that Article the Covenant is not to be understood in sensu divisô but compositô which sureth to Mr. Baxters complex frame And therefore asserts that continuing of Bishops with a negative voice in Ordination and ministerial Meetings might be permitted without breach of Covenant And if it be so as this learned man and others mention'd concede What reason is there to bend the Covenant against the present Episcopacy of Scotland which is establish'd to govern the Church not excluding but with consent of Presbyters with as great moderation as any was in the primitive Episcopacy But it will be said then we stand bound against the English Prelacy as it is explained in the Covenant Ans It will be time to dispute that when we are called to live under that frame of Prelacy In the mean time let it be granted that the Church establishment amongst us is not that which the Covenant describeth to be renounced neither are we rashly to judge the way of other Churches which we are not called to own they are to give an account of their own way to God and the King and will allow us a discharge from meddling in their affairs and they are not like in hast to give us any place or calling in modelling their Church-government to which all protestant Churches ought to pay reverence But again it will be said was not the form of Episcopacy that was in Scotland before from which the present is nothing different abjured in the National Covenant before we had any dealing with England anent change of their Church-government Ans If we will believe the Ministers who reason'd with the Doctors of Aberdeen and they were the prime promoters of the Covenant and carried with them the sense of the body of the Covenanters they who subscribed that Covenant might with great liberty voice in an Assembly concerning Episcopacy without prejudice notwithstanding their Oath And upon this ground would perswade the Doctors to subscribe the Covenant because in so doing they should not be taken as abjuring Episcopacy as the Doctors thought But notwithstanding their Oath and subscription had their liberty remaining entire to voice for Episcopacy in an Assembly See their answer to the Doctors their fourth and tenth demands And the truth is that as in the explication added anno 1638. Episcopacy is not mentioned as abjured so neither was it abjured by the National Covenant as it was enjoyn'd to be subscribed anno 1580. It is alledged that under the name of the Popes wicked Hierarchy the Office of Episcopacy was abjured But they who say so would consider that the abjuring of the Popes wicked Hierarchy imports not an abjuration of the Office of a Bishop more then the Office of a Presbyter or a Deacon which are parts of that Hierarchy so called by the Council of Trent Canon Sess 7. as well as the Office of a Bishop If the Covenant do not under that expression abjure these Offices neither doth it abjure the Office of a Bishop seing these are parts of that which the Papists call Hierarchy as well as this The intent of that Covenant was not to abjure the Office of Bishops more then of Presbyters or Deacons but to abjure the Hierarchy so far as it was the Popes his wicked Hierarchy as it also abjureth his five bastard sacraments so far as he maketh them Sacraments for sure Orders or Ordination of Ministers and Marriage which he maketh two Sacraments are not abjured in the Covenant as to the matter of them but only as to the relation of being Sacraments which the Pope puts on them even so the Popes Hierarchy is abjured counted and called wicked not as to the matter of these Offices comprehended under the ecclesiastical word Hierarchy for then the Office of Presbyters and Deacons should be also counted wicked and abjured but as to the dependance of all these Offices on him as the fountain and head of the Church under Christ and the corruption adhereing to these Offices and flowing from him so far as they are his depending on him corrupted by him there is wickedness in them or joyn'd to them and so they are abjured as in another word of that Covenant his blasphemous Priest-hood is abjured yet in that the Office of Presbyter is not abjured But mean time the Offices themselves which are said to make up that Hierarchy are not abjured nor are to be rejected but purged from what is his or any dependance on him or corruption flowing from him And so the Office of a Bishop amongst Protestants Bishops now being loosed from that dependance from the Sea of Rome and the Pope who as head of the Church claimed a plenitude of power over the whole Church and made all Christian Bishops and Ministers but as his slaves and vassals portioning out to them such measure of jurisdiction as he thought fit as their stiles in this Countrey imported of old Ego N. Dei apostolicae sedis gratiâ Episcopus I say the Office of the protestant Bishop is no more a part now of the Popes wicked Hierarchy then is the Office of a Minister or Deacon But further it may appear that under the name of the Popes wicked Hierarchy the Office of Bishops was not abjured in the National Covenant 1. The enjoyner of that Covenant to be taken by the subjects was King James of blessed memory He having himself with His family subscribed that Oath and Covenant gave charge to all Commissioners and Ministers within the Realm to crave the same Confession from their parishoners and proceed against the refusers as the words of the charge bear March 2. 