another all pretending the Covenant there being no distinct specifical termes in the Covenant whereupon some could implead others as guilty of breach and did not the Sectarian Armie when they invaded Scotland pretend the Covenant and keeping of it and thereupon there were high appeals made to heaven Will not all or most of them own the letter of the Covenant which only seems clear against Popery and Prelacy and for a violent extirpation of this Then there was no security in that Covenant for preserving Presbytery in Scotland the Presbytery not being once named only the matter is wrapped up in a general We shall preserve the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government against our common enemies reformed Religion and against common enemies No Independent or Separatist but might say he would preserve the Reformed Religion c. in Scotland albeit he thought not Presbytery to be any part of Reformed Religion or Government and although he minded to do against it himself only if he would preserve it it should be to hold off what he apprehended worser he would preserve it against the common enemies Neither is there security in that Covenant for reforming England according to the pattern as was desired by us Was there not more policy then piety in this to endeavour the soldering and holding fast of so many several parties united against Episcopacy yet sorting amongst themselves like the iron and clay toeâ— of Nebuchadnezar's image and ready to break one upon another all under pretence of the Covenant as it clearly came to passe and is still like to be such is the vanity of humane policies unsound wayes of uniting tending to the begetting in end of greater distractions And the Covenant being of purpose framed in general terms for the most part that several parties might be fast united against Prelacy owned by the King if it should be still owned would prove no better then a perpetual seminary of diverse Parties all pleading their keeping of their Covenant and yet no party agreeing one with another in the specifical sense thereof and some of the wayes of these several parties might be found much worse in the judgment of right discerners then Prelacy is or may be thought to be by some It would be seriously pondred whether this way of a studied indistinctness generality and homonymie in the terms of the Covenant for strengthning a party against some one thing was acceptable to God And whether the blood of our Countrey-men should have been cast away in such uncertain terms It will be said The Covenant is clear enough against Episcopacy let us keep it in the clear and true sense of it whatever doubtfulness be otherwayes But to say nothing of this that we have shewed above how unclear it is against the Episcopacy established now in Scotland however clear it be as intended against the English frame were it not better to lay aside when now it is disclaimed by King and Parliament and all persons of trust in the Land an humane form which in respect of the Composure of it is apt to be hath been and is like to be a seminary of varieties of parties all pleading it and worse evils then Prelacy is imagin'd to be then still to own it when as authentick exponers of the sense of it who might reprove false pretenders to the keeping of it cannot be had neither while they were in being could agree amongst themselves anent the sense of it as may be seen in the Parliament of Englands baâ—ling the Scotish Commissioners Declaration anno 1647. and other Papers God hath given the children of men work enough to be exercised in his holy Word which certainly in his intendment hath but one true sense howbeit mans blindness often perceiveth it not It is a needless labour to be taken up with humane forms purposely contrived in general terms for taking in parties of known contrary sense and judgment which will if own'd prove apples of contention in the present and succeeding Generations But 3. Let sober and godly men consider if it was dutifully done to swear the preservation of the Kings person and Authority conditionally and with a limitation In the preservation and defence of the true Religion Mr. Crofton indeed denyeth that in that third Article of the Covenant there is any limitation of our loyalty in defending the King or that this is the sense that we are only bound to defend Him while He defends Religion he asserts that clause to be only a predication of their present capacity who engage to defend the King's Person to this sense we being in defence of Religion c. shall defend the King's Person But to say nothing how strain'd-like this looketh the words in the sense of judicious men looking as a clear limitation of our duty to Him as if otherwise we owed Him no duty of that sort Belike the General Ass of the Church of Scotland should understand the sense of the Covenant somewhat better then Mr. Crofton to say nothing of their stating their opposition to Authority of Parliament in the matter of the Engagment 1648. upon this as the main hinge â— our conditional duty to the King They in their Declaration 1649. declare that the King was not to be admitted to the exercise of His royal Power before