it be one with the same why may not Presbyters consecrat and if they may ordaine as we undertake to make out from Scripture and Antiquitie what necessitie was there for going to England for it seing it might have been done by the Presbyters of this Church If consecration differ from ordination sure it is a humane custome and invention for which we have nothing in the Scriptures and pure Antiquity that only speaks of ordination the only way in which all Pastors entered into the pastoral office 3. The truth is as a Church Ministerial and politick constitute according to the Word of God with all officers of divine appointment hath the full power of the keys of the kingdome of God so there is no sort of officer necessare by divine institution to her edification but she is enabled to furnish her self with such without a necessitie of seeking to other Churches for them and if it be so the Presbyters of this Chruch being her representatives their consent should have been had Although we had no just exception against the office of the Prolates as it is constitute and declared by law as we have but their violent intrusion in this Church it puts a sufficient bar on our subjection to them so that we may not yea cannot owne them as the lawful pastors of this Church Obj. 3. The Magistrat consented to and procured their consecration Ans If any will make it appear that the Magistrat is the Church as Erastus does insolently assert without all probation yea a member of it as such or hath the power of mission we shall yeeld the cause and quietly submit but when we search into the Scripture we find the Magistrat as a Professor of Christianity a member of the Church without all Church power â—et be to be the fountaine of it and subjected as such to the care and oversight of Church Officers in the exercise of their ministerial authority and power We grant it is his part to put the Ministers of the Church when negligent in furnishing of her with officers to their duty anent it but not to thrust in officers upon her of himself without her consent Obj. 4. But the Curats have entered by the Church Ans 1. This we deny the contrare is clear from constant practice for the Curats come in upon congregations only by the Bishop and Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do in this all their right and power is founded upon and derived from the supremacy and acts of Parliament and not from the Church in which the Bishop acts as the Kings delegat and substitute only impowered thereto by his law so that the Curats having and deriving all their power from the Prelates cannot have the same from the Church none gives what he hath not But. 2. The prelates not being the lawful governing Church any that enter congregations by them cannot be said to enter by the Church no more then if a Minister should enter into a congregation of this Church by a Minister or Ministers of the Church of France or Holland without the Ministers of this Church can be said to enter by the Church here for the Ministers of other Churches are not the governing Church of this Church The antecedent is to us clear for as the Prelates have entered without the Church so the lawful Ministerial ruling Church although scattered and persecuted is yet existent and in being who by the unjust and violent intrusion of others have not lost their right of ruleing this Church but in point of right and obligation do continue to be her lawful pastours for violence persecution and intrusion do not dissolve the relation betwixt the Church and her Pastours either general or particular there being nothing in our case that can justly do it other wayes it should be in the power of the Magistrat to undo and destroy the political Ministerial Church both formally and effectively which is abâ—ord We ask at any who think persecution and intrusion do in our case annul the pastoral relation betwixt Ministers and Churches whether the Magistrats violent ejecting of Ministers and puting of Mahumâ—tan or Popish Priests in their roomes will discharge Ministers and Congregations of their obligations to one another if they think not then how can these untye their obligations in our case We ask a reason If they judge persecution and intrusion by the Magistrat in â—his case to have this effect then it will inevitably follow that the Magistrat can destroy divine commands flowing there from contrare to the practice of divine relations obligations to the obedience of the Church in the primitive times who notwithstanding of the Magistrats Edicts threatnings much actual violence performed the mutual duties of pastours and flocks Arg. 2. All power of the Prelates and their creaturs in the Church is by law fountained in and derived from the Magistrat and in its exercise subordinated to him as is evident from the act of restitution Parl. Carol. 2. 1. Ses 2. Act. 1. which derivation and subordination they owne and homologat by their compliance with what the law does require in order to it therefore such we cannot we may noâ— owne receive and subject to as our ministers under seing they acknowledge subject themselves in their ministery to another head then Christ Jesus which by law is set in and over this Church That the force of this Argument may be more perspicuous and clear we shall put it into forme thus Those that receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church But the Prelats and their Curats do receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus therefore they ought not to be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church We suppose the first proposition will not be denyed all the debate will be in the Second Which we prove thus These officers in the Church professing themselves such that derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ doe derive their power from and are subornat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus But so it is that the Prelates and their creaturs do derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ therefore the Prelates and their Curates do derive their power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ The major proposition is evident for whoever hath a supream Architectonick power in and over the Church must be an head to the same and the fountaine of all Church power it is a repugnancy to be supream have an Architectonick power