1580. This was the first injunction for taking the Covenant which was mainly intended for securing the Religion and the King who favoured it and professed it from Papists who were sound practising with forraigners against him and it and for clearing the King and his Court from aspersions But that the King by that Covenant intended the abjuration of the Office of protestant Episcopacy it is most improbable and by many things the contrary appeareth 1. The instrument in penning that Covenant at the Kings command was Mr. John Craig His Minister a very learned man who but nine years before Jan 12. anno 1571. had given his consent in the Assembly of the Church which then did meet at Leith that Commissioners might be appointed to joyn with these whom the Council should appoint for settling the policy of the Church of these Commissioners he himself was one and with him Dun the Superintendent of Angus Winrame Superintendent of Fyfe and others the resolution they came to was that there should be of the most qualified of the Ministry some chosen by the Chapters of the cathedral Churches to whom vacant Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks might be dispon'd and they to have power of Ordination and to exerce spiritual Jurisdiction in their several Diocesses and at the Ordination of Ministers to exact an Oath of them for acknowledging His Majesties Authority
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
contradicentibus as is manifest by History in the successors of Mark at Alexandria and others Can it be imagin'd that such a thing as the Office of a Bishop should have been set up so early in the times of the Apostles and they not contradicting it had it been contrary to Christs mind How unlikely is it that in those times when the piety and zeal of Christians was so great and knowledge too there should have been no opposition to the Office of Bishops had it been judged a wronging of Christs Ordinance How unlikely is it that in times of such fiery persecution Christs Ministers should be carryed with ambition to seek the superiority over others in an Office against his mind Or that people would have yielded to the ambitious courses of Pastors How can it be thought that the whole Church in these times without any known exception should have taken up that way of Government by Bishops without any co-action to it by civil Power without any advice or direction from General Assemblies and Councils which then were not in being If this way had not been universally judged lawfull yea it may be suppos'd descending from a higher warrant then voluntary agreements of men We do never hear of any opposition to the Office and dignity of a Bishop over Presbyters till it was made by one Aerius in the fourth age whom Epiphanius calleth a frantick man he being enraged that Eustathius whom he undervalued in comparison of himself was preferred to him and got the Bishoprick which he ambitiously aimed at began to talk against the dignity and order of Bishops and is therefore counted by Epiphanius and Augustine no children in knowledge an heretick in whatever sense they mean and also he is justly censured and condemned by Blondel Gers Bucer Molinaeus to Andrews as a disturber of a lawful order in the Church albeit they cannot come up to think that Episcopacy is a divine Institution or apostolicall Now let Brethren in modesty consider how unlike it is that the Office of a Bishop should be contrary to the institution of Christ in his Word that began so early even in the Apostles times without their contradiction that was so universally submitted to by the primitive Christians in their most firy tryals that hath continued in the christian Churches not only these infected with the Roman apostasie but the eastern Church that disclaimeth the Popes supremacy and that for 1500. years after Christ without any contradiction save of one man who never had a marrow no not Jerome whatever be said concerning him by some that is still owned by most of the reformed Churches who have rejected the Pope not only by these of the Lutheran way under the name of Superintendents quid est Episcopus nisi Superintendens saith Jerom epist ad Euagrum but also by some of the Calvinean way as may be seen by Zepperus Eccles Pol. And formally that is even owned as lawfull being well-moderated by the stoutest Disputers against the divine right of it Albeit men in their passionat strains to popular auditories sometimes cry out upon the Office of a Bishop as an anti-christian and popish domination yet in the protestant Episcopacy that is owned there is no more of the Pope then there is of a Mass-priest in a Minister or of a Conclave of Cardinal-presbyters in a Commission of the Church or a Presbytery The Episcopacy that is now is the very primitive Episcopacy