concessions and rear up soaring like Arguments upon a Chimaericall fundation and then Accost their credulous hearers or readers with Thrasonik boasts and Rhetoricall Rhodomontadoes which are as insipid and tastlesse to the discerning as the Artificiall fruit to the hungry pallat Reader for the design of this undertaking I have this to say that although I have as litle as many men coveted such appearances yet have been perswaded to be thus publick upon this occasion that having casually met with this Pamphlet after it had for a considerable time travelled up and down I judged it expedient to employ upon it some solitary houres wherein I was taken offfrom other employments both to prevent languishing and to satisfy the desire of a friend whom I highly esteem as likewayes to undeceive some simpler and lesse discerning readers who seem'd to be taken with this piece which essay after a considerable times lurking coming into the hands of some welwishers to our Zion I did at last yield to their importunity in reference to the publication Whatever entertainment this may meet with and how keen soever the darts of malicious reproach may prove which are levelled at me Hic murus Aheneus esto I have this shield that I can say it before the heart searcher without heart condemning that as I intended herein a vindication of Truth and duty and according to my measure and capacity to give this testimony for it to the strengthning of a poor afflicted remnant contending for the same so in writing these sheets I had an eye upon the father of lights for his help and presence and dare not deny but that this was found in some good measure accordingly And in the perusal of what is here offered unto publick view which was not at first directly my intention I would have thee looking after these with other emprovements First thou may discover what a honourable cause wee now contend for even the Crown dignity and Royal prerogative of Jesus Christ his glorious supremacy over his own house in appointing its officers lawes ordinantes for the true frame of his tabernacle according to the pattern shewed upon the mount for that Government of his house delivered in his perfect and glorious testament sealed with his blood for fealty loyalty to this King of Kings in keeping his Covenant into which this nation and Church so solemnly entered for the walls and bulwarks of this City of God in opposition to antichristian underminers and invaders thereof for these solemn Assemblies of his saints upon the ancient grounds and principles of our Reformation so much now aspersed by devouring tongues the ceasing wherof in our Zion ought to engage to sorrow and a lamenting after our provoked Lord now hiding himself from us Enemies have often invaded him upon his his throne of grace and professed friends have not sincerely aproach'd unto it Next As to our adversaries pleading against us in this quarrel thou mayest discover first that they are snar'd as by the works of their hands so by the Words of their lips and fall before the rebound of their our Arguments this mans pleadings against us especially upon the point of separation levelling so clearly against himself that such who impartially read him upon his point may straight entertain this reflection It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks and that its easy to pull this Egyptians spear out of his hand and kill him with his own spear Secondly thou may see what monstrous issues they are driven unto in the defence of their cause what a chain of contradictions absurdities they have twisted to wind themselves out of their inextricable Labirinth that they hatch cockatric eggs obstinat maintaining of one absurdity begets a hundred so true is that saying prophecy evil men shall waxe worse worse deceiving being deceived How palpably have they wrested the holy Scriptures to shift the convictions thereof and make some shift of answer How laxe and absurd are their new principles in point of Oaths resolving their strength into the Magistrates arbitriment and Lawes besides other odd posterns which they have opened to escape allobligations thereby if their matter be not indispensably necessary which with them is in a great measure determined by the Law What a monstrous Chaos of more then Infidel-barbarity and confusion
civill offices of Ministers page 63 64. The Informers endeavours to bring in the Diocesian Bishop under that command of decency and order as lawfull though not commanded and necessary That the Bishop cannot he warranted on this ground but must as a supposed Church officer instruct his institution and mission from Scripture cleared from several Scripture grounds and the acknowledgment of some adversaries page 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73. Chap. 8. page 73. misprinted Chap. 9. The Informer undertakes to answer the Arguments of Presbyterians against Episcopacy his answers to our Arguments from Matth. 22 25 26. Wherin having misrepresented it he is notwithstanding forced to embrace the evasions of Papists falls in diverse inconsistencies and walks crosse to the sence of sound divines upon this Text Yea of some of the ancients which cleard at large page 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. his answer to our Argument from 1 Pet. 5 3. Wherein he also offers violence to the text and joines issue with the Papists his evasions examined and this Text as also the preceding Improven against him page 84 85 86 87 88. Chap. 9. misprinted Chap. 10. page 88. The Informers Answers to our Argument from acts 20. and Titus 1 5 7. These Texts emproven against him and his answers fully examined page 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96. His answers to our Argument from Philip. 1 1. His absurd and inconsistent shifts discovered and confuted page 98 99 100 101 102. Arnoldus and Chamier do classe him with the Papists in his answers to this text he walks crosse to the Dutch and English Annotations and to Calvin page 103 104 105. His answers to our Argument from Ephes. 4 〈◊〉 Examined page 106 107 108. Chap. 10. misprinted Chap. 12. page 109. The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament the subordination of the Priests and Levites The remoteness and absurdity of his consequence anent the lawfulnesse of the present diocesian Erastian Prelats office asit is deduced from this principle discovered several wayes page 110 111 112. That there is no image of our Prelacy in the Jewish Church Government cleared The Informer walks crosse to Iunius yea Bishop Bilson himself and in the series of his reasoning introduces a pope into the Christian Church page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120. His Argument from the Apostles superiority to the 70 disciples examined He begs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastors the 70 Disciples and from a superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our prelacy in the Apostles superiority over other Church officers page 121 122 123 124 125 126. Chap. 11. misprinted Chap. 10. page 127. The Informers great Argument for Prelacy from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus Their Episcopall 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 judgment of interpreters page 128 129 misprinted 127 130 misprinted 128 131. misprinted 129. The Informers answers anent the strict and large sense of an Evangelist his reasons of deny 〈◊〉 to Timothy the Evangelistick office in a strict sense 〈◊〉 amined and found inconsistent with themselves aâ—… contrare to Scripture 132 misprinted 130 13â—… misprinted 131 134 misprinted 132 135 misprinted 133 136 misprinted 134 137 misprinted 135 138 misprinted 136 he denies the poweâ—… in ordination and Jurisdiction to be the proper work of an Evangelist How absurdly and inconsistently page 139 140 misprinted 137 138 his contradiction to Saravia discovered in severall points page 141 142 misprinted 139 140 143 misprinted 151 His answer to the Doubters Argument anent Timotheus his not being fixed at Ephesus but occasionally left there examined as also his answer to that Exception of the Doubter anent Pauls giving the Episcopal charge to the elders of Ephesus not to Timothy our Informer pityfully bruilied with this Text page 144 145 146 147 148 misprinted 142 143 144 145 146 he walks crosse to Bishop Hal Dounham and Hooker to Chrysostome Jerome Theodorus His grounds upon which he pleads for Timothy and Titus their Episcopal power particularly examined the first taken from Pauls giving direction to Timothy and Titus how to cary in ordination and Iurisdiction generally examined page 149 150 misprinted 146 147 his arguing from these directions particularly examined anent their not laying on of hands suddenly anent rebuke and censures page 151 152 misprinted 148 149 the Informers next Argument from the concernment of after ages in these rulers That neither this nor the adressing of these rulers to the Evangelists will affoord any help unto him cleared The London Ministers vindicat That Timothy and Titus power at Ephesus and Crete was not voided after some elders were ordained there a sandy foundation to support their Episcopacy The Informer is pityfully in the bryars in answering his Doubâ—…ers exception anent Timothies ordination by the laying on 〈◊〉 the hands of the Presbytery The practice of after ages a ground to support the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169. misprinted 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166. Chap. 12. misprinted Chap. 11. according to the misprinted Method which shall be followed hereafter except in some few pages page 167. The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angells discussed That the stile of prophetick writings and of this book do strongly conclude a collectivesense in the term Angel proved by several Arguments page 168 169 170. Whatever he can alledge is the Characteristick of this angel proved to be in Scripture apropriat to Ministers page 171. Many divines ancient and modern for the collective sense of the Word Angel yea some episcopal men themselves page 172 173. The admitting of the Angel to be one single person will nothing help the Informer page 173 174. His answer to the exception from Rev. 2 24. examined Ibid. His Argument from the pretended Testimonies of the ancients and the Catalogues of succeeding Bishops examined Page 175 176 177 178. The addressing of the Epistle to the Angel Will not help him as neither Doctor Reynolds nor Beza their taking the Angel for a single person Page 178 179 180 181 The Informers new Argument for prelacy taken for Diotrephes his love of preheminence wherein he embraces Bellarmines evasions and offers violence to this and parallel texts page 181 182 183 184 185 186 187. Chap 13. misprinted Chap. 12. page 187. The Informers appeal to Antiquity in the point of Episcopacy That Antiquity is not the Judge in this debate although he could instruct the matter of fact proved Page 188 189 190 191. The Scripture even by the Confession of the Fathers the only
our obligation to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland page 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article refuted The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves as oblidged to reform according to our pattern which is the Scripture pattern proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Informers allegeance that the first Article is ambiguous and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath their sense cannot determine its meaning vain and impertinent pag 65 66 67. Chap. 4. page 67. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy how poorly and impertinently cleard page 68 69 70. His first ground taken from the command and authority of Rulers generally considered and found impertinent to support his conclusion though his supposition were granted page 71 72. His 2d ground touching the alteration of the matter sworn as also his third taken from the hinderance of a greater good by the performance resolving in his sense wholly upon the Magistrates command absurd when applyed to our case which is fully cleared page 73 74 75 76 77 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a greater command overruling the lesse and our obligation to obey the rulers as prior to that of the Covenant page 7. ibid. also page 79 80. His Argument taken from Num 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes the Informers rules pleaded against him and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate page 80 81 82 83 84 85 86. His impertinent repetitions some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable page 87 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8 20. weighed page 89 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood resolving still upon the command of the powers absurd and contradicted by Casuists and many wayes crosses his design and pleading cleared at large page 91 92 93 94 95 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge examined as also his Arguments from the Rechabites page 97 98 99. Chap. 5 page 99. The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites His trifling way of moulding our Argument And in what sense wee plead this passage page 100 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz that an Oath can bind against a command of God impertinent to the point and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text page 102 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand inconsistent with himself in this point Page 104 105 the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20 10 discovered and cleared from Interpreters and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures page 106 107 108 109 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua the league and the peace discovered page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here He supposes but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such page 111 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed page 120 121 122 123 124. The impertinency of all he answersupâ—… this point though granted His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon examined As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15 4 Page 125 126 127 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats groundlesse and impertinent to the point ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury largely scannd The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136. THIRD PART Chap. 1 pag. 2. THe question stated and cleared from our Churches state before and since the introduction of prelacy and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2 3 4 5 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly plead upon for the peoples adherence exhibited Separation in many cases not Schism The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of Schisme is founded upon exhibit and cleared page 7 8 9 10 11 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact and of our principles aâ—… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of Schisme such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted which is cleared in severall particulars page 13 14 15 16 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19 20 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution the grand renters and dividers of this Church 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large page 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Finally this practice cannot be that Schisme abjured in the Covenant The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme cleared page 27 28 29. Chap. 2 page 29. The Informers charge of internall Schisme upon non conformists his Elogies of Schism and Testimony of Cyprian considered and this charge retorted upon him page 30 31 32 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops liturgies c. examined found groundlesse and impertinent to the point His Argument from Rom
14. Examined and retorted upon him His charge of Externall Schsme in separating in acts of Worship fortified by that passage Heb. 10 25 Examined page 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12 v. 31. that wee ought to seeke the best most edifying gifts advantageously for himself but fraudulently proposd by the Informer Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument The Informers answers examined at large page 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 42 His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33 8. Heb. 13 17. Mal. 2 7. 1 Thess. 5 11 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105 106. examined at large page 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. the premised texts improâ—…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation ibid. Chap. 3 page 58. The doubters argument from Curats not entering by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14 23. cleared and emproven page 59 60 61 62 63. The Informers first answer that several whom we refused to own entered by this call ibid. his exception upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined his first answer touching the use of the word to expresse the action of onesingle person proved from Acts 10 41. examined the use of the word cleared from parallels criticks and Interpreters page 64 65 66. His second Answer that Greek writers use this Word to signifie ordination without suffrages and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas examined The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage will not help the Informer Page 67 68 69. He walks crosse to interpreters in this answer page 70 71 72. His third answer that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers examined wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers page 73 74 75 76 77. His last answer is that if wee disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years upward and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined even the later Antiquity clear for this call by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559 the examples of Eradius Ambrose c. Yea of Bishop Bilsone page 78 79 80 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant cleared against the Informer and his exception anâ—… our Churches perjury because of the use of patronages after the Covenant repelled In what sense the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists of the term Curat The Informer honestly grants that it signifyes one who serves the cure though not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another page 82 83 84 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury and reasoning anent the lawfulnesse of disowning Ministers because of Scandals who are not censured examined His reasoning found frivolous and retorted upon him page 86 87 88. his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees examined Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them as Church officers The consequence from hearing of them though granted to the hearing of them denyed upon five grounds As also his reasoning from Simeon Anna Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship examined page 89 90 91 92 93. Mr Durham on Revel 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point page 94 95 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described examined and repelled page â—…7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon as also his retorsion upon this charge examined and found vain and frivolous page 98 99 100 101 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopall Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted His retorsion that wee were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant who had been ordained by Prelats unlesse they renounced their ordination ane empty knack reflecting on the reformed Churches justifying the popes plea against them page 103 104 105. Chap. 4 page 105 The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent separation from a corrupt Church In what respects and how far this separation is owned His answer anent the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the asian Churches Rev. 2 3. Though tainted with most grosse corruptions c examined The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleard in some particulars and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches page 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case cleared from hence several wayes ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5 11 2. Thess. 3 6. Rev. 1â—… 3. Examined and found contradictory to his concession anent a necessary separation from a corrupt Church when highly corrupted page 114 115 116 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schisme upon Conformists for seperating from this Church examined and found naught He therein cuts the sinnewes of his arguing against us page 118 119 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined God never appointed a dumb reading the Levites gave the sense of the Law c. the exceptions anent the disuse of our first Method of lecturing and the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church help him not in this point page 121 122 123 124 125. Chap 5. page 126. The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence in reference to the owning of Conformists considered The Informers groundlesse supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists Our Orthodox sense of Rom 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal cleard at large from the exposition of Chrysostome on the first text and Pareus on the second page 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawfull and offence flowes from it holds that the command of the powers will loose the giver of offence from guilt and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence how absurdly cleared in fyve points page 134 135 136 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius The instances of the Brazen serpent and Gideons ephod improven against him ibid. His absurd glosse upon Acts 15 28 that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the meere determination of the Concil largely repelled Calvin classes him with the Papists herein His manifold inconsistencies observed and absurd exposition of scandalum acccptum and datum which
the Presbytery to the Synod as from the Presbytery at Antioch to the Synod at Jerusalem Not to any one Apostle Pop or Prelat Whereas the last appeal and reference in this Diocesian Mould is to the Bishop Our Lords rule is this in relation to the removeing of Scandales First tell the offending Brother Alone then take two or three more then if he be farder contumacious tell the Church the greater embodied court or Judicatorie who have the official power of binding or lowseing He bidds not toll it uni to one but unitati a multitud gathered into one for so the Greek word doth necessarly Import whereas in the Diocesian sea the gradation is from many to one Prelat whose sole prerogative this highest censure is And with Prelatists the rule runns thus tell two or three lastlie and finallie one Lord-Bishop Which is point blank contrare to the Scripture rule 3. The Diocesion Bishops power and Ministerial Pastoral pretended duties as Diocesian Bishop are such as falls within he compass of no command and which it is impossible to performe according to Scripture rules which I prove thus 1. The Prelat according to their principles is the proper Pastor of the whole Diocess for he being peculiarly Bishop of it and consecrat in order to his Episcopal inspection over the same for to the participation of his power office denoted by this term Bishop of Edinburgh c. He admitts non in the diocess it being the characteristick of his Superioritie over Presbyters withall it including the wholl Ecclesiastick Authority both of order and Jurisdiction with in the Diocess It followes of necessity that he is the sole and proper Pastor thereof according to this mould of Government Now it being so let it be considered 1. That the trew Scripture etimon of Episcopus or Bishop imports all the Pastorall duties of feeding and ruling and layes aâ—…e obligation upon the person under this relation and cloathed with this Office to perform all these duties accordingly to these to whom he stands in that relation 2 That its impossible the Bishop can feed Rule Oversee and perform the Pastoral duties unto and watch for the souls of all that large flock in which some hundereds of painful Pastores will find their hands full of work So that the Bishop assumes a charge which it is impossible he can dischag or perform 3. The Scripture allowes no Derivation or Deputation of the Pastores work and Office to which he is called of God unto other subserviant Officers Because God intrusts no man with any peece of Stewardship in his Family but what he must both oversie and execut immediatly by himself and is likewayes disposed and enabled to manage and overtake God still conjoyneing the Office gifts and call together for every peece of his work Which the man that is intrusted with and called unto must himself immediatly waite upon and attend Rom. 12. 7. and not intrust it to others for him Hence 4. By clear consequence it followes that the Diocesian Bishopes work qua talis is such as he can neither mannage nor hath warrand from the great Shepherd to exercise or assume In the 4t Place the present Diocesian Bishop is a Person who is authorised to sitt in Parliament Council and other civil Judicatories as a constituent member therof For they are restored to their places in Parliament civil pretended dignities which places they aâ—… by there Office bound to manage as civil Rulers But so it is that all civill dominion Magistraticall Rule is expresly prohibit to Church Rulers so that the Church Officer who is installed in these Offices falls from Heaven to Earth The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them and they that are great exercise authotie upon them but it shall not be so among you Matth. 20 25 26. This charge our Lord gave to his Apostles and their Successors Pastores or Bishops who are here forbidden all civill rule or Magistracy the nature wherof is properly a Dominion and thus distinct toto coelo from the nature of Ecclesiastick Offices which is a Ministerial service or stewardship only All our divines impugne from this text the popes civil Dominion and the amphibius civily ruleing or domineering Prelat falls under the lash thereof Non who goe Christs errands and his warrfare must be inâ—…angled with these things that are temporal The Minister must waite upon his Ministrie So the civil Magistrat is Gods Minister in civiles attending Continually upon this employment Rom. 13 4 6. Now those being in their nature so disparat employments and both requireing a constant waiting and attendance he is a strange man That can be called and sufficient for both Who is sufficient for these things said the great and highly gifted Paul speaking of his Ministerial employments Are our Prelats beyond his sufficiencie who can act the Pastor of a wholl Diocess and guide State affaires too Christs Kingdome is not of this World and so are not its Officers the weapons of whose warrfare must not be carnal Who made me a judge said the great Shepherd himself when desired but to giue a deciding advice in a civil cause Luk 12 14. Where is there any thing like the work or qualifications of the Magistrat in all the New Testament Rules and instructions anent the work Office and call of Church Officers CHAP. III. The Diocesian Bishops Office debases extraoadinarie Offices in confounding them with the ordinary That Timothy and Titus power layes no foundation for Prelacy cleared at large The derivation of Prelacie from them loaded with gross absurdites VIII THe Diocesian Bishops Office is in this contrare unto the word in that It debases the Apostolical and Euangelistick Offices and confounds the ordinarie extraordinarie functions administrations which Scripture Reason all sound Divines doe diversifie distinguish The Prelats Advocats this new informer particularly pleads for and derives the Episcopal preheminence from the office and inspection of the Apstles and Euangelists whom they affirme to have been properly formally Bishops in the sense they take the Diocesian Bishop and that the formal power and offices which they exercised are to be continued still in the Church That Timothy was formally constitut Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Crete Iames of Ierusalem And that the Prelats office is the same and properly Succeeds them and is as it were A continuation of their office in a formal sense Timothy's authority is is one maine ground which the Episcopal men at the Isle of Wight and this Auther also do plead to legittimat the Prelats office This being clear I say this pretended Mould of the Diocesian Bishops Office and Authority is lyable to the charge censure of debasing these holy extraordinarie functions and confounding them with the ordinary which I prove thus 1. All sound protestant Divines do harmoniously assert the extraordinary nature of the Apostolick office as such and likewayes of the Euangelists reckening the Apostles Prophets