〈◊〉 fulness of prelacy to the well but not to the being of the political Ministerial Church which they grant â—ay be such without it as most of the former opinion â—â—â—ld 3. Others that lean not to Scripture for the 〈◊〉 of prelacy in the Church found it upon Ecclesiaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—stitutioâ—s canons customes which they take to be the Interpreters of Scripture in this debate as Dounhame and others with him that make most use of antiquity 4. Others more moderat pious and more learned then the rest do so clip its wings that they bring it to a meer constant presidency in the meetings of presbyters for government making it a pure non-entity as to what is established by law amongst us and for which they bring no Scripture of which judgment was that godly and learned Bishop Usher who for knowledge in all the controversies of the Church especially in Antiquity was Nemini secundus 5. Some others argue for it as a matâ—er of indifferency that may be received or rejected as Churches and states see it fits their interests asserting that all its authority and goodness depends upon and flowes from the power that brings it in thus Stillingfleet 6. Some of that party have fallen on a new method for justifying its divine right being straitened as it seems with our arguments and the weakness of their owne alleadging that Presbyters were not institute in Scripturâ—-times by the Apostles that all Ministers mentioned in the Scriptures were Bishops in the sense controverted as Doctor Hammond but his evidence from Scripture and antiquity is so dimme that for any thing we know he hath gained few or none to follow him in this 7 These of the court party place all its goodness in the authority lawes establishing it granting it signifies nothing antecedently to these 8. If we shall consider prelacy and view it in its several parts as it is by law constitute and setled amongst us and bring them to the test and rule of the word of God that we may give judgment of them according to it how liteâ—â— of prelacy will be found to be of divine right 〈…〉 the confession of our adversaries of all that have appeared on the feild for its defence there is none that ever pleaded scriptural institutions precepts and instances for the Lordly titles eminencies and wordly dignities of the Prelats that are now annexed to their office nor yet for their civil places and power in the State nor for their several orders and degrees as Primats Metropolitans Archbishops c Or for the like among their dependents in their numerous and various distinctions of degrees of superiorities and subordinations as Vicars Chancelors Deans Arch deacons Subdeans Deacons Parsons c. whoever hitatherto did put pen to paper and contended for the divine right of prelacy never opened a mouth to plead either Scripture or antiquity for thesâ— except Doctor Hammond who argues for Archbishops and what is prelacy in its constitution amongst us without them The only thing debated betwixt us and our Antagonists anent it is the superiority of one Pastor over other Pastors and their respective congregations to the probation of which from scripture and pure Antiquity there are two things that must of necessity be made out from these first the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and secondly Diocesan Churches made up of several â—esseâ— Churches and their respective Pastores and Officers in these does the essential difference lye in their owne confession betwixt Bishops Presbyters or ordinare Pastores none of which two hath been proven from scripture and antiquity And if that which differences prelats from other Pastores of the Church be â—or made to appear from scripture how will their office 〈◊〉 of divine right and how can it be expected from 〈◊〉 â—ho are under such strait divine engadgments against it that we should comply therewith and submit to the lawes injoining conformity thereto We complaine of the subdolous and uning enuous way of our opposites in this debate who always keep in generals and never condescend on the particular differences betwixt Prelates and Ordinate Pastores nor undertake to prove these and the truth is they cannot for they are forced to confesse that it is clear from antiquity that Presbyters have ordained sometimes in conjunction with Bishops and sometimes without them And for diocesan Churches with one fixed pastor over-feeing other Pastores and their flocks we cannot meet with the least probable evidence from scripture and pure antiquity we find no argument from our adversaries concluding this It is empty arguing to say there were Apostles there were Priests and Highpriests in the Old Testament there were seven Angels in the seven Churches of Asia therefore there must be Bishops now If they will from scripture make out the difference now assigned betwixt Prelats Presbveers in these