which Timorcus descriving Ep. 10. Sect. 25. affirmeth to be that nothing in Ordination or Jurisdiction be done by Brethren under the Bishop without him and he alone doing nothing without them in these and avowes the same not to be contrary to the Covenant The Episcopacy that now is is that same Office for substance which Ignatius had at Antioch Polycarp at Smyrna â—ornâ—lius in Rome Iraeneus at Lyons in France Cyprian in Carthage and many others had in other places before the Niven Council and which Chrysostome Augustine and many others had after and it should be our desire to God that our Bishops as they hold the same Office and Place for substance these did so they may imitate their vertues and graces and be notable Instruments for advancing God's glory in their stations But 3. it would be considered that the holding of Episcopacy as a Government unlawfull and contrary to the Word of God will cast too great an imputation upon this Reformed Church of Scotland For laying aside the times of war and confusion since the year 1638. wherein in the midst of the noise of Armes and Armies there hath been small opportunity for a serious free disquisition anent these matters it will be found that before that year Episcopacy had been for a far longer time owned by this Reformed Church then Presbytery had been For untill the year 1580. Episcopacy was not abolished in Scotland the Office of Bishops was really used in Scotland till the year 1580. in which the General Assembly at Dundee declared it unlawfull and yet they could not get their Presbyteries set up by the Authority of the Land till twelve years after in the year 1592. But evident it is that at the time of making that Act at Dundee Bishops were in the Land for so the Act it self in the body of it imports Forasmuch say they as the Office of Bishop is now used in this Realm c. And is clear also from their Order they give to process the several Bishops if they lay not down their Office Now from the time of general Reformation from Popery to the time of that Act of Dundee there were full twenty years the Reformation being in the year 1560. during all which time the Church of Scotland was governed by some singulares personae particular persons in several circuits in the Land some under the name of Superintendents Commissioners or Visitors of Countries some under the name of Bishops where popish Bishops embraced the Reformation they had their power continued and Commission given to them for ordaining Ministers and using Jurisdiction and when the civil Magistrate presented any Orthodox to vacant Bishopricks they were accepted of by the Assembly Edinburgh Aug. 6. 1573. where the Regent promising to the Assembly that qualified persons shall be presented to vacant Bishopricks the Assembly concludes that the jurisdiction of Bishops in their ecclesiastical Function shall not exceed the jurisdiction of Superintendents And the Superintendent of Lothian is called by John Knox at his installing anno 1560. the Pastor of the Churches of Lothian and these who represent that Countrey promise to give obedience to him as becomes the sheep to their Pastor It is manifest then that for twenty years after the Reformation Bishops whether under that name or other names continued in Scotland and it is remarkable that our Reformers were wiser men then to put a Presbytery in their Creed For in the Confession registrated in Parliament anno 1567. which before had been presented though they had zeal enough against
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
were good that these former principles were better remembred and used in the present case Further the Presbytery of Edinburgh in their Paper printed Octob. 5. 1659. pag. 8. of that Paper speak very soberly disclaiming it as none of their principles that no difference of opinion can be suffered by them We are say they clear that in many things of common practice in a Church there may be agreement by accommodation though differences of judgment remain c. Again say they we readily yield that as we prophesie but in part men in a Church may compose debates by putting end to contentions though they be not all of one judgment and therein we judge the Apostle hath set the rule before us 1 Cor. 11. 16. A Golden Rule indeed the practice whereof in its just sense might bring us much sweet peace But not to insist upon the judgments of learned men concerning the Case of submission to and acting in duties with Meetings anent the constitution whereof or members there may be some difference in judgment If we will hearken to a man greatly learn'd and known to be no great friend to Bishops we shall hear him perswading to obedience and submission to them in things lawful Theodore Beza being written to by some Ministers in England who excepted against some customes in the discipline and order of that Church their controversie had not then risen so high as to strike at the Office of Bishops only some customs in discipline and ceremonies in external order were most stood upon He Beza Epist 12. though disliking these things yet plainly averres to them that