and Euangelists as the extraordinary New Testament Officers whose proper formal Office died with them and admits of no succession for thus they ordinarily defyne the Apostles that they were Christs immediatly called and extraornarily gifted universal Ambassadours sent out to lay every where the foundation of the Gospel Church and to plant the Gospel government therein Particularly Polanus in his Syntagma reckens up these as their extraordinary expired prerogatives to which we will find this Informer in parte give assent 1. Their immediat institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat mission to teach Paul had his from heaven 3. Their universal legation to found and plant Churches throw the world 2 Cor. 11 28. 4. It s visible badge viz. the conferring of the Spirit by the laying on of hands 5. Their extraordinary authority beyond any of their Successors as being set over the whole Church c. Hence all the ingredients of their formal Office as such must needs be expired And no Church Officer can be said to succeed them therein Their Call was immediat sure non can succeed them in that Their special or proper work was to plant Churches and the Gospel-government in them and set up their Officers of all which Churches they were Ministers in actu exercits sure no Church Officer could succeed them in this Their Qualifications as such Ambassadours were correspondent to this great work viz. their gifts of miracles gifts of tongues Prophesie infallibility in Doctrin Sure now can pretend to succeed them in this Nixt for the Euangelists their Office was equally extraordinary it consisting in a planetary motion from place to place to water where the Apostles planted to bring reports of the Churches state to the Apostles and commissions from the Apostles to them Their various motions pro re nata upon down even after these Epistles wherein they are supposed to have receaved their Episcopal charge were written to them and the Scriptures absolut silence as to their ever returning to these Churches againe besides the Apostle Pauls shewing expresly in these Epistles their occasional transient employment in this places and express recalling of them therefrom to the further prosecution of their extraordinary employment and in these very Epistles identifying the Office of the Bishop and Elder All these clear grounds I say do evidently demonstrat that the work and office of Timothy and Titus as Euangelists is expired and cannot be pretended unto by any ordinary Church Officer it being an appendix as it were of the Apostolick charge and supposing its exercise and existance and the Churches then infant state and condition Now to make these high and extraordinary functions ordinary and thus confound the two together must be a very gross usurpation 2. Hence it is manifest that the Episcopal function as above described in the quality and mould of the Diocesian Bishop will never be found in these extraordinary functions either formaliter or eminenter and consequently it must be a gross belying of the Spirit of God to pretend this in the assuming of this usurped Office First The Episcopal Office will not be found in that of the Apostles or Euangelists formaliter For these were universal unfixed Officers set over no particular Church or Diocess But were pro re nata to officiat to the whole Church as being the Apostles especially Officers thereof in actu exercito Nixt the Episcopal function is not included in these Offices eminenter or in the ordinary power whiâ—… the Apostles or Euangelists exercised or transmitte 〈◊〉 the Church And that for these Reasons 1. Neitâ—… the Apostles nor Euangelists in respect of their perpetâ—… ordinary Ministerial authority transmitted by them in 〈◊〉 Church did exercise Superiority Episcopal over other Ministers but as to the perpetual Pastoral Charge they held them their equals and in the ordinary power of government as wee saw above in the Apostles practise in ordination and Jurisdiction amongst Churches constitut and farr less can we suppose that the Euangelists were in such Churches to exercise any single or Episcopal preheminence in government For it were strange if Timothy who was ordained by a Presbytrye wherein Paul himself was present should notwithstanding usurpe preheminence over a Presbytery though inferior to ane Apostle And that whereas Presbyters did concurr pari passu with a whole Presbytery of Apostles in every peece of a judicial Act and decree yet that ane Euangelist inferior to any of the Apostles should take Episcopal preheminence over a Presbytery 2. The Apostles planted no such ordinary Officers in the Church as had that Episcopal Power therefore the Episcopal Power was not transmitted by them in the Church And by further consequence it is not included in their Office eminenter For it is evident that in the first plantation of the Churches they fixed Presbyters or Pastors as their immediat Successor's in the Ministerial power and likewise in their last farewel's into Churches they committed unto these Pastors the ordinary power of government without the least hint of a Super-institution of any officer of a higher order Act. 20 28 29. Compared with 25. 1 Pet. 5 2 3. with 2 Pet. 1 14 3. It was in respect of Paules ordinary Ministerial power and in that Capacitie that he had hands laid upon him by that Presbytety at Antioch and was sent out with other commissioners to that Synod at Jerusalem by them which looked like a humble submission pro tanto unto them and is far from the Episcopal preheminence since the Prelats dissoune all Subjection to the Prophes in greater or lesser assemblies 4. The Prelats authority is this he is upon the mater the only proper Pastor of the Diocess whose Episcopal inspection reaches Pastores and flocks both as is above cleared He is the fountaine from whom the power of order and Jurisdiction in the wholl Diocess is deryved and the exercise of both depends upon his Lordly disposal Now this is contrare both to the Apostles and Evangelists their ordinary and extraordinary power contrare to its very nature in universum their office being a declarative executive Ministerie onlie And Dominion or Lordship being discharged to all Apostles and all Church Officers whatsoever Hence in the 3d. place This Episcopal pretence aâ—…nt the derivation of their Lordly grandour from the Apostolick Office fastens a grosse charge of unfaithfulness upon them 1. In assuming a power in its nature distinct from what there Lord allowed and enjoyned them viz. a Lordly dominion not a ministerial Stewardshipe service only such a dominion as Princes of the gentiles exercise even to have the actus primus of a civil Lord-peer yea Chieff-peer or Parliament man 2. In debaseing and Straitening their Apostolick Inspection and carrying ane Office incompatible with it and thus unfaithfully tearing out a parte of their commission For in becoming Diocesian Bishops they should be fixed to particular diocesses and therin exercise ane ordinary fixed poever wheras their commission was to
this especially to whom a people doe intrust their soules direction and guidance If in any thing a Christian must Act in Faith and not give up his perswasion to ane implicit conduct and thus become a servant of men sure it must be in a mater ofso great weight as this is If Christs sheep have this for their Character that they knowe the voice of the trew Shepherd from the voice of the hyreling and stranger from whom they will flie Joh. 10 4 5. Sure their knowlege and consent must interveen in order to their acceptance of and subjecton to their Shepherd If they must not belive every Spirit buttry the Spirits sure this caution and tryal must be especially allowed in this case that they admitt not a false Prophet instead of a trew So then the Episcopal Government is in this as in other pointes chargeable with antichristian and anti-scriptural tyrannie over Christs flockes 10. The Episcopal Government is in this contrare unto the Word of God viz. In denying and cutting off from his administration and the totall laying asyde of a singularely usefull Church officer appointed by Christ in his House viz the ruleing elder That Government which denies and layes aside any of the great Master of the vine yeard his servants and officers whom he hath authorized and appointed must needs be highly derogatorie to his glory and contrare to his word But such is Prelacie The Prelats are like that sloathfull wicked servant who smites and beats away there fellow-servants while they eat and drink with the drunken That Prelats disoun and exclude this officer is evident both from their principles and practise They all deny the divine warrand of this Church officer And where Prelacy is established he is excluded from Presbyteries and Synodes and upon the mater also from the congregation For they deny and exclude all decisive suffrage there and take away all Authority of congregational elderships as we seen Now that this ruleing elder distinct from both the preaching Presbyter and Deacon Is appointed by God our Divines have made good from severall Scriptur grounds Such as 1. From Rom. 12 6 7. Where among severall other Church officers which the Apostle doth enumerat there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he that ruleth Here is ane ordinary Ruler distinct from all other Rulers and Church officers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rule and authoritative power Againe he is ranked among ordinarie Officers and so must needs be ane ordinary standing officer yet stands distinguished from other ordinary officers haveing both a distinct name from all the rest likewayes a distinct worke as being diversified from the teacher the exhorter and the giver And moreover a peculiar direction as have likewise all the rest So that from the circumstances of this place the divine right of this officer is clearly demonstrate Nixt That passage is pertinently improven for this purpose 1 Cor. 12 28. Where we read of helps Governments under distinct paragraphes clearly pointing out ordinary Governing Church officers distinct from the elders that preach and the Deacon and all other Church Governoures whatsoever They cannot be Governoures in the General for what doth this among a particula enumeration of officers These are distinct from helps distinct from the teaching elder for he is already mentioned in this same vers So here is a Rule and Government distinct from all governoures either civil or ecclesiastick except this ruleing elder yet set by God in the Church under the new Testament But the third and most pregnant passage from which our divines doe demonstrat the divine right of this Church officer is that of the 1 Tim. 5 17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and Doctrine Here is a ruleing Church officer distinct from the preaching elder For here is a general elders Nixt we have two distinct branches of these elders viz the ruleing elder and the elder that both rules and laboures in the word and Doctrine in the word as the Pastor In the Doctrine as the teacher Again they are diversified in two distinct participles and epithets ruling is made the marke and characterick of the one viz Ruling only And both Ruleing and teaching is made the marke of the other whereby they are distinguished in their nature and office But in the 3d. place the forementioned distinction eminently appears in the discretive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially which is set betwixt these two kynds of elders intimating that as there were some of these ruling elders who did labour in the word and Doctrin so there were others who did Rule and not labour in the Word Both were worthy of double honour but especially the labourer in the word over and above this ruling And to this purpose it is well observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially is allwayes in the new Testament made use of to distinguish one thing from another As when it is said Gal. 6 10. Let us doe good to all men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expecially to these of the houshold of faith hereby distinguishing soom that were of the houshold of faith and some that were not In which sense it is also used Phil. 4 22. and 1 Tim. 5 8 This precept saith Pâ—…scator Anal in Locum he first illustrats by a distribution and comparison of things different and unlike for he distinguishes elders into those who were sett over Ecclesiastick Disciplin yet so asthey did not publickly teach those who did teach also Wherein he clearly gives sentence for us against the Prelatick partie in this point Wee may hence Collect that ther were two sortes of elders at that time saith Calvin on 1 Tim. 5 17. For all were not ordained to teach for the words doc manifestly hold forth that some had governed well and faithfully to whom notwithstanding the office of teaching was not committed And trewly from among the people their were grave and good men chosen and approved who did together with Pastores by commune Councell authority administer Church Government and were in some sort censors for correcting of manners which oustome Ambrose compleans to have worme out of use by the negligence or rather the pryde of teachers while they covet to rule alone The pregnancy of this Scripture tramples into the dust the pitiful evasiones of all the Prelatists in denying the divine right of this officer Some of which we shall here take notice of and the confutation of the same offered by our divines upon this point Some by Ruleing well will have living well to be understood But the Apostle is speaking of the office of ruling in a Church officer ruling over others not of ruling over a mans â—…eif in a privat capacitie Neither is the Churches Honorarium double honour double maintinance due to living well as here it is allowed to ruling well And this will say that the Minister that
preaches not is worthy of double honour for living well which will make very harsh sense Some understand this ruleing elder of the Deacon but the Deacon is no where called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or elder his work being to help to distribut not to rule 1 Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 8 Some would being in under this Ruler The ancient Superannuat Bishop But this gloss will in honour preferr unto him the diligent preaching Minister which will wound their cause to death Some by the Ruler will have such understood as did administer Sacraments but preached not But Paul knew non of these non preaching or seldom-preaching Ministers far less would he allow them a double honoure who rather deserved the contrary Paul will have all Ministers apt to teach and able to convince Some by the ruling elder would have Inferior Magistrats understood who were appointed for ending civil Striffes but the Apostle is here prescrybing rules to Church office bearers not civile rulers and teaching Timothy how to cary in the Church Againe they had then no Christian civil Magistrats as all doe grant and for their going to Heathens to compose their civil differences Paul himself dissallowes it 1 Cor 6. Some againe will have the laboring in the word doctrine to be nothing else but ane explanation of rulcing well but this inadvertant gloss will set asyde My Lord Bishop as no good ruler Againe as is said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here or the word especially is discriminating and discretive distinguishing one thing from another not explaining one thing by another If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thus sensed what odd work would it make in other places 1 Tim. 4 10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them that believe This gloss will sense it thus the Saviour of all men greatly believing Others yet by labouring in the word and doctrine will have a higher degree of labouring as to diligence understood yet so as both branches speak of labouring in the word and doctrin But as the Leyden Professoures doe well answer this will allow double honour to the less-labouring or lazie elder who deserves rather a double rebuke the Lord requiring the the utmost faithful diligence of all labourers in his vineyarde Besides that this gloss justles out and makes Superfluous that clause of the verse viz in the word and doctrine which according to this exposition should either have been totally omitted or added unto both the branches of this sentence Some to escape the dint of this text invent yet another Shift all Sort of Rulers whither civil ecclesiastick or domestical are worthy of double honour so they sense the first branch and say they this General proposition the Apostle might premise to enforce the honour he enjoyns to the labourer in the word c. But the context fully rejects this gloss since the Apostle speaks not generally of Rulers but of elders that rule well and of such elders and rulers to all which he allowes double honour So that this gloss will mak pitiful work both in allowing the Churches honorarium double honour or honourable maintinance to domestick Rulers and likewayes will allow more honourable maintinance to Ministers then Magistrats Some woulde by the labourer in word and Doctrine as distinct from the ruling elder take in transient visiting Presbyters distinct from fixed preaches but where will they shew us any such who were not Evangelists Wee find that meer ordinary Presbyters were ordained for several cities and places as there peculiar charges whom they were fixedly to feed Act. 14 23. Tit. 1 5. Act. 20 28. But where find they such Presbyters as had no fixed charge Neither can Evangelists be meaned as Dr Burnet would gladely shift it in his first Dialogues the Apostle all along speaking of ordinary preaching Presbyters These and several such like exceptions the evidence of this text hath long since refuted So that we may conclude solidely from what is said the divine right of this Church officer and by consequence the horride Sacriledge and usurpation of Prelacie in robbing Christs Church of the same And likewise the Babilonish confusion which this Antichristian Hierarchie hath introduced into our Church both in divyding and maiming the Pastoral office in bringing in offices which the Great Shepherd hath not allowed and in excluding and thursting our offices and officers which the hath ordained upon which grounds and upon all the preceeding wee hope we may now safely conclude the Diocesian Prelat existing among us to be a plant which the father never planted and consequently as a poisonus weed to be rooted up CHAP. V. That the present Prelacie is grosse Erastianisme Some Arguments against it under that notion It excludes and denies all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the civil contrar to the Churches priviledge both under the Old and New Testament which is demonstrat at large Is in many points ane Incroachment upon the liberties of the Gospel-Church and upon Christs mediatorie authority over the same HAving thus farr impugned the Diocesian Prelat as a pretended Church officer Wee shall nixt offer some Arguments against him in his Erastian Mould as deriving all his power from the civil Magistrat Althogh the office of the Diocesian Bishop were acknowledged warrantable yet this will help nothing the Erastian Prelat these being very distinct theams and questions What is that Species of Church Government allowed and commanded in Scriptnre and whither there be any inherent Church Government allowed her distinct from that of the Civil Magistrat and whither Church officers or the Civil Magistrat be the proper Subject therof that the Present Prelacie is gross Erastianisme is manifest for after all Church Judicatories were in Anno 16 62. discharged untill they were authorized by the Bishops nominat by his Majestie the disposal of the Government is declared to be the Crown-right and inherent pâ—…rpetual prerogative and thereupon the Bishops are restored not only to their civil dignities but to their Episcopal function presidencie in the Church and over all Church discipline c. And it is expresly declared that there is no Church power jurisdiction or Government in the Church office bearers or meetings but what depends upon and is subordinat unto the Supremacie and is authorized by the Bishops who are declared accountable to his Majestie for their administration In the Act for the National Synod the constituent members thereof the maters to be treated of the authorizing of the constitutions as Church Canons is soly in the Civil Magistrat there work being only to give advice to him without any decisive inherent suffrage By vertew of which Ecclesiastick Supremacie his Majesty puts excommunication and Spiritual censures and consequently the power of the keys into the hands of persons meerly civil in the Act for the high commission Hence it is aparent that his Majesty as the fountaine of all Church Government impartes this
Authority to such as he pleases and the Bishops are nothing else but his Majesties Commisioners in the exercise of that Ecclesiastick Power which is originally in himself Now that this Erastian Prelacie or Church Government is a stranger to the Scripture is many wayes evident 1. This Erastian Prelacie Denyes all Church Government in the hands of Church officers distinct from civil Magistrace which is ane error fully confuted and largely bafled by all who have written against Erastus and his followers and is contrare many wayes to Scripture I. To that distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick and civil Sanbedrin under the Old Testameet asserted and cleared by many Scripture Arguments by our divines paraicularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons rode I. From the institution of that Court of elders supposed in Exod. 24. Who were not those elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth Numb 11. For this was done at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt But on the 20 day Of the 2d Moneth in the 2d Year they tooke their journey from Sinai to the â—…dernes of Paran Numbr 10. 11 12. And there pitched when the Seventie elders were chosen to relieve Moses They were not the judges chosen by advyce of Iethro for he came not to Moses till the end of the first year or the begining of the Second after they came out of Egypt Nor could they be judges who judged befor he came for he observed that the burdine lay upon Moses alone So they must needs have been Ecclesiastick Rulers under the presidencie of Aarone and Hur. vers 14. Who were called up as the representatives of the Church of Israel after the Judicial lawes were given Chap. 22. 23. In this 24. Chapter there is a transition to the Ceremonial lawes concerning the worship of God and the Structur of the Tabernacle Deutr. 17. 8 9 10. All grant there a Supream Court of judges therfor also the text must be granted to hold forth a Supreme Ecclesiastick Court For it caryes the authority sentence of the priests as hie as the authority sentence of the judges that in adisjunctive way as Two distinct powers each binding respective in their oun proper Sphere 3. From these judges officers 1. Chr. 23. 4 26 29. Supposed set to their work when the Levits were divyded to there Charge who were not tyed to service attendances in the Temple but to judge give sentence concerning the law its meaning and this saith the text over Israel coming to them from any of the cities of the land 4. From Jehoshaphats reformation 2. Chron. 19. 8 10 11. Who restoring the government of the Church did sett in Ierusalem levits priests Chieff of the Fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord for controversies Here is 1. A Court of priests Levits with power of Suffrage thus consisting of Ecclesiastick membres 2. In Ecclesiastick matters Maters of the Lord distinct from Maters of the King 3. For ane Ecclesiastick end viz. to warne that they trespasse not not only against one another but against the Lord. 4. All causes of their Brethren that dwelt in the Cities were to come to them unto Jerusalem 5. They have Ane Ecclesiastick Moderator or president Amariah the chieff priest over them in all Maters of the Lord â—…istinct as is said from Maters of the King These many such Arguments are made use of by him others To clear this poynt of the Two distinct Sanhedrins which fully overthrowes this Erastian Confusion of these two powers governments 2. This fountaining of all Church power in the civil and denying of Church government in the hands of Church officers distinct from the Civil government is Cross to that distinction of the Gospel Church her government from that of the Civil power wich is clearly held out in the new Testament Wherin it is evident 1. That the visible Church is Christ the Mediator his visible kingdome as Mediator And so its Officers Lawes Censures falls with in the compasse of his Mediatorie appointment and inspection Matth. 16. 19. 28. 29. Joh. 18. 36. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. That the gospel Church was Compleated in her being essence both as to Rulers Ruled Members officers and in rules directions for the exercise of her government accordingly when no Magistrat was so much as a member of her 3 That in all the precepts anent the exercise of this power it is enjoyned to the Church to these Church officers as such with the same freedome independancy upon the Civil power as at the first without the least restriction limitation in case of the Magistrats becoming Christian All the grounds made use of in pressing the exercise of this power being moral perpetual respecting the Church her condition as a Church whither the Magistrat be friend or enemie In the 2d Place This Erastian prelatick mould of government brings in many grosse encroachments upon the liberties of the gospell Church As 1. Denying her liberty to exercise her power Key of Censure without the Magistrat Contrare to all the New Testament instances of the exercise therof with out him 2. Introduceing a dominion arbitrary power upon all her government Contrare to her liberty the very nature of her government which is a Ministerial Stewardship not a dominion for thus the Church is the proper object of the Magistrats dominion that being the Nature of his power Rom. 13. And the present prelatick Church ounes the Supreme Civil governoure as her Chieff Church officerer 3. Giving to the Magistrat qua talis for this power in Church matters is by Prelats and their adherents aknowledged to be a perpetual Croun-right the proper Sole decisive suffrage in all causes falling under Ecclesiastick cognisance for Prelatists onely meet to advise him in there Suprem Court or national Synod according to the forementioned Act. Now this Cutts off all Church judicatories ther decisive suffrage as Church judicatories which as is cleared above they did fully at first exercise of themselves without the Magistrat 4. This mould will make the Civil Magistrat the proper immediat subject of the Keys and Impartes all Church government to One who as such is not so much as a Church member and impowers him to give out this supposed fountaine power to no Church members or to here enemies at his pleasure As his Majesty gives to persons Civil the power of excomunication Yea it gives him a power by his oun proper clicite acts to dispense all her external government as the law terms it which if we look upon it as including all externall ordinances contradistinct from the internal government of the inward man the Church invisible will necessarely import include the exercise of both the Keys all the external dogmaticke diatactick Critick authority power intrusted to the Church representative Which is a meer
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