instances of the Apostles Priests and Angels we shall yeeld the cause Let none therefore blame us in holding to this as a necessare consequence of our Antagonists succumbing in the probation of these things that a parity among the Ministers of the Gospel in point of power or office is of divine right for if in the institution of the Ministery there be alike power given to all called thereto there can be no superiority of one above another by divine right 9. It is a question much debated among the Popish school men and in which they are not agreed to this day whâ—â—ther their Prelacy be an order or office distinct from that of Presbyters or only a different degree of the same 〈◊〉 with Presbyters including no power formally distinct from theirs which last opinion asserts that all power acclaimed by the prelats is formally in Presbyters so that by office they are empowered to and may doe all that the prelats pretend to How hotly and stifly was this question tossed the Councel of Trent betwixt the Italian Gallican and Spanish divines which for this cause received no decision in this Councel but was left undetermined as before As is to be seen from the History of the said Councel 10. If any will consider our adversaries arguments for prelacy and compare them with the arguments of Papists especially Bellarmins for the Papacy they shall finde that they plead as strongly for the Pope or an Universal Bishop to the Catholick Church as for the Prelat or Bishop now controverted betwixt us as wil be made appear by a particular condescension if our intended brevity would suffer it We referre such as question this to the arguments of both and upon an impartial collation of the same we nothing doubt but it will be manifest Doth not the much courted and endeavoured reconciliation with Rome by the prelatical party in former and later times with their concessions to them for making way to this agreement speak this with full evidence As their denying the Pope to be the Antichrist their granting a primacy to him over the Catholick Church their purgeing
sake although differing from us in some other things 5 It is thought sufficient ground for this charge that some yea many of the persons that come to and haunt our meetings are found not to be conscientious and Christian in their walk but flagitious or in many of their practises scandalous We cannot think our adversaries are serious in this do beleeve as they speak seing 1 This does fall as heavy and will to onlookers reflect as much and more on the objectors themselves as on us whose meetings for worship are found to be the sinck of all debauched and profaine persons thorow the Land can they refuse this It is like the foresight of this forced them to say in their lybel of greivances against us that the abominations mentioned in one Article were commited at our meetings and not by persons present at them otherwise their assemblies for worship should have been as chargeabâ—â— therewith as ours but in this our Antagonists 〈◊〉 like to the persecutours of the Christians in the prâ—â—mitive times who charged them for having these 〈◊〉 the like abominations commited at their assemblies as is to be seen in Church Histories The Lord deliver us from and rebuke the lying Spirit that is entered into and possesseth many 2. But if the presence of wicked and scandalous persons at the assemblies of Christians for hearing of the word and performing of other acts of worship be sufficient ground for chargeing the wickednesse and impieties of such on them as the cause inductive to scandals will not the assemblies that Christ his Apostles Ministers and Christians keeped in all ages be as lyable to this charge as we who excluded none but admited all to the hearing of the word and some other acts of worship as is manifest from Scripture and History whatever our adversaries will say for clearing of Christ Iesus his Apostles c. will acquit us 3. Do not men know that in preaching of the Gospel to sinners we should designe and labour their conversion as much as the edification of the converted Is not the Gospel with which Ministers are intrusted the mean and power of God to the one as well as to the other And seing this is our designe as it hath been our practice so it is our resolution not to exclude any from our assemblies how wicked soever they have been or are Truth is to charge us and our meetings with the sinnes and scandals of those that frequent the same is to reproach the Gospel of Christ and to Father all the wickednesse of its hearers on it contrare to its grand designe which is to save sinners from sin and all the miseries that follow upon it SECT V. Some Reasons why the Indulgence was not accepted IN the next place we come to the head of the Indulgence the not allowing of which hath been represented as a full evidence of our pivish wilful and stiff disposition to unpeacableness and distoyalty but we hope when our carriage in this mater is seriously thought upon and the reasons that determined us to this refusal are weighted in the ballances of the sanctuarie this charge will be found light and we are confident that upon trial it will appear we are not against but with all expressions of thankfulnes shall be ready to intertaine and receive any libertie for the Gospel its true interest and our selves that is consistent with our known principles that the Magistrat shall be pleased to grant us We look upon it as an unjust state of the question in this mater which hath been offered by some whether the Magistrat jure may or have it within the compass of his Magistratical power to give liberty