satisfaction as to the matter of Religion they meant mainly that particular mode of church-Church-government by Presbytery for that was it that went under the name of Religion the substance of the protestant Religion being never under question between the King and them they plead for a ground the Covenant where their duty in defending the King's Person and Authority is said to be subordinate to Religion and therefore it is concluded that without manifest breach of Covenant they cannot admit Him to reign till in that they be satisfied It is clear they look'd on it as a limitation of their duty and that His owning of Presbytery c. was conditio sinè quà non of His reigning amongst them and of their paying duty to Him and so indeed the transactions in the Treaties at Breda and the Hague and what followed thereupon expounded their mind Now was this right that where our Alleagiance binds us to duty in a greater latitude this should be held out to people as the only standard of their loyalty and duty to the King Was it sound Doctrine to insinuat to the sense of intelligent men that we were not otherwise bound to defend Him Was it well by such a clause to givâ— occasion to wicked men as the Sectaries take it in their Declaration before the late King's death to think they were no further obliged to Him then He should defend that which they accounted Religion yea that they were obliged by Covenant to destroy Hiâ— Person they finding as they say in that Declaration that His Safety and Religions are inconsistent And was it the duty of thâ—se who were Commissioners from this
maintains that the Ministers who of old took the canonical Oath did not swear the contradictory thereto when they took the Covenant whence it will follow necessarily that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that Oath if they should take the Oath of canonical Obedience and indeed it will be hard to find out a contradiction either in termes or by necessary consequence But if the obligation of the Covenant as to that second article shall be found to cease whereof afterward the lawfulness of the other Oath will be clearer 3. It would be considered that the Reverened Persons intrusted by Law to call for that Promise from Ministers do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power all they seek is obedience to them in things lawfull and honest as being presently in power being by Law ordinary Overseers of the Ministry in their duties and chief Ordainers of them who enter into the Ministry But it is said where obedience is promised there is an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Power Office and Authority because obedience formally cannot be but to a lawfull Authority therefore he that in his conscience thinketh a Bishops Office unlawfull cannot so much as promise obedience to him in things lawfull and honest lest by his taking such an Oath he make himself guilty of establishing that which he accounts unlawfull But 1. it is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for if it be obedience materially Ministers doing their duties in things really lawfull they are satisfied 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any lawfull Authority for waving the consideration of any ecclesiastical Office wherein they may pretend to be superiour to other Ministers and giving but not granting that as Church-ministers their Office and superiority were unlawful yet looking upon them as the Kings Majesties Commissioners in Causes ecclesiastical for regulating the external order of the Church in their several bounds and impowred by the law of the land so to do they being also Presbyters and having power with others in Ordination and Jurisdiction ecclesiastical it will be hard to say that their power is not lawfull and that obedience is not due to them The strictest Presbyterians will not find ground to disown their Office in that consideration There are three things mainly which bear off Brethren of both these sorts and ranks from submitting to and concurring in their duties under the present Government 1. Their fears of future evils 2. Their present thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop over Presbyters in the Church 3. Their former Engagements by the bond of the Covenant which they conceive still binds them As to the first their fears there can be no sufficient ground in these to bear them off from that which for the present is found to be their duty If evils feared should come and Brethren in conscience toward God not able to comply with them then suffering might be the more comfortable but the gracious providence of God watching over his Church the goodness and wisdom of our Soveraign and of Rulers under him considering the temper of this Nation may make all these fears vain and disappoint them and it is not for us to be too thoughtful or to torment our selves with fears before the time In the mean time it would be well considered by Brethren that bear off from concurrence if they do well in withdrawing their counsels from their Brethren and in doing that which tendeth to the loss of their enterest in and respect with persons in present Authority in regard whereof