may merite for this from the Pope yet Royalists will allow him none If in a matter so plain and evident it were needfull to adduc testimonies of writers and commentators as this informer doth to no purpose how harmonious would their consent appear unto this truth The English Annot in their preface upon the book of judges will tell him that the judges were not ordinary Magistrats but extraordinarly called of God in times of great extremity c. And in their preface on the first book of Samuel they shew that it containes rhe History of the two last judges Eli and Samuel and of Saul the first King of Israel And upon that place Chap. 7 15 16. Anent Samuels judging of Israel notwithstanding of his being lent to the Lord from his birth 1 Chap. 28. They will Inform this informer thatas thiswas the jurisdictionof a judge whichGod called him unto all the time of saul so he was quo bound by his Mothers vow Chap. 1. Whereby he was devoted to the service of the sanctuary to continue his residence there both because God had forsaken it for the sins of the Priests and also because the Lord himselfhad taken him off from that levitical service and called him to another imployment namely to be a holy Prophet and a judge over his people which places he could not discharge if he had been confined to a settled place The du ch Annot in the argument of the book of judges describe them to be such persons not who administred the ordinary function of judges among the people as the Word is other where taken but whom God now and then as the state of Israel required sometimes out of on tribe sometimes out of another extraordinarly raised called and with his Spirit of wisdome and couradge endewed c. In the argument of the first book of Samuel they shew that therin is described the Government of Samuel as judge over Israel c So that until our Informer shall instruct the Prelats extraordinary call from God and also their extraordinary enduements for civil Government these instances of Eli and Samuel will not in the Judgment of these divines afford them the least shaddow of warrand for there civil offices So this man may be ashamed that he ever mentioned such an argument Finally That Hee is in the breers of a contradiction here is as is hinted evident in that to prove that Church men should not ofChoice medle inCivil affaires he gives this reason for no man that warreth intangleth himself with the affaires of this life 2. Tim. 2. 4. Now if this for or illative here signifie any thing and be not nonsense this He must be supposed to hold that this text forbids Church men all deliberat medling in Civil affaires But will He dare to say that Samuel and Eli their judging of Israel was not deliberat and of Choice Ergo It was sinfull by this rule Yet he pleads for its imitablenes as lawfull though a deliberat involving themselves in Civil government yea a Supreme rule and thus holds it not cross to this gospell precept So that to escape this Scylla or Charybdis He hath no imaginable refuge but one viz. To assert with us their extraordinarie Calling for what they did and that singular old Testament-dispensation under which they stood But then He must quit his plea for prelats civil Imployments from this Instance and confesse it to be inconcludent But for the new Testament times he tells us How much Bishops were employed in Civill affairs when Emperours became Christian as Smectymnuus confesses But 1. Since he pretends Scripture Instances under the old Testament his new Testament Instance is very apochryphal and heterogeneus therunto being of Bishops medling three or four hundered years after the Canon of the Scripture was closed Humano Capiti cervicem pingere equinam But his new Testament precept 2. Tim. 2. 4. Chased away the Instance of Bishops medling in civill affaires Three or four Hundred years forward Nixt I would know whither our Informer holds these Bishops medling in Secular affairs to be lawfull or unlawfull Iflawfull and consisting with their Calling which He would seem to insinuat in telling us that Saravia defends at large even simply and absolutly Church mens medling in state affaires Why then doth he tell us in the nixt page That the fathers compleaned of this as aburden Sure they were very froward to fret under a peece of lawfull imployment If it was unlawfull or a deliberat sinfull intanglement why obtruds he it upon us as a regular precedent And what will Smectymnuus acknowledgment of the factum import to infert His or Our acknowledgment of the jus He tells us likwayes That ancient Councells upon the ground mentioned 2. Tim. 2. 4. of a Ministers sinfull intanglement discharged them to follow Militarie imployments or to take ferms c. Hence I inferr then these Councels held that deliberat medling in state affaires â—…or worldly incumberances is inconsistent with a Ministers calling and a sinfull intanglement discharged in that text for since they discharged Militarie employments and ferms upon this ground they doe consequently discharge all such Intanglement For a quatenus ad omne c. This he cannot but grant And from hence I infer two things against him 1. He setts these Councils by the eares with his Scriptur instances For since they condemne these formentioned civil employments upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 4. As a sinful intanglement in a Church officer 3 he must either say that they condemned these old-Testament Instances of the Priests of Samuel and Eli as sinful Or else acknowledge that they held them with us to be extraordinary and no regular precedents 2. It will hence follow that these Councils doe condemne Saravia who he tells us doth at some length defind Church mens acting in State assaires And Saravia condemnes and disputs against these Councils and then it will be a pussing problem to him to which of them he will adhere in this contest since he holds with these councels upon that ground 2 Tim. 2 v. 4. the unlawfulness of Ministers deliberat involving themselves in civil affaires it seems be quites there great Advocat Saravia and all his pleading upon this point For he tells us of no limitation in Saravia his pleading for Ministers meddling in State affaires As for what followes in this page he obscures and shifts the point here inquestion in saying That it is hard to call it simply unlawful and in every case to medle in these things We know there is a lawful Concional medling also in way of Ministerial advice unto the Magistrat in order to the satisfaction of his conscience the Ministerial direction whereof is the Pastours work at whose mouth Gods mynd must be sought and likewayes by way of ministerial testimonie against what is sinful in state Rulers which is all that our principles do own as to Ministers interposing in state affaires in our late times but
comming mediatly from God but immediatly from men by a determination of the generall divine principle and ane application therof to particulares which they illustrat by that passage where Paul sayes to the rest speak I not the Lord applying Gods generall command anent divorce to the Corinthians particular case There are likewise mediat accidental commands deduced from Gods generall Rule upon rare transient occasiones yet necessitating to such a determination So the abstaining from blood and thinges strangled was enjoyned Act. 15. to the gentiles and as necessarie upon the ground of Charitie when the use grew scandalus although the law hereanent was abrogat as being originallie Ceremoniall Hence we may Inferr that this Informer in denying the necessitie of what is commanded only under some generall head Cutts of from the Categorie of things necessarie all the duties in the decalogue which are subserviant to the duties expressly named and thus destroyes the Spirituality and extent of the law acknowledged by all divines yea Cuts off all necessarie Scripture consequences and duties founded therupon as Ministers preaching the gospell administring the Seales Infant baptism womens receaving the Sacrament the Christian Sabbath c. But to come neerer him in the Nixt place I suppose this man will not deny That there are many things sufficiently discharged and consequently unlawfull by Scripture rule because theyare not commanded either mediatly or immediatly and that all ordinances of worship Sacraments and the substantialls of government also doe require clear divine commands and institutions by the acknowledgement of all protestant divines So that the not commanding of any part or supposed ingredient therof is a sufficient discharge discovering the thing superadded to be sinfull Not that which seems good unto thee shalt thoudoe to the Lord thy God but what He hath commanded thou shalt add nothing thereunto nor diminish from it adde thou not to his words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar In vaine they doe worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men See deut 4. 2. prov 30. 6. rev 22. 18. deut 12. 32. Isay. 29 13. These Scriptures do clearly fortifie this principle Otherwayes if he deny this He will open a door to all popish superstition yea deny the very definition of it assigned by all sound divines in calling it ane opposite extrem in the excess to true religion adding to Gods worship beyonde what is commanded Our Lord reprehended the pharisees their washing of hands befor dinner a decent ceremonie in it self as simply unlawfull when they made it a point of Religion Because it was beyond the command That text Isay. 29 13. In vaine they worhsip me teaching for doctrinés the commandements of men is applyed in this case unto them Our answer to the Papists demand Where finde we their bastardSacraments and other Superstitiones discharged is That they are discharged as sinfull in Gods worship because not commanded Should they rejoyne with this man that this will prove them to be not simpy necessarie but not unlawfull upon the ground which He alleages let him conjectur what his answer would be and correct himself For the substantials of government He cannot but grant that they fall under the same consideration It being most certain and universally acknowleged that the Scripture layes down rules as to the excercise of both Keyes of Order and jurisdiction the officers and censures of the Church Nay himself asserts page 118. That the substantials of government and policie of the Church are utterly necessarie and unalterable Now it being thus the Question is whither the diocesian Bishop or Episcopal government be among those things which must either have a clear Scripture institution or warrand or else is to be rejected as sinfull and unlawfull That the diocesian Bishop is such I prove it thus the Bishop which He pleads for is supposed by him to be a Church officer distinct from and Superior to a Pastour or presbyter haveing a distinct worke ordination and qualifications Therfore say I Hee must either have clear warrand or institution in the word or Hee is unlawfull The consequence leans upon these clear Scripture grounds 1. This officer cannot but fall in among the substantials of government wherin the Scripture is full and perfect as himself acknowleges So as to make even the man of God perfect It is full in setting down all administrations relating so the Key of order as prayer and thanksgiveing 1. Tim. 2. 1 2. 1. Cor. 14. 14 15. Singing of Psalmes preaching of the word publick reading of it and Cathechiseing falls within the compasse of Christs commands and regulations Collos. 3. 16. 1. Cor. 14. 15 16. Ephes. 5. 19. 2. Cor. 3. 14. Matth. 28. 19 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. Hebr. 6. 1 2. So doth the administration of Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper Matth. 28. 18 19. 1. Cor. 11. 23. And as these administrations of the Key of Order so all the administrations relating to the Key of jurisdiction or discipline falls under Christs clear institutions Such as Ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 4. 14. The dogmatick power as to Ministeriall judgeing of doctrine Act. 15. The critick power as to the publick rebuke and purging out of the Scandalous and receaving of the penitent Matth. 18. 15 16. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Compared with Matth. 16. 19. John 20. 21. So the diatactick power in relation to Ritualls and and alterable Circumstances is clearly asserted and rules laid downe anent its exercise 1 Cor. 14. And as the administrations ordinances and acts of Church government So the administratores officers yea and Courtes falls under clear Scripture warrands and institutiones Pastoures Doctores Elders Deacons their severall works the greater and lesser Church judicatories have their clear warrand 1. Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Act. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. Now let this Informer shew me a reasone of this distinctnes If not to point out all the substantialls of government and if it be lawfull to add any new officers or administrations or ordinances to these expressly warranted He dare not say but is unlawfull therfore say I upon the same ground that hee shall acknowledge this to be unlawfull this eminent officer the Bishop or Arch-Bishop must either produce his warrand and institution among the forementioned Rules or he must be holden unlawfull 2. The Scripture coming this length in the forementioned condescendencie in point of Church government as to Ordinances Officers Lawes Censures Courtes c it must needs amount to determin Some species of government and presbitery and Episcopacie being of contrary moulds it must needs appointe and authorize the One and discharge the other For all Church offices and officers have a positive institution 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath sett c. Ephes. 4. 11. God hath given c. Rom. 12. 6 7. The office not given is not a gift of grace And surely the command not to add to the word includes a command
was shortly to put off his Tabernacle 2. He enjoyns them to feed and take the oversight or exercise Episcopal authoritie over the flock as Paul did likewayes the Presbyters or elders of Ephesus in his last farewel Act. 20. a scrybing a compleat Episcopal authoritie to them both as to jurisdiction and ordination 3. Yet he discharges any of them to Lord it over Gods heritage commending instead thereof ane exemplarie humble service or ministery Hence wee inferr against the Diocesian Prelat 1 That there is no higher officer then a Presbyter left by the Apostles as their ordinary Successor since the Apostle as their follow Presbiter exhorts themas the highest ordinary officers and therfor the Prelat pretending to be ane higher ordinary officer is Apocriphal 2. All Episcopali authority is in Presbyters both as to ordination and Jurisdiction and they have both name and thing of a Scripture Bishop and therefore the Prelat arrogating this name solely to himself all the Episcopal power of ordinationand Jurisdiction as his solely and denying it to Presbyters is ane Anti-scripturall Monster Since these Presbyters had this in a compleat parity 3. Non of these Elders must exercise a masterly power and dominion over the flocks therefore the Lord Prelats imperious Lordly power is palpably condemned which he exercises over both Pastores and flocks Now this being our argument from this text let any man judge of this Informer ingenuity while representing it in such a disguise that he may seem able to grapple with it Whereas we shall find that his answers to his Argument presented thus in its genuine strength are like the conflict betwixt the giant and pigmee But what sayes he to the Argument as in his own mould 1. He answers That superiority among Churchmen is not discharged By Churchmen if he understand in General Church officers though the terme be some what odd we shall easily Admitt that this Text discharges not superior and inferior degrees among them but this will nothing help his cause as is evident If he mean superiority among preaching Presbyters or Elders we have proved it to be here discharged since the Apostle attributes episcopal Authority to these elders in common and discharges Lordly preheminenc in any of them Well what is it that our Informer will admitt to be here discharged domineering and Tyranny saith he which may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flocke This is the old popish song made new again to which I repon two things 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is parallel with that of Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. Where peter learned the prohibition and as is said imports indeed Dominion but no Tyrannical domineering it being made use of by the seventy interpreters to express Dominion unquestionably lawful 2. The positive parte of the precept refutes this gloss he sayes not Not Tyrannically domineering but using Dominion moderatly which ought to have been the other alternative branch if this mans gloss were true and the Apostle had allowed a lawfull Lordshipe but He adds for the other branch in expressing what is injoyned being examples to the slock Injoyneing thus to feed by example and a humble Ministery And this is opposit to all Dominion and Lordship whatsoever and doth not discriminat only one Dominion from another which is also apparent in the alternative branche and positive precept of the above mentioned paralel texts Besides we might here tell him That the Episcopal preheminence being so many wayes cross to the Scripture rules in pointe of Government may be truely called a most TyrannicalDomineereing But the reasons of his gloss follows He tells us That this domineering and Tyranny may be the fault of ane ordinary Minister towards his flock and that the Apostle is not here speaking of Church mens carriage towards one another or of their equality or inequality among themselves but of their behaviour towards the people who are called the flock or Gods heritage Ans. This is a strange reason and very hard to comprehend only Tyrannical domineereing must be understood because it relates only to the flock Can there not be a Tyrannical domineering over the Clergy also And because the Apostle forbids to Lord it over the flock therefore he forbids not Dominion over the Clergy The quit contrare conclusion will better follow If the Apostle forbids them to Lord it over the flocks who were subject to them as their spiritual guides therefore a fortiori he much more forbids them to Lord it over their fellow Presbyters who were their equalls in this Spiritual trust and Authority over the flocks And if it be unlawful to play the Domineering Prelat over one poor flock it must be much more unlawfull to Act this Tyranny over some Hundreds of both pastores and flocks So that Ministers or if he will Churchmens carriage towards one another must be here clearly pointed out by a very necessary consequence from the less to the greater and the equality of Ministers in their spiritual Government and Rule by he same topick strongly inferred from this place It strange that the Apostle should discharge to Lord it over the flocks and yer allow a Lordship over both Clergy and flocks But another wonder is how he comes to excludMinisters from that tittle of Gods heritage which his party from whom our Informer here proves a separatist do often make peculiar unto Church Rulers one would thinke that they should have a special Interest and share in that which grounds this denomination Are they not the Lords purchase as well as the people Act. 20. Nay they are in a singular manner such and Christs glorie Are they not such as he will never cast off and alienat Psal. 94 14. They are the starrs which Christ holds in his right hand nay as being singularly dedicat to him they are singularly his as the Levits had the Lord for their Inheritance in a speciall way So they were singularly his set aparte for him beyond all the rest of the tribes And are not Ministers taken from among the people for his Priests and Levits And called therefore men of God stewards of God Ministers Servants Ambassadoures of Christ because of their singular relation to him And as this is a strong disswasive from Lording over the people that they are Gods heritage who therefore most not be the servants of meâ—… So upon the ground of Ministers speciall interest in this denomination the Apostles argument as to them is the more forcible Againe since he so expresly forbids any of these Pastoures to Lord it over Gods Heritage enjoyning them a humble exemplary Ministery and far less to exercise a Lordly Rule over one another he establishes by clear consequence as I hinted ane equality among them in their pastoral official power and authority Withall the Apostle speaking to them indefinitely in this precept without the least exception and reserve as to any one of them and making their episcopal inspection relate to the
flock as this man himself pleads both these grounds hold out their equality among themselves and inferrs a discharge of inequality This Informers likewayes would remarke that the Spirit of God here commands Presbyters to act the Bishopes thus indentifying the Bishop and Prisbyter but without Lording it over Gods heritage the prohibition not to Lord it is remarkably joyned with the command to Act the Bishop And referring their office to the flock he must confess the Apostle acknowledged no Bishops whose inspection was over Pastours themselves Thus we see hisanswer to the Argument against Prelacy from this Text is contrare unto the scope and sense of the Words yea and inconsistent with it self CHAP. X. The Informers answers to our Argument from Act. 20. and from Tit. 1 5 7. Philip. 1 1. Ephes. 4 11. For the identitie of Bishop Presbyter win nowed the insufficiencie and inconsistencie thereof together with his begging of the question discovered and these texts at some length improven against him THE Doubter in the nixt place objects That in the new Testament Bishop and Presbyter signifie one and the same office bearer that in Act. 20 the elders in the 17. v. are called Bishops in the 28. v. So in Tit. 1 5 7. And therefor Bishop and elder are the same in Scriptur and the word elder signifies no more then a Minister of a particular Congregation Heer he touches a parte but not the strength of our argument from these texts We argue not meerly from the Samenes of the Names but the identitie of all the essentiales of the office Duties and Qualifications of the office bearer expressed by these names when applyed to ane ordinarie office bearer Particularly f. om Act. 20. We draw forth these weapons 1. The Apostle speaking to the elders tells them that the holy ghost had made them Bishopes over the flock shewing that the Scriptur Bishop set up by the holy ghost is the Minister or elder who feeds and rules over the flock 2. The Apostle gives them not only the Name of Bishop but also the thing commanding these elders or Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which takes in all the power of order and jurisdiction and whatever the Diocesian Bishop may pretend unto 3. Which is very remarbable he gives this Charge so these elders befor Timothy who was now present with the Apostle and after the first Epistle was written to him for it was writtin when Paul was at Macedonia and after this Paul haveing Timothy with him came to Miletum and gave the elders of Ephesus this charge Finallie This was Pauls last charge to them for they were never to see his face more So that we have here a pattern of the mould of the Gospel-Church in relation to Government as this great Apostle of the Gentiles left it and consequentlie as all the rest left it which is convinceingly apparent by comparing this with the parallel 1 Pet. 5. compared with 2 Pet. 1 14. Hence we exterminat the Diocefian Prelat thus 1. The Holy Ghosts Bishops were Ministers which he set up to feed and rule the flock immediatly These and these only the Apostle and the Apostolick Church knew therefore he dissownes the Prelat who pretends to be set over some hundreds of Pastoures and flocks and is bound to feed no flocke himself 2. These who watch over the flocks immediatly and only have all the Episcopal power both the key of doctrine and Government committed to them by the holy Ghost Therefore the Diocesian Prelat taking and arrogating to himself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction and leaving Presbyters nothing but the Doctrinal key as his deputies while he himself preaches to no flock is ane Antiscriptural Sacrilegious robber 3. The elders or Pastoures of Ephesus got all Episcopal authority as to order and jurisdiction committed to them by Paul as the Holy ghosts Bishops the highest ordinarie officers of that Church in the presence of Timothie without the least hint of any interest that Timothie had in or over them as their Bishope or Overseer therein or the least hint of any direction anent their dutie to Timothie as in that Capacitie and this after he had gotten all his directions in the 1. Epistle written to him And therefore Timothie was never set up as a Diocesian Prelat over that Church as this Informer would perswade and the inspection which he is supposed to have in that Epistle was occasional transient and extraordinarie and by conseguence layes no ground for Prelacie Finallie Paules directions here were his last and farewel directions therefore this Church was to continue thus governed by these elders or Bishops in common and the Prelatists Plea that the Apostles set up Presbyters at first keeping the reyns of Government in their own hands till towardes the end of their life and then sett up Prelats over these Presbyters is here convict of falshood since neither Paul nor Peter the great Apostle of the Gentiles or the great Apostle of the Circumcision doe in the least hint any such Super-institution but both of them in their last directions to the Churches commit the wholl power both of order and jurisdiction to the Pastoures of the flocks in common as the only Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost From 1 Tim. 1 5 7. The great Argument is not only from the promiscuouse use of the Name Bishop Presbyter but from the forme and mould of the Apostles reasoning which inferres not onely the identitie of names but of the office also For the Apostle shewing Titus how the elders are to be qualified gives this reasone for a Bishop must he blameles This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causal For expressing the knot and connexion of the Apostles argument or reason doth clearly Import that the office expressed by both these words is one and the same for there is neither sound matter or forme in such reasoning as this Presbiters must be so and so qualified because a Bishop of a Superior order and degree must be so qualified So that from hence it is evident that the elder is the Bishop vice versa and that no higher Bishopes were by the Apostles constitut in the Churches Here then as in the preceeding text we have not only Bishops and elders getting the same designation by the Holyghost who knew best the nature of the things themselves and how to express himself thereanent but likewayes the same qualifications work and office and so the office is supposed to be every way one and the same Now let us hear what he sayes to the argument He grants that the two words oftentimes doe point out one and the same officer but denyes that the officer meaned by these words is never understood above the degree of ane ordinarie Minister Or that the word Presbiter or elder signifies only the Minister of a single Congregation no more The insufficiencie and prevarication of which answer euidently appears
in the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 6 7 8 Is this That the Holy Ghost therein describing purposly the various kindes of Church officers and speaking of the office of the pastour makes no distinction of a higher and lower pastour nor gives the least hint of either Name or thing of a diocesian prelat although both ordinary and extraordinary officers be enumerat even the ruleing elder and the deacone from which silence of the Scriptur as to this imaginarie Bishop we conclud him to be no plant of the heavenly fathers planting by the same reason that our divines conclude the pope to be such To this our Informer answers 1. That it is ill reasoning that because such ane officer is not in such a particular place or enumeration that therefor he is no where to be found in scripture for how prove we that the Apostle intended in that place a cempleat enumeration Ans he is guilty of a palpable forgerie here whillmaking his Doubter instance in this place only as if we held that there is here a full enumeration wheras he cannot but know that presbyterians in this argument against prelats as also protestants in opposition to the papacie doe together with this passage joyn the parallels 1. Cor. 12 28. Rom. 12 16. In which places collated there is found a compleat enumeration of all Church officers ordinary or extraordinary and adiscoverie of their duties and gifts who are ordinary officers even of the very Deacon Lykwayes we take in with these Texts the several descriptions of ordinary officers and particularly of the Bishop his gifts and duties found in any other places of the new Testamament And since this Informer cannot deny the Apostles or rather the Spirit of God his intention of a full enumeration in these places Collated Such a full Catalogue of Church-officers being therein found our argument from the Scriptures utter silence of the Diocesian prelat in all these places stands firme by his own Confession until he shall disprove this silence and prove the Contrary 2. Wee might tell him also that upon his own ground even the Silence of this Text as to the Prelat will prove our point for it being upon the one hand the Apostles scop to enumerat the most illustrous excellent gifts and offices given by Christ to the Church for her grouth and edification as his royal Mediatorie Donations upon his ascention into heaven and upon the other hand the Apostle descending as low in his enumeration as the Pastor and teacher whom this man holds to be officers inferiour to the Diocesian Prelat Certainely upon both these grounds he would have mentioned him in order to this scope had such ane officer been allowed or apappointed And as for this Text it is enough if we prove that the Apostle intended therein though not a compleat enumeration of all yet of the most excellent functions and officers given by Christ to his Church amongst which the Diocesian Bishops office hath the prime place in this mans Judgement How then I pray can he be here ommitted and ane inferior officer named His 2d Answer is That Bishops are comprehended under pastoures and teachers Bishops being such though of a Superior degree to ordinary Pastoures Ans. first that Scripture Bishops are comprehended under the pastor and teacher is certan but that the Diocesian should be so is Impossible and by him gratis dictum For. 1. he cannot shew that in these enumerations the Superior officer gets the designation of the inferior now he holds the Diocesian Prelat to be ane office and order Superiour to the Pastor Nixt this were no proper enumeration as he acknowledges there is here of distinct officers offices if they had not all there proper distinct names and designations And since Apostles Evangelists Pastors are proper designations of distinct officers and offices why ought not the Diocesian Bishop to have had his proper epithet and to have come in between the Evangelist and the Pastor for this was his proper Classe as the higher Church officer Againe This answer and shift is the same with that of the Papists to save the pope for they answer our divines Argument from this Text that he is included in the office of the Apostle But as we tell them that according to there account and Character of him he ought to have had a more peculiar designation So we may say to this Informer here Besides may not Patriarches and all the rabble of the popes locusts have this pretended for them that they are included in some of these officers Sure we may in Charity suppose that if a Papist were pleading thus This man would tell him that it were no defence to shape out officers of their own devising then alledge they are included in some of these scripture designations which answer suites his own case Since he cannot make it appear that the Diocesian Bishop is appointed in Scripture And we have proved his office to be contrary unto it Lastly Hetels us That if we will have here ane perfect enumeration of all Church officers we must comprehend ruleing elders and deacons in some of these words and why may not he doe so with Bishops Ans. 1. We need not in order to our scope nor argument from this text alledge either a full enumeration of all officers or goe about to includ elder and Deacon under some of these words It being enough if wee con shew that the most eminent Church officers given for the Churches edification are here enumerat that the enumeration comes the length of ane officer inferior to the Prelat in this mans esteemâ—… down from ane Apostle which renders our Argument from this Text impregnable 2. If we should include the elder and Deacon in one of these words we should but include therein inferiour officers of divine appointment in the designation of Superior which he will acknowledge to be no unusual thing in Scripture But his including the Diocesian Bishop is both the including of a forged anti Scriptural officer of his own deviseing and likewayes if he includ him under the Pastor and teacher ane including and comprehending of a Superiour officer under the designation of ane inferiour both which differences doe cutt the sinnewes of Reason and answer CHAP. XII The Informer offers Scripture warrand for Bishops His Argument from the Government of the Church under the old Testament and from the Apostles superioritie to the seventie disciples examined The first Argument concludes a lawful subordination of Church-offiers in general but reaches no help to the Diocesian Erastian Bishop The second beggs the question in supposing Prelats to succeed the Apostles immediately and Pastoures the seventy disciples and from a Superiority among officers of different kindes groundlesly concludes a superiority among officers of the same kind No Image of our Prelacy in the Iewish-Church-Government or in the Apostles superioritie above other Church-officers The Informer contradicts his fellowpleaders in this cause