these customes are not tanti momenti as that for these they should leave their ministry and by deserting their Churches give advantage to Sathan who seeketh occasion to bring in greater and more dangerous evils He wisheth them there to bear what they cannot amend to beware of all bitterness And albeit they could not come to be of the same mind with others yet with a godly concord to resist Sathan who seeketh all occasions of tumults and infinit calamities And he doth most gravely obtest the Ministers with tears as he saith Vt Regiae Majestati omnibus Praesulibus suis ex animo obsequantur Beza pleads for hearty obedience in things lawful to the Bishops of whom he speaks honourably in that Epistle not hinting at the unlawfulness of their Office nor offering to perswade the Ministers to do against their Office Sunt maximi viri saith he qui singulari Dei Opt. Max. beneficio papisticis Episcopis successere He accounts not them nor their Office popish but saith By the singular mercy of the most great and good God they have succeeded the popish Bishops or come in their place even as by the singular mercy of God protestant Ministers have come in the place and room of popish Priests And how well he esteems of the Office and of the men in the Office likely abating somewhat of his peremptoriness in the heat of dispute with some as he had cause may appear not only by what he saith in that Epistle exhorrescimus ut contra Regiae Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem ministri suô ministeriô fungantur But from his Epistles to Grindal Bishop of London Epist 23. commending Grindals Christians patience and lenity addeth Majori posthac paena digni erunt qui authoritatem iuam aspernabuntur closing his Epistle Deus te custodiat intanâ—â— commisso tibi munere sancto suo spiritu regat magis aâ— magis confirmet And in his 58. Epistle to that same Bishop he saith Dominus te istic at London speculatorem judicem constituit By all which it may appear that it would have been far from Beza's mind that Ministers should give no obedience to Bishops established by the Laws of a Kingdom not so much as in things undoubtedly lawful or that they should have refus'd concurrence with Bishops in ordering the Church and acting in unquestionable duties 2. The present Question concerns the case and carriage of two kind of Ministers 1. Some refuse to come to Synods although called by the Kings Majesties command signified by His most honourable privie Council where Bishops do preside They refuse also to come to Presbyteries where a Moderator pretending no more power then any of themselves presides being nominated by the Bishop in the Synod to continue till the next Meeting of the Synod Such Meetings they withdraw from albeit nothing be required of them but to act in unquestionable duties for regulating the Church and suppressing according to their power of sinful disorder albeit there be no imposition upon their judgments nor subscription required nor declaration that they allow any thing they count amiss in the constitution of these Meetings or any constituent members thereof Yea where it might be permitted to them if they intreated for this to case their conscience by signifying their scruples which they cannot overcome anent the constitution of these Meetings or anent the members thereof so be they would do this with that inoffensive modesty humility and respect to the supreme Authority and the Laws of the Land and to such Meetings and the members thereof that becomes and after that to concur in their undoubted duties Concerning such Ministers the question is whether they may and ought to concur with such Meetings of their Brethren in carrying on their undoubted duties or if it be unlawful so to do 2. The other rank of Ministers are these who falling within the compasse of the Act of Council at Glasgow and of Parliament whereto it relates do rather choose to part with their Ministry then to seek a Presentation from the Patron and Collation thereupon from the Bishop yea who will quit their Ministry rather then that they will once come in terms of treating with a Bishop to try upon what conditions they may have the liberty to enjoy their Ministry and to serve God therein for the good and salvation of his people 3. As to the case of Brethren of the former sort several things are worthy their most serious consideration which may render them somewhat jealous of the unwarrantableness of their present way 1. Hath not the Supreme Magistrate even according to their own principles an undoubted power to convocate Synods when he sees it needfull Never were there any protestant Ministers no nor christian Ministers before this time who being convocated to a Synod or Church-meeting by the Soveraign Christian Magistrate did refuse to come at his command Nor is there any rank or degree of Subjects that can without the stain of sinful disobedience refuse to meet upon His Majesties command and Ministers cannot plead exemption from the common duties of Subjects 2. Brethren would consider whether it would prove a sufficient ground to justifie their not-coming to the Synod upon His Majesties command by His Council because that command to come to the Synod is joyned with another commanding to concur dutifully c. And the