they might be exceedingly instrumental to prevent any thing that is feared 2. As to their thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop something hath been said of the lawfulness of their concurrence in unquestion'd duties even upon that supposition something also hath been said of the acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Office looking upon them as Presbyters commissionated by the King for external ordering of Church-affairs in their severall bounds and of the lawfulness of obedience to them as in that capacity It is not the purpose of this Paper to dispute much for their Church-capacity or Rule over Presbyters or anent the Office of Bishops as an order of Church-ministers Only as to this three things would be seriously pondred by Brethren 1. Where they are able to find in all Christs Testament any precept for meer Presbyters preaching and unpreaching in a full equality of power to rule the Church of Christ to give Ordination to Ministers to judge in all controversies of Religion ministerially and do all acts of Government in the Church or where they can find any example of such a Presbytery doing these acts without some superiour Officer acting with them or directing them in their actings or where there is any inhibition either expresse or by necessary consequence that no Gospel-minister should in any case have superiority in power over others in Church-affairs 2. Let it be considered if descending from the Scripture times it can be found in any Writer who lived in the first two or three ages after Christ or in any History or Record relating to these times not to speak of after-ages it can be found that there was any such Church-officer as an unpreaching Elder joyned in full equality of power with Preaching-elders in acts of Ordination of Ministers from which if they be necessary parts and members of the Presbytery they cannot be excluded and in all other acts of Jurisdiction or if there be any mention of the names or power of any such persons Or if it can be from these Writers found that there was ever any Ordination of Ministers or exercise of Jurisdiction ecclesiastical by Ministers i. e. by meer Preaching-presbyters without some one stated President over them under the name of Bishop who was to go before them in these actions and without whom nothing was to be done in these Shall not the practice of that primitive Church which followed the Apostles as it were at the heels be most able to shew us which way they went and what was their practice It is too horrid a thing to imagine and that which a modest Christian can hardly down with that immediately after the Apostles times the whole Church of Châ—â—â—t should agree to so substantial an alteration of the Government of the Church suppos'd to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles as to exclude one sâ—â—t of Officers of his appointment and to take in another not appointed by him And that it should be done so early Statim post tempora Apostolorum aut eorum etiam tempore saith Molinaeus Epist 3. ad Episcop Winton Bishops were set up in the time when some of them especially John were living viventibus videntibus non
all things that favoured of popery yet in their Confession there is nothing against Bishops nor for a Presbytery And Act 24. the former civil priviledges of the spiritual State of the Realm are ratified accordingly Bishops did sit in that Parliament also in the same Confession they say not one Policy or Order can be for all Churches and all times But after the year 1580. wherein the Office of Bishops was abrogated by the Assembly albeit some provincial Synods were set up in the place of the outed Bishops and Superintendents in these Provinces yet was there no Presbytery before the year 1586. nor any of these Judicatories legally established before 1592. and within eighteen years after that or twenty Bishops are set up again by the Act of Assembly 1610. and ratified in Parliament 1612. and continued so the space of twenty eight years till the Assembly at Glasgow 1638. So it may be easily seen the Office of a Bishop is no great stranger to this Church since the Reformation of Religion but hath been longer owned then Presbytery in times of peace and modesty would require we should not be ready to condemn this Reformed Church as having in those times owned a Government unlawfull and against the Word of God especially when the different fruits of Government by Presbytery and Episcopacy have been to our cost sadly experienced But now we come to the third difficulty anent the Oath of the Covenant This is popularly pleaded by such as do not penetrate into the controversie anent the Office of a Bishop in point of lawfulness or unlawfulness Indeed the Bond of a lawfull Covenant is so sacred a tye that without contempt of the holy majesty of God it cannot be violated nor without great sin no creature can absolve us from it nor dispense with it nor are we to break it for any temporal advantage terror or trouble Yet supposing the Covenant to be lawfull which is not proven it is sure 1. That a lawfull Oath may cease to bind us so that though we do not that which was under Oath promised