the legal type thus Every Hiepriest taken from among men c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacrifice in opposition to the legal he sayes in the 11 12. Ver. And every Priest simply not evrie High-priest standeth dayely ministering offering the Same sacrifices which can never take away sin but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument or excluded together with him the inferiour priestes upon the same ground For majus minus non variant speciem rei If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices but of their Government which was not typical Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground since these are as well distinguishable in him as in the inferiour Priests So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they And for his single eminencie it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits in his principles which are mentionedso that if the one must evanish as a Type in the same manner must the other 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause Tilen in his Parenes Cap. 2 in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice non typi solum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio conspicua In the highpriest the type is not only conspicuous but the reason of order for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath who otherwayes should haue had the dignitie both according to the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedeck that is both of a King and a priest Iunius a greater then he de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6. distinguishes these in the Highpriest in summo Sacerdote consideranda non solummodo ratio typi sed etiam ordinis politiae We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type but like wayes of order and policie c. then he addes the abovementioned reason So that in this argument and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church Which will be convincingly clear If we shal in the 4t place consider that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest as onely typical tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him and tels us in answer to the premised objection that this method of the Jewish government with this Chief or high priest distinct from the typical priest is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for moddeling the gospel-Church government So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation Moreover I would know what he would say If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds 1. As not being typical 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences and state of that people both as a Church under that old dispensation and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Lawes immediatly by God which no found divines doe call Typical and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Testament For a conclusion of this argument I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions at least in the judgment of some learned anent the Chief Priests 2. King 19 2. c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function these chiefness to speak so or principality among the priests being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established and that they were called Chief-priests or Elders of the priests did flow from this that this Trybe subject to the same Princes as at the first was afterward set apart for the priesthood for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie Exod. 6. had the Heads of their families their Princes The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply ascribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents But as a Tribe separat to holy things it had its peculiar policie One was chief priest onely by Gods appointment at whose hand all the rest of the priests were 1 Chron. 24 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites in their several services David in distributing them in their several Temple offices did not set the Princes over them as such but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families and by their lotts or Courses did assigne to them their service of the Temple upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe their comeing unto and returneing from the Temple The Chief of the families then are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie for there was but one onely high priest all the rest as well the heads as the families themselves were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord 1 Chron. 24 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred had no more power then the wholl body So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23 27 that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe neither had the two high priests mentioned Luc. 3. The least warrand in Gods institution but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in
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
4. Cap. 3. c. that is they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure they were set over the people no word of their being set over Ministers to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone and since as I said above a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence who were inferiour to any of the Apostles therefore their power in this was not episcopall 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone was not intrusted to any one officer such as Timothie But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders as is said before Timothies face in his last farewell Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches that it excluds Episcopale preheminence properly and formally such their power in ordination and jurisdiction cannot be prelatical nor ground ane argument for prelacie but such is the power of Timothie and Titus For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there as the officers of these Churches but the contrary appears in the text I befought the to abide at Ephesus and againe I left thee at Crete and to set in order things that are wanting which words point at ane occasional transient employment there not a fixed instalement 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours their power and authority ought to have been described and rules given touching the gifts Call ordination c. of the diocesian Bishop but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer in all his directions as to Church government 4. Add to this That Paul never calls Timothy or Titus Bishops though frequently making mention of them but Ministers Souldiers of Christ workmen the Churches messengers c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the I le of wight 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then havâ—…ig been at Macedonia with Paul he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul went after him and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum 17. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church And after this he is found either in journeys or absent from Ephesus Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome as that to the philippians Philip. 1. to philemon 1. 1. and to the colloss 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage he is sent for to Rome So Titus is found at Ierusalem befor he came to Crete Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. after this neer the time of paules death is found at Rome from whence he went not to Crete but unto Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture So that from their various journeys the order of them the time spent in them the nature of their employment which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ not a Bishop of Christ 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop but nothing else 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him he was but newly entered into the ministery 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop 3. He is commandes to intreat elders as Fathers 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery which could not be ane episcopall function 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. 7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus he sent Timothie into Achaia himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia and through it unto Asia accompanied with Timothy and others after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them as to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles Collos. 1. philip 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is altum silentium of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians his own supposed diocess 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie That as Timothie was sent
to confirme Instruct and Comfort other Churches as Philippi Troas So Paul writes to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end sent to Ephesus and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome whom the Apostle chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church sent to them as a faith full Minister who therefore lookes liker their Bishop then Timothie That the same is supposable of Titus is also apparent both in that he is called as Timothy not Bishop but Pauls fellow helper and that concerning the Corinthians not the Cretians and likewayes in that he is imployed to the church in corinth after he was left by Paul at crete as his fellow helper in that church 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis his stay is found very short at Crete so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia c. But the Doubter acknowledging Timothy and Titus their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete since they are taught how to ordaine them what qualifications are requisite how to proceed in their tryalls and censures alledges that this they had as evangelists companiones to the Apostles in their laboures and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers will be after examined when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopall power upon these grounds But to this exception of the Doubter he answers That this supposes them to be extraordinarie officers whose office was not to continue in the Church And the Doubter affirmeing this Because Timothy is called ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop To this our Informer Rejoynes That in a large sense he was ane Evangelist or a preacher of the gospell but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense can no mor be proved from that scripture then that he was a deacon Because the Apostle in that same place sayes fulfill thy deaconship as the Greek signifies Or that Philip was ane extraordinary evangelist because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospell but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church And Finallie He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no worke of ane Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the gospell Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture Timothies Evangelistick office wee see is a gripping argument which our Informer would faine Elude but with what success shall presently appear He grantes he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher but not in the strict sense but what that strict sense is in which he denyes Timothy to be ane Evangelist he doth not clear and so his strict sense is left without sense and his distinction must flie with one wing He knew that his assigneing ane explication of his strict sense would have so palpably included Timothy that his evasion would be presently shut up therefore he left the other branch of his distinction a meer mute under the clouds and gives us a distinction which stands upon one leg 2. If he will take Eusebius sense Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. oâ—… 37. with some he will tell him that this title is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospel in which sence we grant that none of them were Evangelists or such as taught the Gospel and these againe were either such as had ordinary places or gifts or whose plaees and giftes were extraordinary that is who were not settled upon any one charge but were Apostolorum vice having a vicarius care of all the Churches as the Apostles had the principal care The Evangelists as Ambrose phrases it did Evangelizar sine Cathedra or preached without a fixed charge Here by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistant subtilty may I call it so of Saravia de divers grand minist cap. 6. who in answer to Beza pleading that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached but to the Apostles temporary coadjutors in watring the Churches not yet fully constitut c. tells him that Apostolus nunquam Timotheum Euangelistae nomine compellat That the Apostle no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immediatly addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo quem Paulus Evangelistae â—…pus sacere jubet I deny not the name of Evangelist to Timothy whom the Apostle bides do the work of ane Evangelist If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him or deny him the title and the peculiar office therein imported Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extraordinary office mentioned Ephes. 4. Now that Timothy was such ane Evangelist is already fully proved and by consequence that the objection stands untouched and unanswered by him viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinarie officer and not to continue and therefore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church layes no foundation of Prelacie For he sayes nothing to this consequence but admitts it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense and ane extraordinary officer Cartwright answering the Rhemises upon this place takes it in the strict sense mentioned telling the Jesuites that Paules calling Timothy once ane Evangelist hath more pith in it then all denominations of Pishop that others can give him 3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported viz That he might be as well called a Deacon as being enjoyned to fulfull his Miuistery or Deaconship in the Greek is very poor For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holdes out such ane office as that of Evangelist specifically distinct fromother offices Ephes. 4. as this man acknowledges and it being equally certain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and dutie proper andpeculiar therunto and likewayes that the office layes ane obligation upon the person who carryes it to perform the duties thereof And Finallie Jt being evidently the Apostles Scope from the consideration of the office to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto its destrable by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station office which we have proved he sustained thereforit cannot be understood of a general Ministery or service Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is do thework of a parent do the work of a Master do the work of a Pastour
gratis asserted and worse proved Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function then expired because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still Then he adds Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos doctores medii erant munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent nec praeficerentur certae Stationi That is Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles and Doctours had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist Because Ephes. 4. the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem was onely temporall And for some time there exercised by him and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist In which words wee see 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken Eph. 4. 3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours and in this distinct from them in the judgement of this great divine that they were fixed to no certan charge as they but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy Lastlie Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist but preaching and spreading the Gospell 1. I urge him thus if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches as is cleared above Whence it followes by his own Confession 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased for he affirmes that the office of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him is frivolous and vaine For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat these being according to his pleading inconsistent But nixt the wonder is how this man comes to divide preaching and spreading of the gospell from the power of ordination jurisdiction since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these and affirms that their office was episcopal as we heard above And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles and by Ierom from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria Then it seems this power in ordination wherein with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell The Apostles unfixed preaching spreading of the gospell sure he will not deny nor can he deny to marke the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine so that both are with him compatible Thus we see in withstanding the truth hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones The Doubter excepts aganist his reason That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist To which he answers That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists I answer 1. We have showen already That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist 2. Supposing he were yet the Informers answer and parallel is naught For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office holding still ane inferiour which is eminenter included in it as he will grant but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer to ane ordinary inferiour 2. As ane Evangilist properly so called his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly as a Bishop his work he will say was ordination and jurisdiction which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible Besides in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Evangelistick office he is contradicted by Saravia who in many places mantaines the contrary degrad cap. 1. and Cap. 16. and cap. 23 And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate that it may appear what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are Upon that passage Matth. 20 I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple and plainely speakes out what he but mutters exam tract de episc tripl quest 1. pag 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke he adds Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum non potius docuisse quid eum deceat qui in Ecclesia primus princeps futurus erat c that is From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality and did not rather teach what becomes him who was to be first and Prince in the Church and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage any may judge The Informers holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles although he is not consistent with himself in this as is already observed but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them That the Bishops saluted with
the deacons Phil 1. were meer Presbyters he is forced to acknowledge and so condemnes our Informers shifts about Extraneus Bishops accidently there or with the Apostle himself or that the Diocesian is included in the word Bishop in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis diaconis unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros diacâ—…nos c. de Grad Cap 8. In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones hence as we are given to understand that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons c. Again the Informer layes aside the Highpreist as a type of Christ when he pleads for prelacie from the Jewish Church-government But in this Saravia gives him the lie for t He holds the inferiour priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest And 2. That the Government whether of the inferiour or high priests is not abolished as typical de honor praes prysb deb cap 10 de Divers grad Miniser cap 14. Besides the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2 4. Commandes Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from publik civil imployments and not intangle themselves therein But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture unto the endeavours which belonges to the nourishment and mantainance of this life and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchmens holding of publick state imployments under Princes He minces not the matter as this man Vitae negotia saith he sunt ea quibus quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent comparantur non quae sunt principis aut civitatis publica And de â—…on praesul Presbit deb he praefixes this title unto Cap 26. As that which he undertakes to prove Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino Iesu fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest That the same man may perform his duety to Christ as a Bishop and attend the Church and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal c. The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops because they were not settled at these places especially Timothy had he been Bishop at Ephesus he had been fixed to his charge but he was left only there upon occasional imployment and for a season 1 Tim. 1 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons usefull for the Apostle at that time and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it Philip. 2 19 20 2 Cor. 8 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it To which I rejoyne 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question viz That Timothie and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches But the ground of the exception is That because their occasionall transient Imployment in these places is so clear expresse therefor they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted and attend their planetarie motion from Church to Church So that they cannot be in their worke and duty paralleled to a Pastours transient Imployment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good whose fixed charge is supposed But we have proved that Timothie and Titus their ordinarie Imployment was this transient and unfixed Ministery which is clearly holden out in scriptur both befor and after their officiating in these Churches 2 It is also cleared above that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches againe after Pauls recaling them from the same and after their transient Imployment therein So we have made it likewayes appear that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete And that in Ephesus elders were called Bishops and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothie committed to them in paules last farewell In a word it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges did so travell up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done Againe he tâ—…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists then made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete Ans. If he think so too he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacie from these Epistles for Paul calls Timothy to doe the worke of ane Evangelist here and Titus worke was the same And he must understand this in the strict sense if he offet Gerards exception to any purpose which according to him secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epistle which hath nothing to doe with ordination and iurisdiction he was not yet made a Bishop and if not yet it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture since he was in perpetual evangilistick Imployments and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus he would not have called the elders of Ephesus Bishopes befor Timothy in his last farewell We heard Saravia plead that Paul intitles not Timothy an Evangelist non compellat nomine Evangelistae how did he not see that that Paul numquam compellat nomine episcopi never puts upon Timothy or Titus the title or name of a Bishope neither in the inscriptiones of the Epistles writen to them nor in any place of these Epistles or else where in scripture nor injoynes any of them to do the work of Bishop As he injoynes one of them expresly to do the work of ane Evangelist And since the Apostle disertis verbis in 〈◊〉 these elders of Ephesus Bishops and to use Saravia's phrase compellat nomine Episcoporum and that with the signal emphasis of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost his reason from epiâ—…hets and compellations will the more strongely evinc them to be such 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist and derogatorie to his high function to make him a Bishop The Councel of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter such must he acknowledge this degrading to be and therefore that being once Evangelists of necessity they behoved to continue so Next the Doubter objects what we have been saying that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge not to Timothy which he would not have done had he been Bishop since it is probable he was present at this time for v. 4. He was in Pauls companie Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument least it prick him omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context 1. That this was Pauls last and farewell exhortation 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy and not