command to come is only in order to the required concurrence which they cannot give as they say Is this rational that where two commands of the Magistrate are joyn'd the one undoubtedly lawful to be obeyed the other doubted of that Subjects should disobey the Magistrate in that which is clearly lawfull because they have a doubt or unclearness anent obeying him in the other command Doth it not become Subjects to go as far on in obedience to lawfull Authority as they see they may without sin against God Then it is time to stop when any thing is put to them by vertue of the Kings Command which they clearly see they cannot do without sin Had they come to the place it would pro tanto have shewed their respect to Authority albeit they had humbly declared themselves bound up from acting by their doubts And yet it may be they will in end find that they might lawfully have concurred in unquestionable duty that there was no ground to refuse this and that they might have sufficiently salved their Conscience by a humble signification of their scruple as was said and yet not refused to concur in undoubted duties for the personal fault as they apprehend of any member of the Assembly 3. What ground could they have for separation from the Synod Is it the want of liberty to choose a Moderator Or Is it that he that presides is a Bishop and claims more power then they can allow more then they think is due as of a negative voice Or Is it the want of unpreaching Elders in the Meeting As to the 1. Are they able to shew that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath by a dvine scriptural Right a priviledge to choose their own Moderator Where is there any Precept for this or any example of such election in Scripture If all Meetings of ecclesiastical Judicatories have this priviledge then also their Sessions where they take upon them to be constant Moderators have this also which belike will not please them well that any of the Meeting but themselves should be chosen there to preside or can they say that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath this priviledge by a divine natural right If so no civill Society or Judicatory should want it but all claim power to choose their own Presidents which were evil doctrine under a Monarchy where power is in the Prince to elect and name Presidents for Council Session c. Or are they able to demonstrate that it is not lawful for the Christian Magistrate upon whom the external ordering of all the Judicatories in his His Dominions depends to nominate out of a Meeting of Ministers conveen'd by him one grave and godly Minister of the number to order the actions of the Meeting and by his Authority to controll the unruly Can it be made evident that the ancient Christian Councils general or provincial though they had ecclesiastick Presidents did alwayes formerly choose their own President Presides ecclesiastici in vetustis Conciliis nonnunquam nominati ab Imperatore saith Zepperus Eccles Pol. p. 742 As to the second The great exception is at the power of the Presidents of the Synods they being Bishops claim in undue power as if Authority solely resided in them at least they claim a negative voice Ans 1. Were it so and were this a fault yet it were not their fault who concur the personal fault of another cannot be any good ground for Brethrens withdrawing from their necessary duty especially it being considered what might be allowed them for easing the scruple of their Conscience as was above said If I be only admitted to consult in regulating the affairs of the Church in a Meeting where I think I should have equal authority with any that sits there Can it be sin in me to go so far in my duty as I am permitted to do to testifie against sin to give my best counsel for suppressing thereof and for advancement of holiness If I be abridged and restrain'd as to that authority which I think is due to me it is the sin if there be any of these who do restrain me and not mine shall I do no part of my duty because I cannot do all that I think I ought to do being as to some part of it restrain'd by another But Secondly Is it not granted by most judicious Divines that Presbyters having a power in several cases to suspend the exercise of their own just authority when the suspension of it tenderh to a publick good may for the peace of the Church resolve to give to one person of their number a negative voice in Government so as to do nothing without him Baxt. Church gover pag. 18. And excellent Mr. Vines when at the Isle of Wight the King could not be brought off that that in Meetings of Presbyters there should be one under the name of Bishop with a negative voice did counsel both Presbyterians and Independents to accept of the concession as they would not have all the blood miseries and confusions that after might ensue laid at their door See his considerations on the Kings Concessions Whatever may be said of that negative voice the law of