to be done yet there is no perjury Semper perjurus est qui non intendit quod promittit non semper perjurus est qui non perficit qâ—od promisit sub Juramento say the Casuists 2. It is certain that a lawfull although in the interpretation of it it be stricti juris and is to be understood according to the intention of the givers of it and as the plain words bear yet it bindeth not in the sense which any ignorant mind or over-scrupulous conscience may put upon it or that some persons upon partial designes may put upon it Videndum est say Casuists ne stricta interpretatio abeat in nimis strictam rigidam 3. It is certain an unlawfull Oath did never nor doth bind any conscience to do according to it though it bindeth to repentance for making of it and adhering to it In considering and applying these things as to the first It would be remembred that an Oath howsoever in it self lawfull yet the case may be such that by something following after it the Oath may cease to bind us to the performing of what was sworn yea the case may be that an Oath lawfully made yet cannot be lawfully kept it were sin to keep it in some cases then and in that case it is not we that loose our selves but God looseth us when an Oath lawfull at the making cannot be kept without sin against him Amongst other cases wherein the ceasing of an obligation of a lawfull Oath may be seen these three Cases are worthy to be considered and seriously is it to be pondred whether they be applicable to the present Question anent a discharge from the bond of the Covenant as to the second Article of it which is now under question 1. If the matter of an Oath be such as a Superiour hath it in his power to determine of it the Oath of the inferiour or subject person ceaseth to oblige him and is loosed when the Superiour consents not to what he hath sworn this is both agreeable to reason because no deed of a person inferiour or subject to others should prejudge the right of the Superiour nor take from him any power allowed to him by God in any thing And also all sound Divines do acknowledge this upon the common equity of that law Numb 30. 4. If it be said that the matter of the second Article of the Covâ—nant being not of indifferent nature but determined by the Word of God and so not under the power of a Superiour on earth to determine in it it would be remembred that in all this part of the discourse where the ceasing of the obligation of the Covenant is spoken of as to the second Article they are dealt with who plead the obligation of the Covenant only and upon that account do scruple As for the consideration of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Episcopacy in it self a little of it was spoken to before and the tryall of that is matter for longer disquisisition and men would not be too peremptory in condemning Episcopacy if they seriously consider that the ablest Pens that ever engaged in this Controversie have found it a task too hard for them to demonstrate Episcopacy to be in it self unlawfull and if we ask the judgments of the most eminent reformed Divines we shall find very few or none learned sober and faithfull in the point who do judge it to be forbidden by God But in this point when these who alledge the bond of the Covenant only for their scruple there is a necessity to abstract from that question whether Presbytery be necessary by divine law and Episcopacy in it self unlawfull In this part of the discourse supposing the lawfulness or indifferency of it we only enquire whether meerly by vertue of the Covenant we are bound to stand against it If by Gods Word it be found to be unlawfull which cannot be proved then whether there had been a Covenant made against it or not it cannot be allowed If it be said again that the consent of our Superiour hath been obtained to that to which we have determin'd our selves by our Oath in the second Article and therefore our Oath before God is confirmed and he hath not power to revoke his consent according to that law Numb 30. 14. It would be be considered whether it was the Lords mind in that â—aw that if children or wives having vowed should by some means drive their parents or husbands out of the house deprived them of all their worldly comforts and then when they had put them thus undurifully under sad tentations bargain with them either to ratifie their vows or never to enjoy these comforts they had deprived them of whether it was the Lords mind that consent so obtain'd should be an irrevocable confirmation of their vows who had carryed themselves so undutifully There is no evidence for that And the application