use in after ages But are they therefore to be imitated and retained What will he say to the Papists pleading for the anoinâ—… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept let the elders anoint the sicke with oile and pary this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers viz to elders and joyned with with prayer a constant standing dutie and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles What must we therefore retean anointing would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie and a temporarie concomitant and appendix Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching both as to its extent its confirmation by miracles their gifts of tongues and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral but the modusrei is extraordinary in so farr as their Evangelistik authority and special legation interposed therein He must either acquiesc in this and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril or he will contradict what he said before anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges which are gone with them viz infaillibilitie their immediat call sending to all nations and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church Now is not that which was thus necessary of perpetual use Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them of perpetuall use And their most extraordinary Acts if we mean it of improvement Nay did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God and ordinances from the Jewes Must we therefore Judaize 2. How will he prove that the asserting that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act will give ground to say that the Act it self is extraordinary or the ordinance touched by that Act expyred Will his asserting that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased in their preaching unfixedly by ane immediat call and confirming their doctrine with miracles and strange tongues give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also I trow he will not grant this How then will our asserting that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination and jurisdiction infer that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction or these ordinances themselves are expired can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self and the different subject and manner of its exercise ordinary or extraordinary can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels and diverslie exercised Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power of both ordination and jurisdiction and both the keyes But I trow he asserts that there are different recipients who bring down ane ordinary power by succession Some Prelats forsooth have the key of Governmant others viz Presbyters have preaching for their work but no rule properly And sayes he not that the extensive authority in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry is gone and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world who succeed them not into the same office let this Informer shew me why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction be deryved by and seatted in a Presbytery though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary and as such not succeeded unto The service and worke of teaching and governing to continue in all times doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission ordinarie nor infer their being succeded in idem officium eundem gradum the ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers by a new warrand and commission according to the Scripture rules of ordination The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were recommitted to the Elders of Israel and so the case is here The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission necessary as that of the Apostles for the first founding of the Churches and watering and building them up in their organick being for settling all their ordinary officers is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination jurisdiction which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised and even in this of Ephesus His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops is Because their commission at Ephesus Crete was nâ—…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places therefore their office was to be constant since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained but they did not so â—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city if some few ordained might ordain the rest Ans. 1. This is a poor argument and hath no twist of a connexion their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers ergo they were not extraordinary officers but had a standing Episcopacie there which is a meer rope of sand The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled Ergo they had no extraordinary inspection office or commission towards all these Churches What consequence is here So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired though they were never so much settled but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches and bring Apostolick instructions to them and reports from them anent their case We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office and commission towards many other Churches after their return from these of Ephesus Crete so that their commission towards these or other Churches could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin then their office Besid this Informer should advert that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers and supposing some already settled 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops over these severall Churches where they might reside some time and have Imployment therin even after they had officers of their own did they not visite and water many other Churches were they therefore their Bishops if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches after they were Bishops here exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them 3. Their Evangelistik inspection direction and assistence even after
these in 1 Tim. 3 1. And anent ordination by the hands of the Presbytery surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions and doe palpably exclude Timothyâ—…s standing Episcopacy So that he did not well to raise this Ghost Next ane Apostolical example for the good of the Church is not that which they hold to have the force of a rule as the Informer belies them but ane example in things necessary for the good of the Church And as this so the next citation out of that book burnes his fingers For the authores having cited 2. Tim. 2 2 In order to their scope of pleading for ordination as a perpetuall standing ordinance Timothy being in that place enjoyned to commit those things which he had heard from Paul to faithfull men who shall be able to teach oâ—…hers They infer 1. A necessity of setting apart some to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The qualifications of such viz they must be faithfull men and able to teach 3. That Timothy is enjoyned to committ what he had heard to faithful men which they understand of ordination of ministers that there might be a perpetuall succession of teachers And comparing it with the former citation it appears that they hold these precepts to import the deryvation of the ordinary power of teaching and Government to ordinary Ministers And when the Anti-Ministeriall party object that these are but examples which doe not amount to make up a rule they give this answer that Apostolick examples in things necessary for the Church and which have a perpetuall reason and equity in them have the force of a rule now this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power of ordination and jurisdiction to faithfull Ministers and teachers which quit justles out the prelatical power For since they hold Timothy's singular way in this as ane Evangelist was to cease which they must needs doe upon the forementioned ground the Presbyterial and the singular power being inconsistent in the same subject they must needs place this Evangelistick power among these examples which doe not obleidge and it is ordination it self and its continuance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they expresly plead for as the Apostolick example which hath a perpetual reason and equity and the force of a rule not Timothies singular power herin which they hold to be expired So that the Informers assumption viz That Timothies Evangelistick Inspection by the Apostles apointment over this Church as also that of Titus is such ane exemple as hath a perpetuall reason and equity in it He might have found to be rejected by these divines had he read that peece attentivly as no way following from yea contrare unto their assertion and it is still left at hâ—…s door to prove and make good His Last Reason to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and Tâ—…us is taken from Testimonies That Polycrates and Eusebius affirme Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus That Leontius Bish os Magnesià in the generall Council of Calcedem Act 11. points out a Series of Tuentie Seven Bishops in Ephesus from Timothy c Ans Since the scriptures doe clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangilistâ—…k function and there is nothing therein which can in the least infer his having ane ordinary episcopall power The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivolous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz to argue from The singularity of ane extraordinary officer to the Singularity of ane ordinary perpetuall officer in Church government which will as well set up upon the ground of the Apostles universall inspection patriarchs or popes as prelats Surely the improper styles and designations which the Ancients put upon Timothy or Titus who spoke in the language of their owne times is a very insignificant proof to Counter ballance Scripture light in this mater Tertullians saying cited by park l 2. C 7. is here remarkable Si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis c that is truest which is first that is first which is from the beginning that is from the beginning which is from the Apostles Their opinions who call them Bishops are for most part borrowed from Eusebius of whose hallucinations Scaliger gives large prooses and yet all that he sayes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported and this report he had from a fabulus Clemens The ancients likewayes call the Apostles themselves Bishops peter of Rome James of Jerusalem Yea Theodoret Calls Timothy and Titus Apostles of Asia and crete which the Informer will not justifie Yea some call them Motropolitanes Arch Bishops patriarchs and this because saith Walo Messalinus they did these Acts which afterward by human Custome were appropriat to Bishops which saith he they did as Evangelists as one of them is expressly called As for jerom it is certain that he both mantaines and proves the Bishop and elder to be one in Scripture when disputing that point in his Commentar upon Titus and therefore when at any time he gives these evangelists such appellations he doth it allusively and improperly according to the degenerat custome of his time As for the Catalogues of Bishops from Scriptur times they are found to terminat upon Apostles or Evangelists as that of Ierusalem comes up to Iames the Apostle that of Antioch to peter So that of Rome to peter and Paul that of Alexandria unto mark c Now they were not ordinary officers nor succeeded in eundum gradum And besid there are ecclesiastick customes traced up by some to the Apostolick tymes which not with standing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointment Some first Bishops were but primi presbiteri as we shall after shew How lost they the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which their first founders had in so short a time This sole power in ordination and jurisdiction which our prelats now acclaime and this man pleads for will not be found till Three hundred years after Christ if at all then The gross mistak of many ancients in their constituting of Bishops appears in this instance That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bishop of Rome and to have continued Bishop there for many years Yet Marsilius patavinus pars 2. c 16. Carolus Molinaeus Scen Consult franc contr abusus c Paparum proves by scripture and reason that peter was never at Rome In a word the ancients call them â—…shops as likwayes Apostles such not properly saith Bucer de Gub Eccles p. 432. So fox Act mon p. 11465 but in a large or general appellation because they first preached the gospel to these Churches and to this end To prove a perpetuall succession of sound preachers and sound doctrine in those particular Churches from the Apostles tyme to their own nameing the eminentest Ministers for parts and gifts the Bishops of these Churches which Method scope of Catalogues appears by Irenaeus Tertullian cited by
at Timothies ordination for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly But did any of them lay on hands Besyds we might here tell him that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbytery doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word presbyter Imports ane officer cloathed with authority so that this Court of elders must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination His Last Exception is That upon our supposition That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince that though Major Singulis greater then every single person yet he is Minor universis lesse then the whol body so it may be said that though Timothy as ane Evangelist were superiour to any meer elder yet ane eldership the juridical Court the Church representative might be above him if at least such a superiority was here necessary else let him say whither the Prophets at Antioch were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul and Barnabas and send them out upon a gospel legation Himself is bound to answer this whither these Inferiour officers in that act were greater then he yea or not and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless and lay hands upon ane Apostle And when he hath cleared this he will easily exped our difficulty in this point 2. Though it were granted that a presbytery consisting of meer ordinary officers could not ordain ane Evangelist yet I hope he will grant that a presbytery where such a one as paul was might doe it who as ane Apostle might ordaine alone If he say what is then become of our presbyterial ordination which we draw from this text I answer it is much confirmed but not weakened by what is said for if the Apostle Paul took along in this high Act the ordination even of ane Evangelist the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained were denied he would be more puzeled to make it good then he Imagines Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority as a learned man distinguishes here God and Christ alone ordaining thus whose servants and Ministers both the ordained and ordainers are Ephes. 4 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9 37 38. 2 Cor 4 5. 1 Cor. 3 5. 21 22. Act. 13 1 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh will make him greater then Pharaoh the peoples blessing of Solomon greater then Solomon The Kings Acturney saith he who drawes the noble-man or officer of state His patent and commission is not greater then hee But the King who is the original of temporall honour So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it but Christ only is the original proper ordainer As for that text Hebr. 7 7. He sayes iâ—… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power 2. Admitting that the ordainers behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut yet it will not necessarly follow that they must be still greater after the ordination is past finished the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves have Hee instances Matthias and Paul who were inferiour to the Apostles before they were called and ordained But being called they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power dignity degree c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances if intending to Press it As the armie Creats the Emperor which of the two is greater Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan the Council of Cardinals a pope c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto hâ—…s next Argument CHAP. XI The Informers pleadings for Prelacy from the seven Asian Angels discussed That the stile of Prophetick writinges and of this book doe strongely conclud a collective sence of the term Angel fully proved The admitting the Angel to be a single person will not help the Informer his reasonings from the pretended Catalogues of succeeding Bishopes in these Churches frivolous and vain as also his new Argument taken from diotrephes's love of preeminence wherein he imbraces Bellarmins evasiones and offers violence to this and parallel Texts OUR Informers next great Argument for Prelacy is taken from the seven Asian Angels Revel 23. Whom he holds to be Diocesian Bishops Because though there were many Ministers at Ephesus Act. 20. Yet when that Church long after this is written to and when increased there is but one Angel addressed and commended or blamed according to what was well or amisse in the Church And in all the rest whatever is commended or discommended is directed to one Angel who by his place and authority was mainely concerned therein Ans This man if he had been so ingenuous and seen in this debate as he would appear might have found all this and much more then he hath offered fully removed and answered by many Godly learned But they must still tell over and over their old baffled arguments to which satisfying answers have bein often returned But to the point the weaknes of this proofe is many wayes evident 1. It is grounded upon a Misterious Metaphorick terme of Angel and starrs Revel 1 20. the mistery of the Sevenstarrs so must the expression of Angel be likwayes a part of this mistery The Maxim is known â—…heologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Far less can this be rationally opposed unto so many pregnant clear scriptures as are produced for Presbyterian Government Besides that the word Bishop is no where in Johns writings made use of who calls himself a Presbyter and never mentions superiority of one Presbyter over another but in condemneing Diotrephes He calls Christ the word and the Sabbath the Lords day these are expressions not found before in Scripture Surely he should have made mention of a new office as well as of a new phrase had any such thing as a Bishop been allowed by him Besides the Metaphorical terms of Starrs or Angels doe import the qualities of light heavenlines of frame c which are proper and suiteble to all Ministers of the Gospel and therefore they cannot ground the peculiar preheminence of a Bishop over many Ministers 2. The great topick of
his argument is that one is named though many are spoken to and where many Presbyters are supposed to be as at Ephesus who threfore must needs be a Bishop but this ground will not hold good Because 1. This is no more then what is suitable unto the stile of this book which is by mistick visional representations to include many individuals as one singular So all the individuals of the Church both members and officers are represented by one candlestick and why not also all the Ministers by one angel which is a terme that of it self and in this place imports no jurisdiction properly but is immediatly referred to the qualities of Ministers above expressed 2. This is also suitable to the stile of this book as it is epistolar the addresse may be to one but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest no more then ane addresse from the King to a speaker of the Parliament will give to that person jurisdiction and authority over them Or then our Lords saying to Peter only expressly not to the rest of his fellow disciples I will give unto thee the keyes c. Will conclude that he was Prince or primat over the Apostles and that they had not equal authority with him in the use of the keyes Our Informer and his fellows here doe justifie the Papists pleading for the Pope 3. This is suitable unto Scripture prophetick writings and to this book as such to represent many individuals by one singular The four beasts and twentie four Elders are not four individuall persons or twentie four single Elders The singular names of Woman Beast Whoor Dragon signifie a collection of many individuales So the one Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits in the 1 Chap With reference to his manifold operations Dan. 8 20. One Ram signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians He that will not hearken to the Priest Deutr. 17 12. That is the Priests in the plurall So the Priests lips should keep knowledge and the Law is to be sought at his mouth Mal. 2 7. That is the Priests Blessed is that servant whom his Lord c. that is those servants Particularly as to this term Angel It is said Psal. 34. That the Angel of the Lord encamps about the Godly that is many Angels 4. It is suitable to Scripture and to this book To represent ane indefinet number by a definit Thus all Judas Adversaries are represented by the four hoâ—…es Zachr 1 18. All the Godly and the ungodly are represented by the five wise and the five foolish Virgines Matth. 25. and in the 8. Chap of this book The Seven Angels standing befor God represent all the Angels Foâ—… in the 7 Chap Mention is made of all the Angels who doe thus stand So we are to understand with the same indefinitnes ofttimes the Septenary number as the Seven pillars which wisdom hewes out Prov. 2. The seven Pastours or shepherds Mic. 5. The Seven eyes Zachr 3. And in this very book the Seven condlesticks Lamps and vials Revel 4 5 15 5. As wee find the scripture and this same Apostle first naming a multitud and then contracting it into a singular as 2 Joh. 2. many deceavers are come into the world then this is a deceaver and ane Antichrist And sometimes the individual in one sentence turned into a multitud as 1. Tim. 2 15 Shee shall be saved that is the woman bearing Children if they abide in faith and Charity that is such women in General as Beza tells us all writers doe take it So it is as certain that this single Angel is turned into many in one and the same Epistle in this book and spoken to in the plural as when it is said Revel 2. 24. to you and to the rest in Thyatira and in Revel 2 10. we find John changing in one sentence the singular Angel into a multitude fear none of these things which thow shal suffer Behold the devil shal cast some of you into prison that yee may be tryed c. as in 2 â—…oh 2 He changes many into One Finaly Wee have proved that the Scripture allowes of no Angels Standing-Church officers or Bishops above the Pastours or Presbyters who have in Scripture the whol Episcopall power given them So that whatever this Informer shall produce as the Characteristick of this Angel we find it applicable to Presbyters 1. Is it the work of this Angel to preach and baptize This Commission he will grant belongs to all Pastours 2. Is it the power of ordination The Scripture shewes us that this is Seated in a Presbytery 1. Tim. 4 14. with Act. 22 5. Luk. 22 66. Matth. 18 17. Or 3. Is it the ruling Governeing power Surely all Ministers are such Angels All that watch for the peoples soules have a joynt rule over them Hebr. 13. 17. And therefor none can challenge it solely to himself In the Church of Thessalonica the laboures in the word and doctrine joytlie and indiscriminatim fed joyntlie censured and admonished and were joyntly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rulers to whom consequently the people were indiscriminatim or with out any difference of one of them from another to submitt themselves 1 Thess. 5. 12. There was therefore no sole Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruler but this Prostasia or ruleing power was in many So was it with the Church of Ephesus Act. 20. So with these elders or Bishops 1. Pet 5. And we offer to this or any mans serious thoughts whither it be suiteable to divine rules to cross so many clear Scriptures upon the ground of a metaphorial mistick expression and to expone them in that sense rather then to explaine the Metaphor and mistick expression by plaine Scriptures And whiâ—…her it be not more suiteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus of the Ministers to whom in a plaine Scripture the whole Government is found intrusted rather then to expound that plaine text Act. 20 by a Metaphor and contrary to that plain text to set up one Angel or Diocesian Bishop over that Church with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction But the Doubter objects what have been saying viz That the Angel is to be taken collectively and not for one single person but for all the Ministers To which in a peece of petulant folly he Answers That he hath oft wondered at this reply that it seems this Scripture pinches us sore when we flie to such a shift That Scultetus a learned Protestant affirms that the most learned interpreters understand the Angel thus and that without offering violence to the Text it cannot be otherwayes understood Ans. 1. We hope is evident from what is said that the most native scriptural acception is to take the Angel collectively To which we may adde that although the Lord Jesus the best interpreter of these Angels doth expound the Seven candlsticks to be the Seven Churches yet in expounding the Seven Starrs he losses the number of
Apostolick tradition it receaves the same answer with what is said as to his calling Apostles Bishops For with Ierome Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one as that instance clears anent the observation of lent which he calls Apostolica traditio or Apostolick tradition writing to Marcellus and yet writing against the Luciferians he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo oâ—… a Custom of the Church therefore by Apostolick tradition he meaned not Apostolick appointment for this were ane implicantia in terminus a flat contradiction since he denyes this to these Bishops but only Ecclesiastick Custom upon which he sayes their office was founded The Informers 2d Answer o this exception is with Davenant That by truâ—…h of divine appointinent Ierom meaned Christs express command by Custom the Apostles practise begun by them and after continued For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given anent Ieroms making Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custome all one Hence he thus senses the words That Bishops were brought into the Church not by Christs express command but by a Custom introduced by the Apostles into the Church and continued in their Successors Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles as if they taught one thing and practised another for Ierome proves from their writings that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters what Harmony makes this 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command in relation to government as if it were altered and opon his government Apostolick in saying that it was the ground of schismes How will this man guard against this which he imputed to us before 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse observed by learned Iunius and others to clear his words 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time 2. Scismes arising 3. Paulatim and postea in process of time and by degrees a new mould of government projected and immutata ratio the order changed as Ambrose saith to the same purpose Now this glosse of his words will make the Apostolick government and practise not only the rise of scismes but to be Changed for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue the answer contradicts it self as well as Ierome As for the instance adduced it cannot quadrat here in this place when Ierom opposes thâ—… consuetudo or Custom unto disposition of divine truth for the Apostles practise seconded by their Doctrin as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy is most formaly a divine appointment and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason be apposed unto a divine appointment as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo or Custom In Fine How wil Davenant or he separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites Act. 20. for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government viz That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops not noticing Timothy in the thing How will hee I say distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued So that here was in Ieroms sense a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle a practice founding that Government and to be continued so But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right as in many other his writings in relation to prelacy Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned the clearest account of his judgement in this mater since he is disputing this point ex professo doe evince the contrary his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism Ans. Ierom onely Narrats rem Gestam or the mater of fact viz. The ground that moved to bring them in but gives not his approbation of it Besides the Informer would take home his own argument here and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government and contradict himself in approving of a government as a remedy of schism which he disputs against from Scripture His 3d. Note is That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wiâ—…h the visible Church in his time tainted with this Corruption and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest and in so far the most considerable part â—…f Minsters and professoâ—…s in this Church heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding parâ—…y introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme as we have alteady told him and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease Before â—…e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius bear any conclusion against us he must prove that the prelatick party are the onely visible organick Church of Scotland else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him for breaking down the wall of Gods house and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue CHAP. XIII The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent ALthough this Informer would make the world believe that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde 1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita during life And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground is Beza's Episcopus humanus or human Bishop whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment Ambrose in his time acknowledges on 1 Tim. 3. That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop So he holds
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
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.