the land putting Bishops into a stated presidency and yet Presbyters being admitted to rule with Bishops judicious and sober men would not lay so great weight on it as to refuse their concurrence in common and uncontroverted duties upon that account But yet one thing would be remembred that Brethren are at a very clear disadvantage in withdrawing from presbyterial Meetings where they know the Moderator doth not nor can claim more power then any of themselves All the ground of their not concurring with these Meetings must be that they do not choose the Moderator in their particular Presbyteries But he is nominate by the Bishop 〈◊〉 the Synod and yet in all reason the authority and consent of Bishop and Synod should conclude any particular Presbytery Do not Brethren remember that in time of the Commission of the Kirks ruling there were restraints laid upon Presbyteries in matters far higher and weightier concernment then that and little dinn about the same But thirdly if the Brethren refuse to concur with the Synods for want of unpreaching Elders there whose Office they account of divine institution they would remember that great Divines of the presbyterian way Blondel Vines Baxter and many others look upon these as an humane device and their reasons moving them are weighty But let them be as they are imagin'd by the Brethren yet can the removal of these without out their fault render it unlawful for them to concur in a Synod of Ministers where these are not Can the absence or removal of these supposed Church-officers render a Synod of Ministers with their President unlawful and not to be joyned with because other men are debarred from their duty they are supposed to have right to shall we run from our duty especially this being done without our fault A
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
performance of what is sworn is like to hinder a greater good that might be attained by not keeping the Oath that in that case an Oath bindeth not at all Protestant Casuists as Bishop Sanderson do deny this principle without limitation thus expressed yet do grant that it is true when there concurreth some other thing as usually there doth which may render the Oath void or the keeping of it unlawfull or looseth from it the impeditiveness of greater good there hath weight But we may say albeit other things did not concur to the nulling or voiding of an Oath yet if the standing to it be found impeditive of a greater good to which we are bound by a prior obligation then the Oath being an obstacle of such a greater good ceaseth to bind the swearer If a man should swear never to go near such a river or water having once been in hazard there yet where he seeth at some distance from it his brother like to perish in the water and it is probable to him that he could be able to save his life the prior and greater bond of charâ—ty and of God's Law commanding that bindeth him to go help his brother and looseth him from his Oath And as to our case besides what hath been said for the clearing upon other grounds of the non-obligation of the Covenant in that second Article the matter thereof still supposed as indifferent and Episcopacy not forbidden by any divine Law may we not clearly see that there is by adhering to that Oath as still binding an obstacle put to the attainment of a greater good and of greater necessity and to the seeking after that greater good which we are pre-obliged by former Bonds to labour after Is not that great duty of preaching the Gospel of peace lying upon Ministers wo to us if we preach not and lying upon many Ministers antecedently to the â—aking of this Covenant and upon adhering to that Covenant in the second Article proveth a hindrance to that greater duty whereto we are pre-obliged shall it still be thlought to bind so that rather then we will acknowledge God's loosing us by a former obligation to a greater duty we will by adhering to it put our selves in incapacity according to Law to serve any longer in the Ministry Do there not also ly upon us all pre-obligations to obey the Magistrate in things not against God's Law such as now Episcopacy is supposed to be to procure the publick peace and good of Church and State and prevent horrid confusions which as matters go cannot be avoided by sticking at that Article in the Covenant Shall not the peace of conscience that shall arise from tendring these great interests be as much and more then any peace of conscience pretended to be in keeping the Oath which though we should not be ready to judge any may perhaps upon examination be found rather a piece of satisfaction to the will then peace of the conscience God having loosed and set free conscience from that Bond in hoc rerum statu But to the second thing which we observed anent Oaths or Covenants it would be remembred that a Covenant or Oath though lawfull and binding even in the strict interpretation of it yet doth not bind in the rigid interpretation which some either through weakness or scruples or design may put upon it Sometimes souls may make snares of Oaths to themselves by overstretching them and