at London then to profess in their Paper they were not inâ—â—â—sâ—â—d to 〈…〉 in their guilt when they knew th◠〈◊〉 would take their meaning to â—e of the King Doth difference in Religion or in these inferior and lower points about church-Church-government loose a people from their duty in defending His Person and obeying His Authority How may forreign Princes who have Protestants in their Dominions take it if that might pass for an approved opinion amongst their protestant Subjects that their loyalty is to be limited to His beeing of their Religion and if He be not they may either cease to defend Him or invâ—dâ— Him It may be remembred that those who owned the western Remonstrance did justifie their seditious Engagments and renting proceedings which few of them have disâ—laim'd to this day upon then sensing the obligation of the Covenant as is said and that in conformity to the constant tenor of the published Declarations and Testimonies of Church judicatories since the taking of the Covenant and if sâ— sure it concerneth the Ministers of this Church to vindicate the Doctrine it hereof in the point of that respect and obedience to the Civil Magistrate which the Confessions of all Protestant Churches do own which hath been stain'd by these corrupt principles and positions and the undutifull practices slowing from the same in these years past But to say no more it would be in the fear of God considered if in the solemn Covenant the engagers therein have bound themselves to 〈◊〉 act unlawfull that may render the Covenant in some part of the matter of it sinfull the act which in the second Article now under question they have engaged themselves in is the voting out of Prelacy or the Offices c. There was no such Offices in Scotland at that time so they needed not to swear extirpation of what was not there In England their Church-government being warranted by the Laws of the King and Land it may be question'd if the swearing the extirpation or endeavouring to extirpate the same without and against the consent of the Soveraign Law giver of the land was a lawfull Act. The question is not now whether Episcopacy be lawfull or not But supposing Episcopacy to be unlawfull in it self albeit in that case the Law-givers were indeed bound to remove it and to annull Laws favouring it Yet it were unlawfull to people to bandy for forcing or frighting the Law givers to an alteration of these Laws and to tye themselves to a mutual defence with lives and fortunes for overturning what the Law alloweth agree the Soveraign or not which is the clear meaning of the Covenant Artic. 2 3 5. If once that Principle prevail that subjects may when they apprehend Laws unlawfull use forcible endeavours to obtain alteration thereof What security can there be for the best Printes in maintaining the best Laws or what peace for people When an evil spirit rusheth upon people or some Sheba bloweth the trumper they will be ready to think it is their place and calling being souldiers and men at armes however called thereto to offer violence to Magistrates and Laws even the best It is in vain some defenders of the Covenant say forcible endeavours are not meant Compare second Article and third that make mention of lives and estates and relates to the former and the fifth Article It is clearly enough seen violent endeavours are meant where lesse will not do And when the cause of the Covenant was managed in the field were not people upon account of that Article hunted out either to kill or die and terrified with the charge of Covenant-breaking if they went not Did not people conceive themselves or were taught so that it was their place and calling to take armes without and against the consent of the Soveraign Law-giver And in that calling they were to endeavour forcibly consent the King or not to carry that abolition of Prelacy Let it be considered whether engageing to such endeavours were lawfull quoad nos or whether it can be a lawfull bond that tyes to such violent endeavours against the supreme Magistrate and Laws be what they will be And let it be seriously pondred that if they who hold themselves obliged in no way to yield unto acknowledge obey nor act under the Government which the King and Law have set over them and by thus withdrawing their subjection encourage and lead others to do the like after their example thereby designing to weaken the Government which in the fairest construction cannot be judged to live peaceably If I say these will speak and act consequentially to former principles and practices not yet by them disclaimed they must also hold themselves by the same Covenant oblig'd to resist and fight against the Laws fencing Episcopacy if occasion were offered and not only to vent their animosities and discontents in their prayers and discourses in private but also to take all occasions to revile and curse that Government and their Superiours commissionated by the King in Prayers Sermons and discourses in publick and in effect to do what in them lyeth to bring it and them under the scandal and odium of the people and make them the Butt of their malice and revenge let wise men judge how far this is from the tenor of our lawfull Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy yea and Christianity and what an inlet this will give to disturb the peace and rekindle that fire which had almost consumed us to ashes To close 1. If Episcopacy be of Apostolick Institution as many learned godly men judge and it is hard to say many swearers of the Covenant had ground of clear perswasion to the contrary it would not be so banded against without grievous sin and scandal 2. If Episcopacy be of indifferent nature and only by humane constitution it would be considered what