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
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
he adds that it is irrationall to say we are bound to it in the sense of the Church and State of Scotland because they were but a part of the Imposers and the least Part. Ans. I told him already that in relation to the engadgers in Scotland they were the proper imposers the authority of the respective rulers of both nations in relation to their own subjects being first and immediately to be lookt unto and their sense scope therein to be mainly eyed and each Nation being properly and immediatly judges as to their own national end in this stipulation Thinks this man that the then representatives of Church and State did eye any other end as to Scotland then the preservation of the reformation in Doctrine Discipline Worship and Government as at that time therein establisht Moreover the sense and scope of the article it self being convincingly inclusive of Presbyterian Government it can admit of no other glosse without manifest distortion and frustration of the imposers designe therein Next he tells us that suppose Presbytery were meant in the 1 Article yet the 2d will admitt some episcopacie What poor stuffe is this Suppose the Article of extirpation relating only to England and Ireland would comport with some episcopacie which the Informer hath not yet proved what hath that to do with Scotland Or how can that enervate our engadgement to preserve the reformation as then establisht in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Because in relation to the extirpating of Englands Prelacy after the reformation in Scotland is compleated and sworn to we are to bear with the English Church in some remaines of Prelacy till God give further light must we therfor be oblidged or allowed according to the sense and scope of this Oath to corrupt or raze the Fabrick of that establisht reformation and bring in again prelacy into that Church out of which it had been totally eradicate Nay this is too dull inadvertancie As for what he adds that Presbytery is not inconsistent with any kinde of prelacie I answer that the presbytery establisht and sworn to be maintained in Scotland is and Beza is so farre from disowning this that as we heard he exhorteth John Knox to keep that Church and house of God clean of prelacy as he loved the simplicity of the Gospel CHAP. IV. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined at large As also his reasoning upon Numb 30. Wherein his begging of the question his contradicting of Dr Sanderson and other Casuists and manifold inconsistencies are made appear OUR Informer having spent his Master pieces and the cheife products of his invention or rather of those who have gone before him upon this difficult task of reconciling the Covenant to Prelacy doth next as a liberall bold disputer undertake to loose the Covenant even upon supposall of its pre-existent obligation against it And therefore making his Doubter tell him that he bears off the acknowledgement of anyobligation against episcopacie either in the national or solemne league lest he fall under the charge of perjurie In answer to this he will suppose that episcopacy is abjured in both Covenants and yet undertake to defend that they arenot perjured who now submit to prelacie The Doubter thinks this strange Doctrine and so do I. Because to swear against episcopacie and yet acknowledge it is to do contrary to their Oath To this doubt he returns a large resolution but still follows up the Seasonable case closs for fear of miscarrying And first he begins with a threefold partition either prelacy saith he is an unalterable necessary Government of divine or Apostolick warrand or it is sinfull and contrary to the Apostolick Government or thirdly of a middle nature neither commanded nor forbidden but left to Christian prudence as found expedient to be used or not Here I must stope him a little and minde the reader that we did upon the first Dialogue disprove this indifferent Proteus-Prelacie as a monster to Scripture since the Scripture condescending so far as to its institution of officers ordinances Lawes censures and as we heard himself acknowledge setting down all substantialls of Church Government prelacie must of necessity be either consonant or dissonant therunto and by consequence necessary or finfull commanded or forbidden So that he is to be limited to the first two and any supposal anent the indifferencie of presacy is but his petitio prnicipii and the gratification of his adversary for further clearing of this question now proceed we If it be the Apostolick Government derived from their times to all ages of the Church he hopes we will grant that no Oath oblidges against it This I willingly grant to him but what then Why we must not cry out perjurie till what he hath offered on this head be solidly answered Let this bargaine stand I hope I have made his Scripturae pretences appear to be vaine and proven the contrariety of that prelacie now established both to the Scripture and pure antiquity and till he hath answered what is offered upon this point we may impute perjury to him by his own acknowledgment What next what if it be sinfull Then he sayes we need not plead the Covenant obligation No may we not plead the Covenant obligation against Schisme heresie and profanness May not the Oath of alledgance be pleaded against treason because before this Oath treason is a sin Said he not already that the Baptismall vow is a superadded obligation though the matter it self doth binde did not the Oath and Covenant Neh. 8. containe an abjuration of many sins against which the people stood before preoblidged But he adds its true a supervenient Oath makes the obligation the stronger Right why then may not we plead that which makes it stronger Especially against this man and his fellows who have such a mighty faculty of resolving and absolving all S Peters fetters Sure they had need of Double nets who would catch a Proteus Then he tell us That the ablest champions for Presbytrie dar not assert episcopacie to be unlawfull What champions are these that prove it to be contrary to Scripture and yet dar not assert it to be unlawfull Sure they are very faint disputants We heard that Beza whom our Informer will sure call a champion for Presbytery called episcopacy diaâ—…olicall and the egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Was not that near the march of calling it unlawfull But how will he now absolve us Why it must be indifferent neither lawfull nor unlawful and then the question is with him if we could by our own Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawfull so that we can never after submit unto it He adds that we are mistaken if we think that an Oath against a thing indifferent will in every case bind Here I shall only tell him that since all his resolving skill
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
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
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
at the door and in the way and order of this Church That they are violently thrusting out and persecuring her faithfull Pastours that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people and ordination by the Presbyterie All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic nunc according to our principles or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry 8. He pleads in the close of the preceeding Dialogue that the covenant abjures Sel isme Now let us stand to this Decision the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topicks and shoot ane arrow from his own bow I would offer then to him this syllogisme That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant but disowning Conformists in their present state circumstances refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church is not a schism abjur'd in the Covenant Ergo c. The assumption I prove thus If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant be that schism which is abjurd therin then a refusing to be subject to Curats against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers and upholders of prelacy ad not owning them as the Ministers of this Church cannot be that scism Unless he will mak this scism such a Janus as will cast a maligne condemning aspect upon both the contending parties and bring adherers unto either of the two under this imputation But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear it being a disowning of that establisht order and union of this Church which therin we do swear to maintain and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithfull Ambassadours and others contending for the ends of the Covenant to adhere unto whom and keep up an union wiâ—…h them herein the Covenant layes upon us an express obligation putting the imputation of schismatick division and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice Ergo upon the whole it follows evidently that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue viz. subjection unto and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical CHAP. II. The Informers charge of internal and external Schisme put upon Non-conformists â—…f impeaching the Churches constitution and her practice in point of Worship for more than a 1000 Years examind His argument from Rom. 14. Heb. 10. 25. answered and retorted upon him His answer to the argument taken from the command of seeking the best gifts considered As also his argument from ancient canons from the Act of the Assembly 1647. from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock to fortify his charge of Schism repell'd HAving thus cleard our question and plea fortified our practice with these arguments We come now to examine the grounds on which this new Casuist imputes sinfull separation to us therein We acknowledge the evil of Schism upon these Texts mentioned by him which might have caused sad reflectings on himself and his party who are guilty of divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and the doctrine of this Church And so are lashed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us saying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelat contrary to 1 Cor. 1 12. It 's they who have disownd a spirituall pure unity with this pure Church and are seeking a perjurious union in departing from God contrary to that precept Ephes. 4 3. And are so far from esteeming others in Lowliness of mind better then themselves as we are enjoynd Phil 2. 2. That their Rabbies trample on all Ministers and their underlings do most insolently persecute and despise faithfull Pastours for adhering to the Reformation authority and union of this Church against their innovations Schism is no doubt an evill which hath much infested the Church and our Church and the Scripture sufficiently discovering the evill thereof we need not Cyprian nor Jeroms elogies anent unity to persuaed it Only where he insinuats from that saying of Cyprian which he mentions Who asserts from 1 Cor. 13. that who are slain in their Schism their inexpiable sin is not purged by their blood and that they are not Martyrs that such is the case of the suffering people of God at this time we may discern the cruell venome and sting of this mans malice for all the sobriety which he pretends unto I shall only tell him that as its more then he will be ever able to prove that the Lords remnant are guilty of this sin and are assembling out of the Church when attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours in this Church so he and his fellows setting these murderers upon them in this duty will if they repent not be exposed to that vengeance which the cry of their souls under the altar who have been slain for this their Testimony doth plead for He would also do well to resolve this doubt upon Cyprians Testimony viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold or if himself will dare to assert that the blood and sufferings of the best of martyrs did expiat their guilt As for Jeroms assertion that Schism and Heresy or some degree of it go together I think it is fitly applicable to himself and fellow Conformists who since their departing from the unity of this Church and her sworn Reformation have not only to justify their course vented gross errours in point of Oaths and otherwise but are now as every one sees posting fast to Rome in denying many and great points of our Protestant profession We accord to Augustines saying that separatists as such receive no life from the body the unquestionable godliness fellowship with the Father and the Son to which many Presbyterians are admitted and wherein they shine compared with the abominable prophanity of the whole of those almost that owne Curats will by this rule declare who are the Schismaticks and separatists from Christs body The comment of the Thorn which rents the liliâ—… Cant. 2. 2. Is very suteable to him and those of his way who have now of a long time rent the Lords faithfull flock wounded our Church and taken away her vail esteeming themselves Christians of the first magnitude so he esteems his most reverend Arch-Bishops and reverend under-fathers What pitifull preambles are these The Doubter alleadges that every separation is not schism This as we heard he acknowledges and that when communion with a Church cannot be held without sin separation is necessary wherein he yeelds all that we plead since we have proved that in this our case joyning to
their way and party is in many respects sinfull and since he Instances the protestants plea for separating from Rome on this ground knowes he not that the Papists tell us such stories anent union with the Church and that suffering without the Church is no Christian suffering to Iustifie their bloody persecutions which very well sutes his case And no doubt the protestants answer viz. That we are in Christs Church because owning his truth tho separat from their synâ—…gogue and that notwithstanding this pretence the blood of protestant Martyrs is in their skirts doth sute the case of Presbyterians in relation to their persecuters But the great charge followes viz. That we are guilty of as groundless and unreasonable separation as we shall read of in any age of the Church Bona verba How is this made good first saith he in casting off Christian love which is heart Schism 2. He chargeth with external Schism in separating in acts of Worship Now what if we recriminat in both these and retort this double charge upon himself Have they not disownd the Worship of Presbyterian ministers Professours and charged all to separat from them meerly for non-complyance with their perjured Prelats 2. Have they not for many years glutted themselves with their blood I may say sweemd in it upon the same very ground of forbearance as to prelatick complyance and endeavour by multiplyed lawes and Acts to root them out of the very nation Good Sir Pull this beam out of your own eye that you may see a litle clearer in this point But as to the first he sayes that we make difference in Iudgement as to lesser matters Church Government a ground of difference in affection as if they were no Christians who are not of our persuasion in these things putting thus lesser points into our creed and un unchurching and unsancting all who are not of our persuasion therin Ans. As to the first general charge I know none more guilty then themselves who are contending with fire and sword tanquam pro aris focis for these their lesser points and with unheard of rage seeking the ruine of all who dare not comply in Judgement and practice with them therein 2. I thinke Christian affection to their souls is best seen in opposing and testifying against their soul-destroying sins Thou shalt by any means rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him is an old standing rule Levit. 19 17. And if they be even hated in so far as owning pernicious wayes it s no more then what David avowes Psal 139 21 22. do not I hate them that hate thee I hate them with a perfect hatred I account them my enemies I hate the work of them that turn aside it shall not cleave unto me 3. As we have not so learn'd Christ to call every thing lesser or small poâ—…nts which his latitudinarian party have the confidence to term thus so we know no point of truth reveald and commended to us in the word as the object of our faith and matter of our practice which should be keept out of our creed lest our saith become much shorter then the Scripture pattern And we acknowledge not the new patchment of mens Lawes which this man and his fellow-Conformists have annext to their creed and which can pro arbitrio make or unmake these his lesser points But he sayes that we unchurch and condemn all Churches in all ages who have ownd Bishops Liturgies festivals and othâ—…r ceremonies And if we make the removal of these things necessary to a Church there hath not been a a Church for above a 1000 yeares together Ans. To make the last part of this argument not to contradict the first he should have said that there has not been a Church without these things mentioned these 1600 years but the man seeing his first flight or Rodomontade too fierce he did well to clap his wings closser Upon a review of this page I find our Informer in this charge playes but the pityfull Camelion and versipellis for finding that this assertion of his that Christians of all ages since Christs time and in all places have own'd Bishops Liturgies Festival dayes and other ceremonies would have drawn upon him the heavy burthen and task of a proofe he lightens himself of this burthen by a prudent almost which in this point is very significant But his confining the liturgies Festivals and other ceremonies within the compass of the last thousand years sullied with all popish abominations appearing too simple inadvertency within the compass of two or three lines he secures it with a much above But lest this prove too broad reckoning he instances the second or third century from whence he sayes we beginne our reckoning as to Bishops festivals liturgies and other ceremonies But 1. why mends he the matter so inadvertently as to run in such a wide uncertainty as the the length of 200 yeares in that calculation which he imputes to us 2. I challenge him to shew what presbyterian writter did ever commence the original of liturgies and festivals with his blind c. of other ceremonies which will travell who knowes whither and include who knowes what from the third far less the second century I affirm that its more then he or any for him can prove that the Church hath had Bishops liturgies and festivals since Christ. Our writters have abundantly proved the contrary and we challenge him to shew either his Diocesan Bishops liturgies or festivals and the c. of his ceremonies in the first Apostolick Church or in these two ages mentioned by him That there were not diocesan Bishops then or long after we have already proved and far less Erastian Prelats For holy dayes let him shew by divine appointment any other then the Christian Sabath in the Apostolick Church if he can or in the first succeeding ages As for the feast of Esther it is acknowledged to have come in by custome after the Apostolick times For liturgies we assert that the Apostolick Church and age knew no such thing as set impos'd liturgies and formes other then Christs prescriptions as to baptism the Lords supper and that they pray'd as was suteable to the present action and circumstances of time place and persons If he betake him to the liturgies which are ascribed to Peter James Mathew Andrew Clement Mark Dionisius Areopagite and other Disciples protestant writers will stigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfit That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church is proved by clear testimonies Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. shews that in their publick Assemblies christians did pray sine monitore quia de pectore that is without a prescription because from their heart And in his treatise de Oratione sayes that there are somethings to be asked according to the occasions of every man that the Lords prayer being laid as a fundation its lawfull to build on that
seems saith he that some then out of pride and singularity for sooke the ordinary and orderly assemblies of Christians Ans. In this accusation his so much boasted of charity is evaporate What! No assemblies for worship in this Church but among Conformists doth he not thus unchristian and unchurch all the Assemblies of Presbyterian Ministers and professors for worship why persuades he people to forsake these Assemblies and who now Iudges another mans servant as he who brands withself-conceit ignorance and schism all these Assemblies of Nonconforming Ministers and professours who dare not comply with prelats Again how proves he that no assemblies are orderly except the Prelatical we avow our meetings for worship to be the most orderly according to our Churches established Reformation and that their Assemblies are cross to her constution order and union both in respect of Curats perjurious intrusion the doctrine which they deliver and their manner of worship which is cross to this Churches practice and appeintment his charge of schism and disorderliness is still begged but not yet proved and orderliness is with him described from Church-walls and as for unity why have they east out hundreds of Ministers from officiating because they durst not joyn with Conformists in their perjur'd course of defection if this man be not here self convict let any Judge Let him produce if he can in our Assemblies for worship that which is contraire unto the nature constitution and worship of the assemblies mentioned in that scripture and untill this be we may on better ground recriminat this charge upon his withdrawing people from the Assemblies of Presbyterian ministers and professors The Doubter alledges poorly that all do not forsake their parochial Assemblies but some do now and then keep them He Answers that tho all withdraw not in alike degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable that people advance from step to step that some after withdrawing from them hear only the Indulged or those who have still preached without conformity in their own Châ—…rches and within a little will hear none of them that some hear in their own Churches but will not communicat the reason whereof he cannot understand since the efficacy of Sacraments depends not on the Minister that the lest degree of separation makes way for a greater that Baxter in his cure of Church divisions tells of some turning separatists who dyed Infidels Ans. He hath not yet proved that the withdrawing which he mentions is a Sinfull Schismatick separation and we hope we have made the contraire appear As for these degrees he mentions we say 1. His cruell uncharitablness to Presbyterian Ministersis here very conspicuous since he will not allow them to be in the least heard or own'd in their present case and circumstances Certainly to tye up people from occasional improvement of the various gifts which God hath bestowed upon his ministers even in a setled state of the Church and in her right constitution is cross to that interest in one anothers gifts and graces which the members of Christs mystical body upon the ground of their union and communion with the head and among themselves are priviledged with And in impeaching this the Informer blotes himself with scismatick uncharitablenes of the deepest dye 2. As it s no strange thing that in such a time of darkness desertion and defection peoples recovery be gradual and sometime attended with Infirmities in the manner of duties incident to us while in time so the contrary influences of love to truth and duty and fear of hazard may be easily productive of such variety in the carriage of poor tender souls in this matter In a word the Lords supper being a special badge of our union and communion in and with Jesus Christ It s no strange thing that tender souls scruple to pertake thereof from men at so palpable a distance from him as Conformists especially while this ordinance may be enjoyed more purely elswhere He tells us that Schismaticks ar cut off from the body and receive no life from it and if we may drawan inference and retortion from this assertion the people of God must judge Conformists to be such For these effects of separation which Baxter mentions we bless the Lord the contrary effects of sound piety in many who were prophane while owning the Ministry of Conformists are convincingly apparent since they separated from them and the effects of backsliding from Gods truth viz. gross prophanity or atheisticall Indifferency in the matters of God are as sadly evident in those who having once own'd Presbyterian Ministers have return'd to Conformists again As for what he objects and answers anent some of their own party going to others then their own parish-Curats whom unless insuperable le ts hinder to attend their own parish-Church he would have his fellows not to owne We are not much concernd to notice any further then to tell him that parvo discrimine refert which of them people go to the best of them being as a briar and the most uprights as a thorn-hedge and all of them blotted with such Schismatick opposition to this Church her pure constitution and principles as may put it beyond debate with tender souls lovers of truth and duty that they ought adhere to Christs faithfull ambassadours rather then any of them The Doubter objects that its hard to hinder to go where we may be most edifyed since we must Cover the best gifts 1 Cor. 12. 31. He answers 1. that the Apostle is not directing private Christians what gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of gifts and every one should be content with his own given for the edification of others yet that he should seek after better not in others but in himself Ans. Our Informer doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way of representing this and some objections ensuing for 1. He supposes that this is lookt upon in it self as a sufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers without previous consideration of all the circumstances of our present case and also in supposing that nothing casts the ballance in the Judgement of the objecter as to profiting or not profiting but difference of gifts whereas we grant that the soveraign Influence of Gods Spirit who teaches to profit renders the means and ordinances effectual to salvation whether the Ministers gifts be great or small 2. We grant that tho people have a discretive Iudgement as to gifts and their own profiting and are to try the spirits yet in a setled state of the Church they are not to shake off the due regulation and guidance of a faithfull Ministry set over them in the Lord so as to be wholly at their own disposal herein since there is no Justling betwixt the privat discretive and publick Ministerial judgement in this matter 3. As in the tryall of Intrants not only the sufficiency but suteablenes of gifts for such a people is to be
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
receiving these of another congregation to the Worship We say that according to the Informer himself its clear that such rules of decency and order are not calculat for every meridian every time and case of the Church extraordinary cases must have suitable remedies and circumstances of parochial order cannot in this case be pleaded when our main order of Government is already destroy'd and a persecuting party is in our Churches bosome tearing out her bowels when a besidged city hath within her walls a party of professed defendants betraying her to the enemie they are the most orderly and faithfull watchmen who resist them and run to the posts which they have betrayed Again should the many Ministers now persecute let us suppose they are residing in the bounds plead parochial order for their parishes adhering to them and disowning their Curats incumbent the Informer will not say that parochial order will plead for owning them in this case Or in the case of conforming Ministers turning enemies to Prelats and by consequence Schismaticks in his account he will grant that the people whom we will suppose they are breaking off from the union of the Prelatick Church ought not to owne them but were concern'd to go else where to hear Now the case being so with us this argument by his own confession cannot now have weight until all that we plead against them on this ground be answered Next he cites the Act of the Assembly 1647. Against them who withdraw usually from the Worship in their own congregation except in urgent cases made knowen unto and approven by the Presbytery Concluding that therefore they thought not this a fit method of edification that this act was made to prevent Schism But had he set down the narrative of that act it might have coverd him with blushes and would expose him to the censure of every Reader for it is grounded upon the then compleat establishment of the work of Reformation this Churches comely order of Presbyterian Government then exercised her Presbyterian unity and peace the purity and liberty of the Gospel ordinances then righly enjoyed But what will this say to the present case of defection and persecution wherein the faithful Ministry are thrust from their flocks and that work raz'd dare he say this assembly did intend to stretch their act to such a case as this or to stop Ministers from officiating in such a distrest destroyed condition of our Church Suppose this case had been stated in that Assembly What if Presbyterian Government shall be razed Prelacâ—…e erected the Covenant and the work of Reformation overturned and disowned by a number of Ministers while a stedfast body of the Ministry stands against them shall this act reach the people in relation to their faithfull Pastours ejected perjur'd intruders I dare refer it to this man himself to say to it what their resolution would have been and if they would have concluded it the people's duty to adhere to these destroyers in that case rather then the faithfull contenders for the work of Reformation In the 7th Article of their directions for family Worship past that same day they suppose this Church to be then blest with peace and purity and therefore do except from the compass of these directions the case of corruption and trouble wherein they say many things are commendable which are not otherwise tollerable And dare he say that they would not call this such a case He makes the Doubter yet again poorly except that men have different gifts which is here a meer nauseating repetition to fill up idle pages Upon this our Informer very discreetly and charitably tells us that we can litle judge of an edifying gift and do call railing at Bishops or at the civil powers and a tone in the voice so Just as Dr Burnet said before in in his roaving Dialogues What is the Judgement of Gods people as to edification and the evidence of the Masters presence with Presbyterian Ministers in preaching to his people depends not on this Character it being comprobat by clear proofs and sufficiently notour to such as can spiritually taste and discern But he will offer some considerations about diversity of gifts and edification by them which is to no purpose since our plea is not meerly grounded upon the gifts of preachers whether Conformists or others but abstracting from this we say first there is much more then meer gifts yea and an edifying gift requisit to ground a peoples owning a Minister hic nunc or in every circumstantiat case as their pastour what if he be in a schismatick course what if he be violently thrust in and hath shut out their Lawfull pastour standing in that relation to them to whom by this mans concession they owe special subjection reverence and obedience in the Lord for this we will find him hereafter plead are the people bound in this case to owne the Intruder because of his gift Nay he will not say it Now the case is Just so with us 2. We told him that our case is a case of competition betwixt the betrayers and destroyers of our Reformation and a faithfull Ministry adhering to and contending for it so that its this great Ministerial qualification of faithfullness opposit to Curats â—…reachery beside Presbyterian Ministers gifts and Gods blessing attending the same and the Curats intrusion unfaithfulness destructive principles and design in their officiating besides their insufficiency prophanity and blasted gifts which determine us in this matter and the Lords call consequently that for our edification and to prevent our Church her ruine and our perishing in their sin we come out from among them and be separat as we would come out of Babylon to which their party is runing post so that all he saith here may be granted without prejudice to our cause But let us hear his considerations anent edification and gifts first saith he all Ministers have not alike gifts therfore we must not undervalue the lowest 1 Cor. 12. I told him our quarrel is not meerly gifts a man may be hic nunc disown'd and yet no undervaluing of his gifts which the Informer must either grant or contradict all that he intends in this pamphlet For I ask him what if I plead this for Presbyterian Ministers whom for all their excellent and edifying gifts he and his party will not owne and whom be is in this pamphlet striving might and main tanquam pro â—…ris and focis to get universally disown'd by all professours in Scotland why quarrells he with the Almighty to use his own expression in undervaluing their gifts and would teare their commission I know our Informer will say that they are disorderly and so disowning them is no despising their gifts Well then he grants that men of excellent gifts may be hic nunc or in some cases disown'd and no hazard of this undervaluing and despising their gifts or quarrelling with the Almighty so the rebound