so do run themselves into the perplexities they needed not Concerning the Covenant different interpretations and senses have been given of it according to the several interests of persons of contrary judgments combined in it But as to the second Article now in question it may be doubted if it be broken by submission to or owning the present Episcopacy established by Law in Scotland or whether it be not an over-rigid straining of that Covenant to bend it against the present Episcopacy established in Scotland For clearing of which it would be considered first that at the time of the taking of that solemn League and Covenant there were no such Church-offices in Scotland as are mentioned in that Article there needed not as to Scotland a swearing to extirpat Offices that were not in it at that time and some Offices there mentioned never were in it 2. It would be remembred that an Oath is to be interpreted according to the sense of the givers of it Timorcus pag. 16. giveth us assurance that the Parliament of England intended nothing less in imposing the Covenant then the extirpation of all kinds of Prelacy and Bishops in the Church and that it was resolved in Parliament with consent of the Brethren of Scotland that it was only intended against Episcopacy as then established in England and Prâ—f p. 23. we do not saith he think the Covenant to be against the primitive Episcopacy which there he descrives to be a presidency of one Minister over others so that without him nothing is to be done in matters of Ordination and Jurisdiction and when he explaineth the second Article of the Covenant he saith it is only tyrannical Bishops that are covenanted against which Baxter also calls the sinfull species of Prelacy in his Preface to the Disputations of Church-government which he sayes was abjured only and not Episcopacy And in that same dispute pag. 4. he declareth that most of the godly Ministers since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them lawfull and some of them most fit and addeth that almost all of these that are of the late Assâ— at Westminster and most throughout the Land did conform to Episcopal Government as not contrary to the Word of God and that he believs that many of them are yet so far reconciliable to it moderated that if it were only established they would submit to it as they did for he heareth as he saith but of few of them who have made recantation of their former conformity and contrarily hath known divers of them professing a reconciliableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his Books profess his judgment Thus Mr Baxter by whom we may see their error or folly who think there can be no godly Ministers owning Episcopacy and also how reconciliable godly Divines in the Ass were to a regulated Episcopacy So that it seemeth the great grievance aim'd at in the Covenant to be redressed was the Bishops claim of a sole Ordination and Jurisdiction and the multitudes of Courts of lay Chancellors c. set over Ministers in matters of Government and not the Office of Bishops concurring with Synods of Ministers and their presiding and being Superiors in Church-meetings If it be said that every one of the particular Offices mentioned under the name of Prelacy in the Covenant are abjured and therefore Bishops are abjured Mr. Vines in his Considerations upon the Kings Concessions at the Isle of Wight will for loosing this tell us of a sense of the Covenant which he inclines to viz. that as to
and for obedience to their Ordinary in all things lawfull And accordingly some were provided to Bishopricks at that time neither did the Church in the following Assembly at St. Andrews March 1571. take exception at these Articles of agreement It is true at Perth August 1572. they received the same but with a protestation it was only for an interim c. But this we may say that the learned Penner of the National Covenant allowed of Bishops a few years before this Covenant Nor is there any evidence that he changed his mind or that he did in that draught of the Confession mean protestant Bishops which then he approved by the Popes wicked Hierarchy which is abjured 2. As for the King himself that He minded no abjuration of the Office of a protestant Bishop by that Covenant may be evident by this that when He and His family took that Covenant and when he enjoyn'd it to the subjects there was no such thing known in this Church as a Government by Presbyteries the whole Government consisting in Ordination and Jurisdiction exerced in the several parts of the land being in the hands of some under the name of Bishops some under the name of Superintendents or under the name of Commissioners of Countreys who exercis'd the same in their several precincts other Government there was not but by some single persons having power in their several bounds It is true the Assembly quarrel'd what they did amiss but yet they were then really Bishops And it is not like the King did swear himself or put others to swear against the Church-government that was then in the Countrey and was not rejected by the Church till July 12 1580. Yea