Protestants write against Papists That vows of perpetual abstinence in all cases from things in their nature indifferent are utterly unlawfull and let it be thought whether it be lawfull for any subjects to bind up themselves by Oath never to be subject to the Magistrates laws in things God hath put under the determination of his power 3. Let Episcopacy be unlawfull which is not proven by any yet it shall be unlawfull for-subjects to attempt the abrogation of the Laws favouring it by any force to be us'd on the Lawgiver which is indeed the intent of the Covenant and the proceedings thereupon were answerable The Lord give us humble and peaceable spirits to see at last and lay to heart the sin and folly of those Bonds and Combinations against the Kings Ecclesiastical Government and his will expressed in the Laws of the land which are inconsistent with that duty and loyalty which Church-men above other subjects should pay to that Supremacy in all causes and over all persons declared by the law to be an inherent right to the Crown It is high time for us in this day of our tranquillity and calm which God hath wrought to consider what belongs to our peace and to discern the way of our duty from which we have been too long transported by the tempestuous Agitations and diverse winds of Doctrines Engagements and professions in the years past Reason and Scripture Divine and Natural law seem to point out as with a Sun-beam the way we should hold namely that for publick security order and peace Ministers and people do acquiesce in the present establishment and obey every Ordinance of man whether the King as Supream or those who are commissionated by Him and that not only for wrath but conscience sake Let it be far from Ministers of the Gospel of peace to head and lead the people into divisions and offences and by their carriage and way to dispose them into disaffection and discontent with the King and his Laws as if in the account of some whether of corrupt and weak minds he were a Tyrant not a Father to the Church who maketh such Laws which His conscientious subjects cannot obey for fear of sin against God if this way of disobedience be persisted in it is easie to see what evils will follow since it must be expected that the King and Parliament will in honour and justice maintain the laws And how the whole Nation may be exposed to the reproach of a troublesome disquiet factious people delighting still in sedition and turbulency It becomes us rather to cut off occasions of stumbling in the way of Gods people and to be patterns of love to and zeal for the Honour and tranquillity of our King and Countrey of this Church and State and to shew so much tenderness for the interest of Religion Order and Unity as to put forth our selves to the utmost in our stations to promote all these which will prove the most effectual way of crushing that spirit of Athelsm and profaneness so much complained of by those who flee from the only remedy thereof Ministers are not to imploy themselves so much in considering how to maintain and uphold the interest of a party or cause they have espoused as how far they may go what they may without sin do in the practice of what the law injoyneth The God of peace and truth direct and stablish us in the way of peace and truth Amen FINIS ERRATA Pag. 15. Line 6. for others read Oaths Pag. 18. Line 2. for sect read sort
The seasonable CASE of Submission to the Church-government As no◠re-established by Law briefly stated and determined By a Lover of the peace of this CHURCH and KINGDOM 1 Sam. Chap. 15. 22. Behold to obey is better then sacrifice Confess Suec Cap. 14. Civilibus legibus quae cum pietate non pugnant eò quisque Christianus paret promptiùs quò fide Christi est imbutus pleniùs Published by Order EDINBURGH Printed by Evan Tyler Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty 1662. The Case anent submission to the present Church-government re-established by Law stated and considered THe exceeding great bitterness of the continued and increasing sad distractions amongst the people of God to the hindrance of their edification in faith and a godly life with charity and peace amongst themselves should put all the Ministers of Christ to most serious thoughts in considering how far they may under the present dispensations of God without sin accommodate in following unquestionable duties with and under the established Government of the Church And although as to a cordial allowance of the present change they cannot yet attain something remaining whether of scruple or affection which maketh it unpleasing and their concurrence with it to ly heavy upon their spirits yet if there be found no manifest transgression in concurring under the same in matters of unquestionable duty they would wisely put difference between gravamen spiritus and ligamen conscientiae something in the will that rendreth them averse and the prevailing clear light of a well-informed conscience to which how uneasie it is to attain in this point of controversie they can tell who have truly tryed it binding them up from concurrence as a thing in it self unlawfull Men who walk in the fear of God and are zealous