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
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
perjurious usurpation in the way and manner therof may supply the want of a formal censure yet absolutly to deny that in any imaginable case whether of the scandals and intrusion of the minister the Churches incapacity to censure or the peoples clamant necessity and apparent advantages for their edification otherwise they were oblidged to own him still and that nothing but this declarative sentence could loose their tye would infer very dangerous consequences obvious to the meanest reflection Specialy that in performance of supposed duties flowing from the tye and relation they would crosse many scriptur-precepts enjoyning the contrary Shall Christs sheep follow the hireling and stranger and not beware of wolves and false prophets strengthen Covenant breakers and scismaticks because a perturbed Church cannot draw forth her censure If it be said that this will open a door for separation since every one displeased may pretend that scandals are of an highnature Ans. 1. The sinful abusive pretences of men is a poor argument to infringe any truth or duty 2. This absurdity may be retorted in the other extreme and under pretence of the mans exterior call who is not nor can be in a Churches disturbed state censured Christs sheep may as I said be given up to destroying wolves the means and opportunities of their edification lost and their soules exposed to most imminent hazard of perishing 2. There is a pure Ministry and Church free of their scandalls and testifying against them so that adherence to them rather then Curats is only a non-union to corruption or a scandalous party of Innovators who have gone out from the fellowship of this Church and such a separation negative or non-union as Mr Rutherfoord allowes Due right of Presbyt pag. 253 254. such as he sayes was the carriage of the faithfull in relation to the Donatists in Augustines time or a separation from the most and worst part not the least and best part as he there distinguishes calling the greatest corrupt part the Schismaticks As before the Jewes came to blaspheme there was no reason to joyn to them rather then the Gospel Church planted by the Apostles to which Mr Rutherfoord sayes converts were to adhere 3. We have heard that according to our principles and the tenor of our Reformation we are to look upon them as Schismaticks from this Church So that upon this very ground of holding and mantaining this Churches purity and union they are to be disowned by Gods people Our Informer will grant that abstracting from a Ministers being otherwise either censured or censurable he ought not to be followed in a Schismatick course to the ruine of a pure Churches union but is ipso facto to be left for upon this ground he pleads for disowning Presbyterian Ministers abstracting from their being any otherwayes censured 4. Are there not many Presbyterian ministers neither convict nor censured and whom he dare not call scandalous whose conversation and walk is both convincing and shining and such as discovers that Christ is in them that they have the masters seal and call to preach the Gospel who have entered into this Church by the door and are standing in a ministrrial relation to her yet he pleads for disowning them meerly because their Ministry is cross to the prelatick union and order So he must grant that Ministers may be disowned on this ground of Innovating upon and standing in opposition to a Churches establisht union and order abstracting from this formal censure As for what he adds of Judas it s very impertinently alledged here for his theft and other wickedness was as yet secret and not become open and scandalous which excepts him from the compass of this question which is anent Ministers guilty of open and avowed scandalls intrusion into the Ministry violent ejection of faithfull pastours and persecution of a pure Church None of which can be said of Judas But now followes in the next place his main objection and argument from the Scribes and Pharisees he tells us what great exceptions might have been made against their life and doctrine Math. 23. that they were â—…mies to Christ neglected Iudgement mercy and faith that they were proud hypocrites and that tho all which Naphtali sayes of Conformists were true and all sees it to be true and consequently that he gives them no other characters then what they put upon themselves and cannot more be charged with distemper for this then our blessed Lord in calling these Pharisees serpents and vipers or Paul in calling the Impostours of whom the Philippians were in hazard dogs evil workers the concision whose God is their belly whose glory is in their shame though they were as these pharisees gross in their lives and there were leaven in their doctrine they were not to be disowned since altho the Pharisees for doctrine taught the commands of men and took away the key of knowledge Christ in his sexmon on the mount purged the Law from their corrupt glosses yet Simeon and Anna turned not separatists Ioseph and Mary went up to keep the passover and Christ bids bear them tho with a câ—…veat 〈◊〉 beware of their leaven and their ill example Here he also tells us that he hath no pleasure to make a parallel betwixt the Pharisees and our preachers in long prayers and devouring widowes houses compassing sea and land to make proselytes tho we have given too much ground for these comparisons Ans. 1. To beginne with this last invective which he insinuats and Dr Burnet prosecutes at large in his trifling dialogues If I should rejoyn that its a foming out their oâ—… shame to make such comparisons and renders them too like these wandring stars to whom this is attribâ—… It were no great overstreach Dare he say that our Lord did simply condemn long prayers because he condemned making a shew of them or that faithfull ministers their travells to keep poor souls upon the solid foundation of our sworn Reformation and recover them from this plelatick corruption and apostacy is to proselyte them to be children of hell It may be with better ground averred that prelatists who are enemies to either long or short prayers in the spirit and plead for dead formes and lyturgies and who have dâ—…oured not widowes houses only but Gods house and Church in this land and who compass sea and land to proselyte this poor Church to the Synagogue or Rome are much liker these precedents in the above mentioned characters But 2. To his argument The pharisees were scandalous in their life corrupt in their doctrine yet the saints separat not from ordinances and Christ allowed to hear them This man might if he had been ingenuous have found this objection solidly answered and removed by severals I answer 1. It s more then he hath proved that the owning of the Pharisees ministry is here enjoyned because 1. The command of observing what they enjoyned will not necessarly infer this we may observe what morall Philosophers or papists bid
against being his groundless supposition alledged but not proven by him and by us disproved by what is said above and likewise the application of this hearing the Pharisees to our hearing Curats being his bare petitio principii his assertion after subjoyned viz. that this passage will stand against us to our conviction as against the seperatists in Queen Elizabeths time is but a piece of his ignorant arrogant confidence there being a vast difference betwixt our case and that of those separatists at that time as shall hereafter appear And beside Presbyterian Ministers of this Church have much more to say from this text for their people's adhering to them then prelatists can plead The Doubter next alleadges that many Episcopall men have entered upon honest mens Labours and therefore ought to be disowned as intruders He answers 1. That all are not such that some Conformists have keepâ—… their places they bad before the change others have entered in to the labours of those that are dead and transported elswhere Ans. Our Informer doth miserably pinch and narrow a sinfull intrusion by this description which himself must acknowledge For should a Presbyterian Minister step into his own Church upon the death or transportation of one of the Curats who will question that this man will call it an intrusion according to his principles anent the prelatick Church and so he must acknowledge that notwithstanding what he here pleads the Curats entry is intrusion according to our principles beside that the Ministery of those who have conformed and were Presbyterially ordained being an express owning of the principles practices and design of this prelatick schismatick destroying party and by their acceptance of collation and presentation and concurring in the Prelats pretended Judicatories a ministry compleatly of the prelatick mould its reductive if not formaliter an intrusion or partaking with the general intrusion and usurpation upon the pure reformed Ministry and Church of Scotland even as a state officer or Magistrat his taking his office from Invaders while an army is in the fields against them doth fully and fitly denominate him an Invader in the exercise thereof tho it be materially the same office and imployment which he had before Or as an inferior officer in an army taking his office and a new commission from an usurping General and other usurping superior officers who are dissolving and betraying the true army expelling the true General and officers contrary to their first commission doth partake in that usurpation Considering the Church of Scotland as it stood establisht in doctrine discipline worship and government and her National and solemn vows surely this course of Conformity is a most gross intrusion upon her without so much as a shadow of consent and so is all partaking therein by consequence which no Conformist can acquit himself of and therefore according to the tenor and principles of our Reformation cannot be lookt upon as any of our true Church her Sons and Ministers But here our Informer poseth us with some great queries forsooth 1. Whether Conformists were active in utting Presbyterian ministers or came in before they were out and their places declared vacant Ans. Whoever is active or passive in outting them one thing is sure they are violently thrust out contrary to the word of God and the rules order and Reformation of this Church So that come in who will they are Intruders 1. Because they have come in upon a charge to which faithfull Ministers of this Church have Christs Keyes and commission 2. Because come in and obtruded by those who are ingrained usurpers thieves and Robbers I mean perfidious Prelats often abjured and cast out of this Church with detestation and not in the order of this Church Nor by her door A poor man is by a number of Robbers dispossest of his house they put in a seeming neutral to keep house for them the poor owner seeks his possession complaines of this usurpation O saith the new tennant and Robbers depute I am no Intruder I have a good right I put you not out but found your house empty Now let the Informer use a litle honest application and answer his weightie Querie 2. He asks why will those dispossest ministers suffer the people to starve because they have slept out of their charges Ans. The people are starved poysoned too by those that come in these Ministers are concerned upon their faith to the great shepherd to endeavour what they can to save his lambes from the wolves and give faithfull Ministerial warning of their flocks hazard Next he tells us though a minister be transported against his will yet the people should submit to his successor True when for the Churches greater good he is transported to another watchtower by her faithfull guides and true Church Judicatories but not when the true pastour is chased away by usurping perjured Prelats and an intruding hireling brought in as their vicar It s this mans perted self to use his own phrase here that blurrs his eyes to draw a similitudinar argument from such an absimilar instance One thing he did well to add as a proviso viz the successors coming in upon an orderly or fair call And doth this man think that Conformists have this orderly call according to the Reformation and doctrine of this Church Nay is he not disputing against this call and so if this be a necessary condition of a Ministers Lawfull succession the Informer is in the briers of a palpable inconsistency near of kin to a contradiction As for what he adds of the necessity of a Ministry and making the best of what we cannot help in our superiours we say that were the Rulers using their power for giving one Lawfull pastour for another and in the method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern by Lawfull Church Indicatories these reasons would say something but when they have overturned the Reformation of a Church and contrary to that Churches vows and their own are obtruding abjured prelats and a number of profane hyrelings as their deputes to exclude and ruine a faithfull Ministry his reasons in this case are naught and speak nothing to the point As for what he adds afterward of Ministers in the year 1648 ejected for asserting their duty to the King and their submitting while others were put into their charges I Answer he will never while he breaths be able to prove that they were deposed for asserting their duty to the King and not rather for promoting an ungodly course tending to the Kings ruine and the ruine of our Reformation and for other pieces of their scandalous miscarriages by the true Lawfull Judicatories of this Church So that upon both grounds the flocks were concerned to submit to such faithfull pastours as were set over them in the way and method of this Church and according to the scripture pattern His last answer to this argument of his Doubter anent Conformists Intrusion is that Presbyterian
Ministers intrusion is from parish to parish over the Labours of all the Ministers of Scotland whereas Conformists intrusion if it be so is but over one parish Ans. We told him before that Presbyterian Ministers notwithstanding the prelats violence and usurpation are Ministers of this Church of Scotland continuing still in that relation to her So that the present presecution and violence as well as backsliding of the Prelatick schismaticks and Innovators warrands their more enlarged officiating by the same grounds upon which the presecute officers of the Church of Jerusalem went every where preâ—…ching the gospel and on the same ground that Ministers enlarged officiating in the time of our Reformation was warranted to which this case of defection is parallel and correspondent So that their ministerial obligation and the many scripture commands as to diligence in their testimony Being by the present state of our Church extended to their officiating in this manner their Ministry is no Intrusion but the Lawfull exercise of their office received from the great shephered nor is it upon the flocks who are under a tye and relation to the present Incumbents as their pastours but toward poor starved flocks committed to wolves who destroy but feed not and the Curats pretended Ministry being neither of Christ nor for him is still an usurpation though over the smallest flock so that his Instance of the pyrats word to Alexander and citation of the Apostle's caveat Rom 2. 21. is extra oleâ—… and reaches himself a rebounding stroke For who I pray have usurped the name and authority of this Church and endeavoured to have it compleatly moulded in their way and to extirpat all faithfull Ministers and professors within the Nation is it not 14 usurping Prelats and their underlings this is a robbery indeed and with a witness Now follows another argument of his Doubter that Episcopal Ministers are abjured as depending upon the hierarchy and therefore cannot be heard without breach of the Oath In what respects the owning of Conformists especially as that practice is now circumstantiat is a breach of Covenant we have cleard above and need not again repeat it He answers 1. That Ministers are not mentioned in that article But if they depend upon that Ecclesiastical hierarchy as Church Officers why are they not mentioned Next it s enough for our purpose that the owning of their Ministry as depending upon prelats is in this our case abjured 2. He tellsus that dependance on that hierarchy doth suppose and is to be understood of a hierarchy made up of all the officers enumerate in that Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which hierarchy we have not in Scotland This conceit I have already confuted and proved that beside this Article we are by the first bound to preserve the establisht Reformation and Government of this Church and to adhere to all that enter into this Oath in the pursuing of its ends and not to suffer our selves to be withdrawen from this Reformation and our union therein by terrour or persuasion is an obligation lying upon us in the 6. Article which doth abundantly as we have said reach the disowning of Conformists In the next place he tells us that to binde our selves to disowne Ministers depending upon Bishops is to binde our selves to sin I Answer whatever may be said of such an engadgement simpliciter and absolutly considered yet certainly to engadge our selves against the reintroduction of Prelacy into a pure Church reformed from it and against all dependers upon and promoters of that Interest in such a Church in the capacity of Church officers and eatenus as promoting and depending upon it is both a lawfull and necessary engadgment necessarly flowing from dependent upon the abjuration of prelacie it self That Ministers tho faulty may be heard will as we have oft demonstrate nothing help his conclusion Since he can not deny that their faultiness in some cases may barr their being heard as he supposes Presbyterian Ministers faults puts a Lawfull stop in the way of people's hearing them Then he tells us that he hath showen episcopacy to be a Lawfull government which none might Lawfully adjure for this we referr the Reader to what is answered on the first Dialogue where we have proven the contrary and that it is a government contrary to the word of God which therefore we were obliged to abjure Lastly he tells us that by this exposition of the 2. Article we were bound not to owne Ministers who were in office at the taking of the Covenant but to extirpat them since they depended upon Bishops as to their ordination still even after they had taken the Covenant unless they renounced their ordination received from Bishops and had been ordained a new by meer Presbyters which they thought themselves not bound to do by the Covenant or they were Ministers without a true ordination all that time and then all their Ministerial Acts were null since they proceeded from that ordination And yet he sayes we never serupled to hear such Ministers notwithstanding of this dependance upon Bishops in part if they disowne Bishops for the future Ans. What a silly knack is it which all this tatle is founded upon viz. Ministers who received ane ordination from Bishops or Bishops with Presbyters in a Church upon which they had usurped are still to be lookt upon as Ministers depending upon Bishops even after Prelacy is abolished and Presbyterian Government established in that Church So poor a notion that I am sure the least reflection may discover its vanity ordination being Gods ordinance and appointment and the Bishop qua Presbyter being vested with a power in it ordination by the Bishop with Presbyters tho maim'd in respect of the Bishop's arrogated power which is a corruption adhering to it cannot by any good consequence be said to depend in its esse or nature upon the Prelat and far less in operari or esse after that corruption is removed and abjured and Presbyterian Government set up Doth a souldier or Officers commission or Military power slow still from a Colonel after he is disbanded Nay this is too gross inadvertency Were Zuinglius Luther and other of our Reformers dependents upon the papacy or popish Prelats after their cleaving to and embracing the Reformation Do not all our divines distinguish the essentials of their ordination from these corruptions adhering to it and assert that they had a Ministry Lawfull for substance and an ordination to their Ministry tho coming to them through that impure channell This man Justifies the Pope's plea where is your Ministry saith he and the Romanists you have no Ministry but what you have from us do not our Divines tell them that the Ministry and ordination it self being Gods institution we have them from the Lord now restored and recovered from their corruptions and are not dependers upon them for our Ministry did all our Reformers Ministerial acts flow from the pope or papal ordination
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
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
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 along he pleads by many arguments in the places mentioned that if the thing be indifferent the case of offence makes it unlawfull And all his arguments in these passages which do press the eshewing of offence are moral and constantly binding and consequently admit no such restriction as this such as Christs tenderness of the weak their redemption purchased by his blood Christian liberty the evill of my brothers doubting whatsoever is not of faith is sin c. And he moves objections against his doctrine such as I have knowledge I have faith And shall I be limited of my liberty because anther is weak or wilfull c. Such like objections he moves and answers but of this exception and restriction anent a command from Rulers altering the nature of the thing and loosing all his arguments in relation to offence the Apostle mentions nothing 2. This puts a blasphemous authority upon the Magistrat we know the terrible interminations and threatnings thundered against giving offence and discoveries of the dreadfull tendency thereof wo to them by whom offence comes Again better be cast into the sea then offend one of the little ones destroy not him saith Paul with thy offensive carriage for whom Christ dyed Now will the Magistrats command give me sufficient warrand and security in and for a thing indifferent to destroy my brother and will it list off Christs wo and make it lighter then a feather which is more dreadfull then to be cast into the sea with a milstone tyed about ones neck 3. I would know if this Informer will deny that the Apostolick precepts in relation to offence scandal pressed with important and great motives in the premised Scriptures are of ane universal and moral nature and do reach and oblige all that owne the profession of Christianity in their several relations and capacities These precepts founded upon the everlasting and constantly binding grounds and motives of union charity and love to the brethren the great gospel command edification the communion of Saints the very bonds and ligaments compacting and strengthning Christs mystical body none can deny to be of an universal extent and to be among the grand rules of Christian practice limiting and directing our carriage in whatever relation we stand whether Ministers or people Masters or servants Parents or children c. And the superiour being under the obligation of these great rules unless we will make God a respecter of persons it necessarily followes that they do direct and limit him in the exercise of his power so that this being one Regula Regulans as to all the Magistrat Laws it s must absurd to imagine that his counter-practice and Laws can loose himself or others from this divine superiour obligation unlesse we will deiesie him and make his Law practice the soveraign and supreme rule in every point as well as in this Whence it followes by necessary consequence that the practice which is offensive scandalous and destructive to our brother in its present circumstances and upon the constant unerring scripture grounds rules cannot be altered in its present quality and state by mens commands crossing the divine Law but remains a sinful scandalous practice though a hundred Lawes enjoyn and authorize it 4. Was not Pauls Apostolick declarator that evry thing sold in the shambles might be Lawfully eaten as powerfull to exeem that action of eating such things from the compass of offence as the Magistrats Law and authority Sure he had at least as much if not more authority in this point then the Magistrat especially as this Informer expones authority afterward from Acts 15. 28. yet that same practice Lawfull in it self and by the Apostle declared to be so and accordingly enjoyned and authorized by him must not be used in this case of the offence even of the weak and ignorant but the Apostle himself though thus declaring and may I say authoring the lawness of the practice declares he will never use nor take it up in this case of offence I beseech him was not the warrantabliness of this practice in it self by the Lords word declaring all things to be clean to the clean and Pauls Apostolick declarator in this place as valide to render it of indifferent necessary to the users as the command of our civil Rulers in relation to this practice under debate and a litle more he having the mind of Christ and being a Master builder of the Churches Yet the offending of the weak ignorant yea or wilfull will in his Judgement cut short this liberty and render the practice sinfull upon that ground But moreover the instance of the brazen serpent will here bite and sting his cause and argument to death for it was an eminent type of Christ and reserved and sure our Informer will say warrantably as a signal monument of that rare typical cure of the people stung by the fierie serpents in the wilderness yet when the people were stumbled and it became an occasion of their sinning and committing Idolatry good Hezekiah brake it called it Nehushtan and is commended for it by the Spirit of God Now in this mans principles the interposing of authority for its preservation was sufficient to keep it from being destroyed though all Israel should have been never so much stumbled and ensnared to Idolatry by it but the keeping of this monument God would dispense with in this weighty case Sure that which rendred the preservation of it highly provoking and Hezekiahs breaking of it commendable was its stumbling and ensnaring tendency and effects whatever authority and acts might have interposed formerly for its preservation Will the Informer say that Gideons ephod which in his intention was only designd for a monument of that victory over the Midianites was lawfully preserved when it became thus ensnaring as the brazen Serpent or that the preservation of it was lawfully authorized in this case surely he will not for shame assert this and so the case is here and he may see in these instances if his eye be single that a practice though in it self lawfull or indifferent yet when become offensive in its present circumstance and inductive to sin cannot in that case be rendred warrantable by any Laws of the Magistrat Finally our Informer in this asâ—…ertion cosseth found Divines and Casuists as well as the Scripures yea and fights with himself For we have heard from Chrysostom and Pareus who are herein accorded by all our writers that the action which is in its preseut state and circumstance scandalous is while cloathed with these Circumstances necessarily evill and upon many weighty grounds severely prohibited by the spirit of God in the Scriptures forecited So that no power and Laws men of can remove these scripture limits march-stones Next the great ground and rule anent a scandalous action and upon which the scripture motives against it are grounded is the state condition and freedom of the conscience lest it be hindred in its plerophory
this passage to prove that obedience to authority will preponderat the not giving of offence But so it is that the great ground of the Apostles decicision here is the guarding against the offence of the weak Iews and obedience to this sentence was in not giving offence and upon this very ground Christians were to abstain from these meats whereas he foolishly distinguishes in this point betwixt obedience to authority and not giving offence as distinct duties and makes the first to over-rule the second in plain contradiction to the text which makes the not giving offence to be the great duty and the foundation of this obedience 3. This charge will be the more conspicuos and the Informers inconsistent prevarications in this point if we consider these things in the point of offence 1. That every offence through weakness is not sinless upon the offenders part The Informâ—…r himself doth with the Apostle assert this who in the very preceeding page from 1 Cor. 8 10. Rom. 14. tells us that the Apostle will not have that which 〈◊〉 indifferentâ—… or lawful in it self used to the offence of tâ—…e weak or imboldening of their conscience to Sin 〈◊〉 That upon this ground it follows that the Scandalâ—… acceptum or offence taken as contra distinguishâ—…d by our divines from Scandalum datum or offenâ—…e given is badly and to narrowly described from â—…e groundless taking thereof as if upon this account it were faultless upon the offenders part it being certaine that neither the lawfullness of the thing out of which offence arises the good intention of the doer nor mens commands nor the weakness yea or wiâ—…kkedness of the takers of offence will free the giver thereof from guilt unless the action be in its present state and circumstances a necessary duty for thus the distinction could have no place and there were no Scandalum datum at all there being no ground to take offence upon the takers part and takeing this phrase in the Scripture acceptation as there can be no reason of a sinfull action properly Nay though the effect should not follow the giver is still guilty as Peter was in giveing offence to our Lord though that action could produce no sinfull effect in him for he said to him thow art ane offence unto me So that it is beyond debate with all sound divines and casuists that any dictum or sactum action or word upon which the formentioned effects may follow if it be not hic nunc necessary is a scandalum datum 3. That accordingly all sound divines treating on this subject in describeing a passiâ—…e scandal in opposition to that which is given do not draw their measures or description meerly from the weakness or othere bade disposition of the taker of offence but from the state and condition of the action it self out of which offence ariseth which if not necessary in its present â—…tate and circumstances they hold the scandall to be is well active as passive Thus Mr Gilespie Engl â—…op cerem Thus Ames de Consc lib. 5. cap 1. 〈◊〉 quest 3 Resp. 1 2. tells us that in omni scandalo â—…ecesse est ut sit aliquod peccatum in every scandal of neâ—…essity there is some guilt because it hath a tenâ—…encie to the spiritual hurt and detrimeâ—… of our bour And describing passive scandal which is without sin upon the givers part he sayes that this falls out cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi praeter intentionem facientis conditionem facti that is when the fact of one is the occasion of anothers sinning beside the intention of the doer and the condition of the deed it self He draws not his description from the intention of the doer only but from the condition of the deed it self which if tending to the spiritual hurt of our neighbour is still an active scandal and no authority of men can alter its natur or remove its guilt as we heard him before assert Mr Durham on scandal part 1 chap 1. describeth scandal that is taken only or passive offence that it is such when no occasion is given but when a man doeth that which is not only lawful but necessary exemplifieing this by the Pharisees carping at Christs actions Matth. 15 12. and by that of Prov. 4. 19. where the wicked are said to stumble at they know not what Thus clearly asserting that the lawfulness of the practice will not wholly lay the guilt on him that takes offence unlesse it be also necessary 4. The Informer cannot deny that this necessity of the action must be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the assertion of the practiser or the commands of the Magistrat simply or any supposed Ecclesiastick canon since this would evert the Apostles reasoning on this head So that he is obleidged to evince the necessity of this practice controverted from other grounds then he hath mentioned or this charge stands good against him esspecially since as we have said the Apostles injunction which he mentions as to the free use of meats was a greater authoritative determination then any which he now alledges to render the practice necessary And if a practice lawful in it self and corroborated by ane Apostolick precept enjoyning it could not be lawful in the case of offence farre lesse can the constitutions he mentions make this practice lawful in such a case So that our Argument a Scandalo stands good against him upon this point in answer to which he hath brought nothing but what is contrary to Scripture casuists yea and himself The charge which he after exhibites against us of erecting separat meetings in the houses and fields and of our being Schismaticks if ever the Christian Church had any we let pass among the rest of this mans petulant assertions the grounds whereof we have examined and confuted The people of God in obedience to Christs faithfull Ambassadours by Prelats perjurious violence thrust from their watchtowers assembling to hear the great Shepherds voice erect no seperat meetings but keep the assemblies of this Church driven by them to a wilderness whereof if the Lord open not his and the rest of his tribe their eyes they will bear the sin and punishment for ever The Doubter object next Christs preaching in privat houses and fields and peoples hearing therein inferring that so likewise may we This argument our Informer according to his usual candor disguises we say not that in a setled peaceable state of the Church Ministers may preach and people hear in this manner but upon supposal of this Churches disturbed persecute condition by a party of prevailing backsliders Ministers preaching and peoples hearing is warrantable upon the formentioned grounds both Ministers upon whom our Prelats hands have been very heavy of a long time yea I may say their litle finger thicker then their predecessours loins sters and people being in this broken destroyd state of our Church chased harassed and denyed