it is evident that the King and His Council minded not to swear down protestant Episcopacy by that Covenant For suppose the General Assembly in that same year 1580 July 12. did passe an Act against Episcopacy the like whereof had not been done in this Church before yet the very year following 1581. though the King and Council had presented the Confession to the Assembly to be subscribed by them and the people in several Parishes at their order or by their perswasion yet that very same year an Act of Council is made confirming expresly that agreement 1571. at Leith concerning Archbishops and Bishops And this was done six months after the sending the Confession to the Assembly and the Councils Act for subscribing this being in October that in March 1581. Now is it any way probable that the King and Council had they intended to abjure Episcopacy in the Confession should within six moneths make an Act for confirming a former agreement for establishing Episcopacy And this Act of Council was no secret For the King openly avowed it in the business concerning Montgomery Bishop of Glasgow whom the King would not suffer to be processed upon the account of his accepting a Bishoprick because as he said he had so lately ratified the agreement at Leith 1571. Neither did the Assembly or any Ministers speak of that deed of the Kings and Councils as contrary to the Covenant albeit in these dayes they had a way of using liberty enough and more then was sitting And it being plain that the Covenant in the intention of King and Council who injoyned it first and transmitted it to the Assembly and subjects doth not abjure Episcopacy Why should the subjects take themselves bound as swearing down Episcopacy by that Oath seing every Oath is to be taken in the declared sense of the Imposers which is consistent with the words of it But it will be yet said that the General Assembly at Glasgow 1638. have declared that in that National Covenant Episcopacy was abjured in the year 1580 and they enjoyned that all should subscribe according to the determination of that Assembly and many have done so Ans 1. It seemeth very strange that any Assembly or Company of men should take upon them to declare what was the sense of the Church in taking a Covenant or Oath when few or none of the men were living who took that Covenant or if living few or none of them were members of that Assembly at Glasgow 1638. As juramentum est vinculum personale so say the Casuists So no man or company of men can take upon them to define what was the sense of dead men in taking an Oath or Covenant while they were alive unlesse they can produce some authentick expresse evidence that such was their meaning in taking the Oath and Covenant in their life-time Now all that the Assembly of Glasgow hath produced in their large Act Sess 16. declaring Episcopacy to be abjured anno 1580. amounts to nothing more but this that before Jul. 1580. at which time some moneths after the Covenant was enjoyn'd by the King to be taken by the subjects the Church was and had been some years labouring against Bishops who notwithstanding continued till after the Act at Dundee 1580. And that after the year 1580. there was much opposition to that Office by the Assemblies But all their citations of Acts come not to this point to prove that Episcopacy was abjured by the Covenant or any words in it nor do these ancient Assemblies after 1580. ever assert any such thing men being then living who knew the sense of the Covenant that it was against Covenant to admit of Episcopacy but they go upon other grounds in oppugning that Office How strange is it that Assemblies of Ministers who had taken that Covenant are never heard to plead against Episcopacy though they loved it not upon that ground And that fifty eight years after when most or all of these first takers of it are worn out a generation riseth that will plead that their Ancestors took that Covenant in that sense abjuring Episcopacy whereas there is in no Act of these ancient Assemblies after the Covenant was taken or at the taking of it any assertion that it was their mind in taking that Covenant to abjure Episcopacy And that Episcopacy was not in the intention of the takers of the National Covenant of old abjured by the Covenant no nor unlawfull in it self even in the judgment of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland may appear in that within six years after that year 1580. a General Assembly at Edinburgh do declare that the name of Bishop hath a special charge and function thereto annexed by the Word of God and that it is lawful for the General Assembly to admit a Bishop to a Benefice preferred by the Kings Majesty with power to admit visit and deprive Ministers and to be Moderators of Presbyteries where they are resident and subject only to the sentence of the General Assemblies It seems within six years the General Assembly at Edinburgh retracted the Act of Dundee 1581. But 3. Strange it was that the Company met at Glasgow an Assembly against which as much is said and upon good grounds as against any other in our Church had power