to Ministers and people for serving and worshiping of God in his Son Christ Iesus according to his word this we do not deny but chearfully grant that although the exercise of Church power that is properly such be independent on the Magistrat yet the peacable exercise of it is truely from him it belongs to him no doubt to encourage countenance and protect the Church against all enemies and to relieve her of oppression when under it to this he is impowered and oblidged both as a Magistrat and as a Christian Neither is it with us a question whether the Magistrat may command Ministers to the duties of then function nor whether he may exeem them from the hazard of suffering to which they are obnoxious by law for their non-conformity nor yet whether he may confine Ministers simply and abstractedly considered from our present case which is only proper to the Magistrat and not all to the Church All these and much more we yeeld to the Magistrat about persones and maters Ecclesiastical according to the Word But the true state of the question to us is whether the Magistrat Jure Magistratico may of himself and immediatly without the Church the previous election of the people assigne and send Ministers to particular Churches to take the fixed and pastoral over sight of them prescribe rules and directions to them for the exercise of their Ministery and confine them to the said congregations The question thus stated being complex and consisting of several branches conform to the acts of Councel anent the indulgence we must of necessity for giving a just accompt of the grounds of our dissatisfaction therewith speak to them severally in some assertions with the reasons subjoyned Assertion First The Magistrat by vertue of his Magistratical power cannot of himself and immediatly assigne or send Ministers to particular congregations to take the pastoral charge and oversight of them For 1. We finde not in all the Word of God any such power given to or exercised by the Magistrat in the Church none hath yet given any instances of this If there be let them be produced and we shall acquiesce All acknowledge the Church not to be founded on the law of nature but on positive institution and supernatural revelation and therfore not to be governed in wayes and methods of Mens invention but in these that are revealed by the Holy Scriptures without which there cannot be a Church so that she owning her being constitution and all to them there must be some evident proof produced from these before we can yeeld to any such power in the Magistrat how long shall we exspect this 2. Also we finde the Church in the possession and exercise of this power from the times of the Apostles to the breaking up of the reformation by Luther and others in Germany as is manifest from Scripture and History We grant there was for some time a considerable debate betwixt the Pope and the Emperour of Germany about the investiture of Bishops which gave the rise to other Princes claming of the same seasing upon it but what says this to the mission of Ministers application of their Ministery to particular congregations For as Prelacy was the invention of men and the cause of horrid contentions in Churches and States so
the Romane Church of Idolatry and superstition their asserting the difference betwixt Papists and us in doctrine worship and government not to be fundamental nor on their part damnable c. All which discover to the world the native tendency of prelacy and what it will if 〈◊〉 â—â—nue ultimatly resolve into 11. Do not the opinions of prelatists their practises the ways taken for bringing in and establishing of Prelacy among us reflect upon and condemne all the reformed Churches and their divines except Scultetus who in their confessions treatises reformations conforme thereto disclame prelacy as no office of divine appointment As will be evident to any that peruse them We know there was a Pamphlet emitted in the beginning of prelacyes last introduction that undertakes to prove the contrare but it is so destitute of all evidence of truth that we wonder exceedingly at the impudence affrontedness of the author in alleadging of Calvine Beza Bucer c. for prelacy who in their practise and writings have argued and debated against it Did not this Author know that their writings are extant and others as much versed therein as himself But the unjust know no shame 12. As prelacy or prelatical government in its constitution and exercise is a compound of additions to the Word of God which for want of its authority we reject so presbytery or presbyterian government in the confession of our Opposites is in all its parts of divine institution or right which we offer to make out from scripture and the concessions of our Antagonists who first yeeld all our Church Officâ—rs except Ruling elders to be of divine appointment Doctor Hammond only excepted granting that presbyters or ordinare Pastores and Deacons to be institute by the Apostles and alwayes used in the Church to this day they likewise grant the power of ordination and jurisdiction in Presbyters till of laâ—â— As also the meetings of Pastores lesser and greater for government and discipline and all the particularities of power anent these asserted by and formerly exerâ—â—â—â—â— among us We think strange of Stillingfleet in denying of Presbytery to be of Divine institution who yeelds all we seek for if all the former be of Scriptural institution and practise must it not be of divine right even as to its forme We cannot for bear to declare our resentments to the world of the high indignities done to our Royal and great