call from Christ to preach in his name and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case will be apparent when it s considered that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground is one with theirs their grounds in their answer compared with the context are that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses employed about the great gospel message cloathed with his authority and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer dare he say that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ might not thus the ministry be put out of the world Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church as the Apostles were and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral or the obligations flowing therefrom 2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach for first we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only if at all in this case but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis the authority of the one and the weight and importance of the other in relation to all Ministers are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this that they were Christs Ministers cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense for majus 〈◊〉 minus c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach and would not submit their ministerial authority its acts and exercise to the Rulers disposal especially the gospel-message being of so great importance so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat as theirs was tho the Apostles as I said had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead The Informer answers aly that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world but by their preaching but now tho some be silenced others are allowed to preach Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat is of his bold putting in but nothing of it is in the text viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority and message simply 2 I ask him could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel if they could not then he must grant that this anwer is naught that the Apostles refused because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel For the gospel was preacht and propagat though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage if he say that any one or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms then 1. He contradicts his first answer that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally Paul said too to me if I preach not the gospel and one Apostles diligence could not loose the obligation of the other and excuse his negligence 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him be cause others were permitted to preach It s unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent because others are preaching and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull and destroying but not feeding So that our Informer doth but mock God if not blaspheme while blessing him that authority is opposit to our disorders not to the gospel The Doubter next asks him if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel He should have added by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat or formally and immediatly But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals and mould our arguments in his own disguise that his simple evasions may appear answers Well what sayes he to this doubt His answer is I ommit his insignificant reflection that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise to which he was bound to submit so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions which he must not counteract suppose he think the King and law wrongs him especially when others do preach tho he be silent Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime which deserved death telling him as the text saith that he was a man of death or one who deserved capital punishment according to the nature of the hebrew phrase which sentence of death Solomon upon the grounds mentioned in that passage did change into a sentence of banishment and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office which he could not in that case perform Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick or solid divinity The Instance
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
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
slippery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding of divine institutions and that they can easily expose them to sale for obtaining easefull serenity and other worldly designs Or how proves he that its the government of our Church which they have introduced or that they are the Church or that we are in this practice separating from our Church Hath not Christ a mystical body in Scotland without prelats or finally how proves he that there is alike ground for Joyning to prelacy introduced by an Apostat party after it is cast out and abjured by all as there is for Joyning in fellowship with a Church continuing Long under that corruption and not purged and reformed from it The Joyning with them in their worship being demanded as a badge of our consent to prelacy it self and all the corruptions attending the same 3. He pleads for charity and that we say not Conformists are graceless because of this difference he tells us that for all Corinths corruptions the Apostle spends a whole chapter upon Love and that such as have least truth have least charity that the weak christians who understood not their liberty Rom. 14. in being loosed from the ceremonial Law had least charity as they had least truth and so papists to protestants Ans. This charge lyes most directly home to himself and those of his way Let more then 20. years Law practice in relation to the ruine of a faithfull remnant of Ministers and professors who adhere to the reformation and government of this Church and their vows for promoting the same discover what hath been the charity of our Prelatical party Beside whatever be our thoughts as to their state with God and without judging their eternal condition it s no breach of charity to know such as are seducers from Gods way to beware of sin and the ensnarings of such seducers for which we have so many scripture commands as we have heard and the Judgment of discretion in relation to evils which we are to eshew is not that uncharitable judging in matters Lawfull and Indifferent which is condemned Rom. 14. 3 4. for else we could not act in faith And the same Corinthians whom Paul exhorted so much to Love he enjoyned also to come out from among the ungodly 2 Cor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their sin 4. He advises to consider the danger of divisions Gal. 5. 15. Mark 3. 24. since the enemy mocks religion upon this ground and while each fights with another all are overcome which he illustrats with the story of Scilurus his sheaf of arrowes Ans. Divisions indeed among Gods people are sad and have had sad effects but union must be in truth and duty and cemented with these bonds since it is the unity of the spirit which we must seek Eph. 4. 3. and therefore not in a way of defection and Rebellion against God and in breaking his Covenant which is nothing else but a combination against him It is in the Lord that we must be of the same mind Phil. 4 2. and Christ who prayed so enixly for his disciples union Joh. 17. 21. prayed also for their sanctification in and by the truth 17. ver and that they might be kept from the evill of the world 15. ver And the Apostle Paul who is so great a pleader for Love and union would not give place by subjection to deceitfull workers no not for an hour Gal. 2. 5. The best way to mantain union preserve the Gospel which their dividing innovating course of backsliding hath exposed to so much prevalency and reproach of Papists is to keep our garments free of their defilements to put away that accur sed thing which hath made us so weak before enemies 5. He advises his Doubter to acquaint himself with the writings of the old Non-conformists in England such as Cartwright Bradshaw Ball c. Who testify against the Brownists for their separation from that Church for which he sayes much more might have been alledged then for ours Ans. We acknowledge that these worthy men have done well upon this subject and that separation which they wrote against But our case anent a Church purely reformed from corruptions of doctrine worship discipline and Government and under universal oaths of adherence to that reformation infested encroached upon and invaded by a party of Schismatick overturners of her reformation standing in opposition to a faithful Ministry and professors adhering to them is so vastly discrepant from their case anent keeping up fellowship with a Church universally tainted with corruptions from which she had never been purged that by no imaginable grounds can a consequence be drawen from the one to the other And any consequence relating to us or application of the pleadings of these Divines against the Brownists will properly strike against his dividing party who have gone out from the fellowship of this pure Church to which they were Joyned and did vow adherence to her constitution and reformation yet notwithstansting by them thus miserably rent and destroyed for many years As for these Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions which this Informer doth afterward commend unto us we are not much concerned in their explication or application since they do not in the least-strike against what we maintain therefore we shall briefly run over them For the first here mentioned anent not making communion with a Church stricker then Christ hath made it when we disowne dividers and Schismaticks renting and destroying a pure Church and introducing abjured innovations we do not narrow these terms of communion which Christ hath given For he hath commanded us to withdraw from such as cause divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and not to have fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness to turn away from Covenant-breakers And it s their dividing party who fall under the censure of this rule who make complyance with abjured prelacy the terms of their communion and so cruelly persecute all who will not conform to their course of backsliding There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our communion laxer then Christ hath appointed For the 2 rule which he mentions anent a due impression of the evill of division and discord and the reasons and necessity of union I think indeed had this Informer and his party kept up a Scripture impression of this they had not for the punctilio's of their trifling Conformity so miserably rent this poor Church and overturn'd her Reformation For the 3. anent not engadging too far in a divided sect it reaches Conformists another blow who have so far engadged for Prelats and their Interest that for many years it hath been the great work of our Laws by the instigation of them and their Rabbies to root out all Ministers and professors of this Church who do not conform and owne this course of backsliding Dare this petulant Informer call
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
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
backsliders who are destroying and ruining the pure Church but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Ministry thus opposed as is said But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations drawes out a general conclusion from them that in Mr Rutherfoords Iudgment and the English divines neither the personal faults of Ministers Nor real faults about the Worship much less supposed only will warrand a separation which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust as is clear from what is said since he hath proved none of these three either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenour and principles of our Reformation nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case is a sinfull separation Or 3. that we disowne then meerly for personal scandals or some corruption in Worship Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these we have ground of disowning them as Schismatick Innovators destroying this Church and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship nor the worship it self be simpliciter disowned or else he must yeeld the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers and for not separating from them since it is upon this ground that all along he pleads for people's disowning them though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter to try all things and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss as Augustin wrote books of retractions and Ierom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error Ans. I think indeed we are to search all things by the rule of the word and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth searched better he had not obtruded upon Gods people in defence of so bad a cause such insignificant arguments for demonstrations But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good as well as to try all things It is not fit to be ever learning and fixe in nothing And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept justifies our opposing their Innovations But he pleads for retractions and it s no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God plead for retractions But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished the wo threatned against perjury backsliding breach of Covenant is very near them His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace is good and heartily accorded and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity peace and truth which this man pretends to pray for within her walls prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles which have made such sad breaches in her walls will be without them And the prosperity of such as love her will ruine her enemies His Doubters Resolution to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things makes up his lame advice And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about and antidoted this poyson we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth may hold it fast against the times errors and defection The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet is verifyed in the party he pleads for since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church after they have thus rent and separat from her demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles And in their taking up such grosse unheard of principles anent Oaths anent Magistracy c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism that male perseverando fit haeresis And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more more productive of It may very probably become also mater haereseos The Lord awake for judgement and send a plentifull rain to water his in heritance and revive his work in the admist of the years and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands which is disolat for his names sake CHAP. VI. Animadversions Upon the PREFACE And title Page HAveing thus examined what this new Casuist hath offered in these Dialogues we shall here subjoyn some Animadversions upon the Preface prefixt to this pamplet 1. His profest design is to let people see the sin and unwarrantableness of separation as the Epidimicall desease of the time Ans. I think indeed it is so and upon whose side this separation lyes and who hath brought in this flood as he calls it not since 78 but 62 I hope may be now no doubt to the impartiall discerner It s no strange thing to see men charge upon others that whereof themselves are so eminently guilty Papists call themselves the only Catholicks and charge Protestant Churches with separation just as this man and his Innovating party deal with us they only must be the Church of Scotland and we the Schismaticks though not many years agoe it would have been thought I beleeve by many of these men themselves as strange aâ—…e absurditie and paradox to term such a party owning such principles and practices as they now doe the Church of Scotland as to affirm that nihil was aliquid non ens ens or that Zenith was in the situation and place of Nadir such ane intoxicating thing is backsliding and sinfull self love 2. He praises Magistrats in the bounds where he is whose authority together with his mightie convictions forsooth brought back people who went once to hear Presbyterian Ministers out of noveltie Ans â—…s no small peice of our sin and desolation that the Magistrats sword given him for protection of the Lords faithfull Ambassadours in following theire duty according to there solemn vowes to God should be improven in such a sinfull opposition to them What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monstrous perperjurious backsliding were 20 years experience may discover especiallie to those who have seen and known the beautifull order of our first glorious â—…temple the verie rubbish whereof is yet refreshfull in any remains of a faithfull Ministrie that is left 3. Against his modest reluctancie forsooâ—…h some of authoritie and learning among his party thought it fitt that these his Dialogues should see the light because schismatick principles and practices are not laid aside but carried on and this Informer thou ht it a mater of conscience to discover to such as are willing to be informed how unwarrarantable such coursâ—…s are if Scripure and even the Doct ine
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.
r. no such delegation p. 231. l. 17. r. the present prince-like power of our Prelates as Diocesian B. farre less their Erastian usurpations p. 237 l. 8 9 c. r. the ancient Bishops were not all sett over whole provinces but city by city for the most part yea several cities had more who certainly were not Bishops in that sense wherein we heard Theodoret and Oecomenâ—…us denyes a multiplicity of Bishops in one city which also proves a great variety in the Moold and denomination of Bishops spoken of by the fathers p. 238. l. 23 r. sett aside separat and suspended So p. 239 l. 2 p. 247 l. 11 r. a preaching Presbyter or Pastor l. 35 r. Sect. Iâ—… p. 250. l. 9. must begin thus Besides what can he inferre from Calvin's assertion of the precedency of one at that tyme had not Paul c. p. 251 the Parenthesis l. 5 6 7. r. thus no lesse foolishly then maliciously here improven by Durel no friend to his principles p. 252 the penult line must be contiguous with the preceeding and run thus besids that this treatise intituled c. p. 258 l. 15 and l. 19 of pag. 259 are to be joyned as contiguous p. 261. l. 17. after Government adde and received and submitted to our Churches pure constitution in point of doctrine and worship p. 262 l. 25 r. which as early crept into the Church as the prelacy he pleads for yea much more early p. 263 l. 33 34 35 r thus nor hath the Informer proved that this Proestos cast in the moold of the present Episcopacie which he pleads for was allowed of Blondel since he holds it to be cross to the divine pattern and from Scripture disputes against it p. 238 l. 21 r. from the tymes of the Apostles and appointed by them p. 262 from l. 22 to l. 29 r. thus presented under an Episcopal notion to Eusebius and the Power of Bishops which then had obtained whom he too credulously following in his Character and accounts of them and as Irenaeus also doth calling them Bishops in the Catalogues might deceive others in nameing them so p. 263 from l. 9 to 11 read what ever impression of them Irenaeus might be supposed to have upon the ground of his expressions of them or might thereby beget in others because of the language and custome of their time yet c. from l. 14 to 16 r. the nature and state of these Church-officers whom termeing Bishops they were supposed to be such as had then obtained l. 18 to 25. r. thus in that Irenaeus calls them Presbyters according to the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter in his tyme they prove that these expressions of them which seem to savour of an Episcopal notion or what impression he might have or others take from him was a mistake since according to the Scripture language c. l. 26 to 32 r. that what impression Irenaeus might possibly have of the first moderators or what Episcopal notion Eusebius might present them under upon his credulous reports taken up upon trust as he sayes himself from his forefathers were a mistake and this because the persones whom they thus represented and of whom they meaned and speake were upon thematter meer Presbyters p. 264 l. 21 r. next if the Informer will strain these words to plead for his hierarchie even in the Apostles tyme and will affirme that Bucer c. l. 25 r. he must needs grant that Bucer was obleidged to take notice c. l. 30 r. els there will be no consistencie in the words if Bucer reckon c. p. 271 l. 5 6 r. but as the Informer will finde it hard to prove thisdistinction of the schools to be as ancient as these fathers so though it were granted that it was it is certain that what gradual difference they admitt betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter they found it c. p. 281 l. 3 r. collected by one under the name of Clemens 2d Part. p. 5 l. r r haveing no tincture of Prelacie but intirely Presbyterial in its mold members according to the then degrees and State of our Reformation p. 23 l. 7. after Seasonable case r. and himself in objecting the same afterward p. 69. p 29 l. 8 r. in their nature and originally flowes from the Pope p. 64 l. 30 after Government adde whatever defection or liberty of glossing any of them might fall into or plead for p. 76 l. penult read prael 3 parag 9. p. 78 l. 3 r. of all Oaths of this nature p. 82 l. 3 4 5 r. Not to detain the Informer in tasking him to prove that this Statute as not being judicial but moral doth belong unto the Christian Church l. 28 29 r. this divine frame of Presbyterian Government which both as to its courts and officers comprehends the substantials of Government p. 83 l. 15 r. prael 3 parag 9 10 l. 23 r. prael 7 Parag. 6 p. 92 l. 27 r. but such cannot be the Infâ—…rmers meaning in this place nor will his moold of arguing admitt thereof p. 98 l. 14r a matter not only of it self indifferent but a domestick and private concerne l. 22. after gratis dicta r. Besides upon the supposal that the matter of both Oaths is alike or equal and that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent the parallel will not hold as to a dispensation with the matter of the one and the other p. 101 l. 11 after obligation adde for whither we conclude the lawfulness of the matter of this Oath from its conform 〈◊〉 to the divine positive Law or from the overuling of this positive precept in this case by a Superiour moral command all is one as to our defence and argument for the Covenant from this text p. 115 l. 18 r. The Informer hath not reconc led this either with the command or with the promise c. p. 117. l. 15 6 7 r. Sure in his opinion their offer of a league if strangers admitted a demurr and if Canaanites their offering to admitt of terms of peace might have stopt this question even though inhabitants of Canaan c. l. 11 r. So their first offer was a ground of peace if strangers l. 13 r. especially these continued demurrs and renewed interrogatures recorded in this contexture are considerable if we consider what is observed by learned interpreters from v. 8. that they sought peace c. l. 17 and when r. for when Par. 3. p. 35 l 32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 45 l. 28 r. Presbyterian Government and the establisht Reformation of this Church p. 47 l. 28 r. the work of the Reformation then establisht p. 50 l. 3. for pamphlet r. Dialogue p. 54 l. ult r. and such things as upon our and the Scripture grounds which the Informer cannot disprove do immediatly in a moral sense dispose c p 56 l 33 r besides that as to the maine of this Character they are all such as we have cleared
Oath lawfull He knew that his stating the question aright and speaking to it would have made the vanity of his answers appear and therfore he started this notion anent the Oaths binding against a precept that tossing it a little upon his forked pen the unwarrie Reader might beleeve he had return'd a full answer to this argument Whereas he but beats the air in ane airie discourse out of the way and yeelds the cause when he hath done Next he sayes we use to plead Zedekiahs breach of Oath to the King of Babylon which the Lord was so much displeased with But how and to what scope we plead that text he durst not set down nor put into the mouth of his Doubter any formall argument from it Which if rightly propounded he knew well his cause would quickly fall before it This man could not be ignorant how Timorcus and others improve this text viz. that Zedekiah who was of the Kings seed the son of Josiah Ezek. 17. 13. had ane Oath put upon him by the King of Babylon anent his and the Kingdoms fealty and subjection to him 2 Chron 36. 13. after he had overrunn the land and made prisoner Jehoiachin his Brother and keept Zedekiah himself under his power That he could neither have the crown nor his libertie without this Oath of fealty to the King of Babylon which was forced upon him out of fear and as a prisoner yet for the breach hereof Exek 17. he is threatned with the losse of all Shall he break the Covenant and be delivered as I live saith the Lord surely my Oath and Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompence upon his head And in the midst of Babylon he shall die Here was ane Oath forced upon a prisoner and a King of Judah and upon the matter inconsistent with Israels Laws made that the Kingdom might be base yet the breach of it was thus terribly revenged Therfore much more dreadfull is the breach of our solemn vows whose matter is of such high importance and their end so excellent and the power imposing so native and Lawfull c. What sayes he to this Argument he tells us that the Iews were commanded to submit to the King of Babylon Ier. 27. 6. c. so that the breaking of the Oath was disobedience to Gods command But who denyes this and what doth this arguing reprove doth not his Doubter and himself also suppose the matter of the Covenant to be consonant to Gods command But how takes he away these nerves and tâ—…ckling points of this instance and argument for the Covenant 1. That this Oath was forced upon him as a prisoner 2ly taken by Zedekiah out of fear 3ly had a very apparent Inconsistency with a greater good viz. to free Gods Church and people from a heathen slavery 4ly was cross to many standing Laws of Israel yet neither the force of this heathen Invader in imposing this Oath nor the fear and bondage of this King of Israel when he did take it nor the apparent inconsistency of its matter with a greater good and its certain inconsistency with the standing Laws of Israel did loose the Oath when taken nor exeem the breaker of it from wrath and Judgement And all this because it was upon the matter warrantable and allowed of God as we hold the Covenant to be And therfore neither force fear bondage the greater apparent good in breaking it nor the inconsistency of it with our present Laws none of all these pretences we say will loose the Oath of our Covenant the matter of it being warranted of God and of such high importance as is said Sure it is obvious to any that this answer of his sayes nothing to the antecedent or consequent of this argument for the Covenant nor touches it in the least The Doubter objects next the mark of the blessed man Psalm 15. 4. vers swearing to his own hurt and not changing In answer to which this Informer grants that in many things a man may swear to his hurt and not change This is sound and in so far he must grant that the Oath may hinder many goods and yet not for all that be violat And in recompence of this concession I readily yeeld to him that ane Oath will not bind to a mans hurt in every thing as to take away his own life And that such ane Oath binds only to repentance as being iniquitatis vinculum But what will he say to this argument which he makes his Doubter here mutter out Why when it hurts saith he those in authority and peoples soules it will not bind True but how doth the keeping of the Covenant hurt peoples soules or these in authority we read much in Scripture of the hurt that breach of Covenant hath brought upon both these But how a peoples keeping Covenant with God wrongs either their soules or these in authority we would gladly hear Dare he say that every disobedience to the command of Rulers impeaches their authority or that peoples want of the means and ordinances of life is to be imputed to Godly suffering ministers whom for keeping Gods Covenant they have chased away from their flocks families As for familie hurt or in relation to things of this life ther 's no question but that ane Oath in many cases will bind notwithstanding therof Which is the Judgement of all Interpreters But now the Doubter having spent all his arguments hath only one poor General left viz. that we are tender of Oaths To this he answers first by acknowledging that we ought to be considerate before we enter into ane Oath Very true and had we all been so there had not been so many contradictory and ungodly Oaths standing upon record against Scotland as this day there are Withall he sayes we should be well advised before we thinke our selves discharged of an Oath And no doubt if he and his party had advised this better with God with his word with sound Casuists and their own consciences they had not upon such poor grounds as we have seen first perjured themselves and pleaded for others doing the like But yet saith he to think we cannot be at all discharged of an Oath in a thing not necessary is to be more tender then we ought to be True but not to take every matter of an Oath for not necessary which he may have the confidence to call so but cannot prove it and not to admit every ground of discharge as lawfull which such Adiaphorists as he may pretend is to be no more tender then we ought to be But here our Informer will reach a blow again at the Assembly 1638 because of their loosing Ministers who entred by the former Prelats from their Oaths to them But where is his discretion and tenderness who objects this as a fault of that assembly and yet dare not exhibit nor offer to scanne their grounds mentioned in their act in reference to these engadgements wherein because