of His honour had need to be very jealous of their own zeal that it carry them not to the rejecting of a real duty which to their apprehension sits too near a sin Ministers whom sober-mindedness doth greatly become would look to it that the censure of a grave Divine upon the spirits of our countrey-men praefervidum Scotorum ingenium do not too much touch them It is their duty to advert lest at this time too great animosity contribute to the laying of the foundation of a wofull division to be entailed to the generations to come the evil whereof will preponder all the good that any one form of Church-government can of it self produce viz. the dishonour of God the weakning of the cause of the true protestant Religion against the common adversaries thereof the destroying of true charity and love amongst the people of God the hinderance of their profiting under the several Ministries they live under and the creating continual confusions and distractions in the Common-wealth the ordinary fruit of schism in the Church as too lamentable experience whereof we carry the sad marks to this day hath taught us 1. That there may and ought to be a brotherly accommodation and concurrence in matters of practice which are undoubted duty albeit Brethren be of different judgments anent the constitution of Meetings or capacity of persons that act in these duties grave and learned men have put it out of question It is well known that in the Assembly of Divines at London accommodation was mainly laboured for and far carried on between Presbyterians and Independents that they might concur in common Actings for regulating the Church with a reserve of liberty of their own several principles The Independents thought the Presbyterians had no judicial Authority in these Meetings The Presbyterians though accounting this an errour yet were willing in common unquestionable duties to concur with them Also several of the most eminent Presbyterians in England as Mr. Viner Mr. Baxter and others accounting of un-preaching Elders as of an humane device as now the Office of a Bishop is accounted of by many Brethren Yet not being able to attain to the exercise of presbyterial Government without the intermixture of these yea of them double the number to preaching Presbyters in each Meeting which gave them an overswaying power in the Government notwithstanding they did concur with them in matters of unquestionable duty Is it not also well known that amongst our selves in this Church Brethren did ordinarily concur in Synods and Presbyteries in doing their duties with these whom they charged with a sinfull schisme a thing as much against the Covenant as that which is now pretended for withdrawing from the Meetings of Synods and Presbyteries And when Brethren thus charged did withdraw their concurrence in some duties by several passages in that Paper entituled A Representation of the rise progress and state of the Divisions in the Church of Scotland how that practice of theirs was constructed of pag. 21. it is affirmed that they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatisme denying the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawfull necessary duty because of the personal sin of fellow-actors in it And pag. 28. speaking of their refusing to own the Judicatories as lawfull because the men whom they judged to be in a course of defection the Commissioners of the Church they meant were admitted to sit there it is said by the Representer that it is a principle that draweth very deep for saith he by parity of reason they must not joyn with any inferiour Judicatories where they are nor in any lawful act of Religion or Worship more then in an Assembly May not much of this be applyed to the present Withdrawers from concurrence in necessary duties Mutato nomine de te c. It will be said there is a great disparity between those Commissioners and the Bishops who are looked on as new unwarranted Officers in the Church and therefore albeit there may be now reason for withdrawing from Meetings where they are there was no reason for withdrawing from Assemblies where these Commissioners sate But not to divert to a dispute here whether the Office of a Bishop be new or unwarrantable or lesse warrantable then the Office of these Commissioners which wise men looked upon as very like episcopal there is herein a parity that as these now are judged so the other were judged by the Excepters against them to be in a course of defection and unlawfully officiating as members of the Assembly And yet were these Quarrellers reproved for withdrawing from the general Assembly upon that account Should not that reproof be taken home in the present case by such as withdraw from Meetings of the Chruch why should there be divers weights and divers measures used in such parity of cases Again it is asserted pag. 37. to be a divisive principle that men will not concur in lawfull duties because these with whom they joyn will not come up to their judgment in all other things Ibid. They challenge them for refusing to joyn in an uncontroverted duty because the direction to it flowed from the authority of an Assembly which they could not own It