Master Christ Jesus and his blessed word the holy Scripture in that 1. The forme of the government of his house is asserted to be mutable at the pleasure of men and made capable of any forme they please to assigne to the same Was it ever heard in the world that the forme of any government was taken from the Officers thereof and not from the Supream head in whom the Legislative power is lodged All that ever treated of governments and spoke to their different forms did always found their forms on the head and not on the Officers of it Is not Christ Jesus the Supream and only Head of the Church by divine appointment Are not ordinare Pastores or Presbyters found institute in the word with all the parts of their power that we afterwards grant to them c Will it not then necessarily follow that the forme is of divine right both in the head and officers which is truely Monarchicall and not alterable at the will of any 2. For making way to this the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripturs as to matters of obedience and practice in the Church is denied and thereby the fundation of the Protestant Religion is shaken How inconsistent is this with their granting the perfection of the Scripturs in maters of faith For if all maters of obeâ—â—â—â—â—â— be first and primarily Maters of faith must 〈◊〉 they be perfect in these also How our Oppoâ—its will defend our arguments for the perfection of the Scripturs in matters of faith and manners against the Papists who in this speak more consequentially then the Prelatists and maintaine the former affertion is unintelligible to us For our arguments plead as much and as strongly for their perfection in the one as in the other But must it not be a desperat cause that needs such a prop to support it 13. In the last place We humbly offer the following particulars to be considered by all nothing doubting that when they are duely and seriously weighted it will soone appear that our exceptions against Prelacy are not light and groundless As 1. There is no good to the Church and immortal souls attainable by Prelacy that may not be win at without it It is a sure truth that every ordinance of Divine institution hath it's proper good to the Church in order to which as it's end it was appointed by Christ which is not easily reachable by other ordinances As will appear to any on a particular condescension for as there is nothing defective in divine institutions so there is nothing redundant and superfluous Now we desire to know what is that good to the Church and immortal souls that cannot be obtained without Prelacy let our Antagonists give instances If they think that ordination and jurisdiction is the good that the Church hath by prelacy we offer to prove from Scripture and antiquity as hath been done before us without a reply yea and granted by many of them that Presbyters have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and the truth is it was never questioned by any but yeelded by all till of late for we have not only instances in Scripture and antiquity for Presbyters exercising ordination and jurisdiction but the reason that all gave for it was that the ministery conferred by ordination consisting of the power of order and jurisdiction as it 's integral constituent parts persons ordained receive the power of both If this be a truth why may not the Church have these by Presbyters as much to her advantage and benefite as by Prelats But son e say there can be no unity or peace in the Church without Prelacy The contrare is evident from the Churches experience in former later times for as the Church was never more rent and filled with contentions and schisms then under by Prelates of which there are innumerable instances in history so there hath been much flourishing unity and peace under Presbyters in Churches that wanted Prelats as is to be seen in the present case of the reformed Churches and will be evident to any that is acquainted with and seen in the records of the Church what unity peace hath the Churches of Britan and Ireland beyond other reformed Churches Yea is there not more of these among them then is with us at this day But what sayes unity and peace in the Church if they have not truth and righteousness for their cement and foundation which are seldome the attendents of Prelacy But some place the good of Prelacy in the oversight and inspection it takes of Ministers
who give it out to the world that we contemne a Ministery ordinances and are against hearing while our practice declares the contrare to all and for which we are dayly suffering We hold that as it is our duty to withdraw from and not to subject to the Prelaâ—â—â—s and their Creaturs so it is likwise our duty to cleave to our former Ministers in hearing of the Gospel and receiveing of ordinances from them as we can have access we have given reasons for the affirmative shall the Lord willing do the like for the negative 6 It would also be adverted that there is a great difference betwixt a Churches bringing in and carrying on of a defection willingly in a Church way and the Magistrats doing this of himself without the Church yea forcibly Ecclesia renitente ac reclamante although there should be no difference as to the mater yet there is much as to the maner and way to influence regular and diversifie ministers and Christians carriage under them all in the Church are to subject to the power proper and peculiar to her which they ought not to do to others usurping this power and taking it out of her hands 7 In this mater a difference or distinction is to be made betwixt the personal scandals and corruptions in ministers walk and administration of holy things and these that may be or are found in the way of their entry which may be such that although they do not invalidate their ministerie in their dispensing of the word and its ordinances to the rendering of these nullities yet may give sufficient ground to peoples withdrawing from and not subjecting to them as their lawful and sent pastours 8 There is a great difference betwixt a Church regularly constitute according to the Word of God in her ministerial political being enjoying the exercise of all ordinances in purity that comes afterwards while under that constitution to be intruded upon by the sole power of the Magistrat and persecuted in officers and members for adhereing to her constitution in opposition to the intruders and the corruptions brought in upon her by them against her consent and a Church declining from her former purity in doctrine worship and government abuseing her power to the bringing in and furthering of the said defection and universally concurred with and submited to in the same The first is our casâ— concerns the state of the question betwixt us and our opposites in the charge of separation thâ—y lay on us The question then betwixt us and our adversaries is not whether we may lawfully separat from publict ordinances for the corruptions and personal miscarriages of fellow-worshipers whether ministers or others as one in a little manuscript doeth maliciously or ignorantly state it we are still of the same minde with our worthy predecessours in their debats against the Brownists and Separatists as our practice this day doeth confirme in our assemblies and meetings for worship differing in nothing as to this from what it was before Neither is it whether it be simply or in it self sinful to hear receive ordinances from these who have entered by submitted to the prelates abstract from our present case for we grant the case may be in which it is lawful yea duty to hear and receive ordinances from such yea and hath been But the true state of the question is whether a Church or Churches constitute according to the rules of the word provided and settled with ministers regularly called and submited to should yeeld to the Magistrats and Prelates violently ejecting their ministers and thrusting in other ministers upon her not only without but against her consent in subjecting to such hearing and receiving of ordinances from them while the Magistrat does all this for furthering and perfecting a course of dâ—fection contrare to solemne Covenants and oaths by which they were oftener then once ejected and cast out of this Church To this we answer negatively that the Church should not subject to such in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them but ought to disowne and withdraw from these thus entered into the Church and complying with the introduced corruptions This conclusion we prove thus First They who have no just authority nor right to officiat fixedly in this Church as the proper pastores of it ought not to be received but withdrawne from But the Prelates and their adherents the Curates have no just authority nor right to officiat in this Church as her proper pastours Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawne from It is expected they will not deny the first proposition all the debate will be about the second which we make out thus They who have entered into and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her authority and consent have no just authority and right so to do but the Prelates and their Curats have entered into this Church and do officiat therein without her authority and consent therefore they have not just authority c. The first proposition is clear and we suppose will not be gainsaid by our Antagonists seing the power of mission of calling and sending of ordinare fixed pastours is only in the Church and not in any other as all Divines do assert The Second is evident from maters of fact for there was no Church judicatory called or convocated for bringing of the Prelats into this Church all was done immediatly by the King acts of Parliament without the Church she being by violence disenabled to meet in her officers for fear of opposition from them a practice wanting a precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches Object 1. But our Prelats were consecrat by the Prelats of the Church of England Ans What signifies that to the Church of Scotland and their just right to officiat in her suppone the office of prelacie were right and institute Does any think the Church of England would acknowledge the authority of Prelats consecrat here and subject to the same if all were done not only without but against her consent we suppose not Either the Church of Scotland at that time had no power of mission or els she had if she had none wanting prelacy then our Ministers were no Ministers of Christ Jesus and all ordinances dispensed in her for many years were nullities which some of our adversaties we hope will not say if she had the power of mission how came she to be neglected and usurped upon by another Church to whom she was not subordinat Object 2. But Presbyters cannot consecrat Bishops they being an inferior order Ans if it could be shown from Scripture that Bishops are not only an Order and office different from Presbyters but that they have a different ordination to their office from that of Presbyters it would say much but nothing of this can be made to appear from the Word of God But. 2. We ask whether consecration be different from ordination If
the sense and judgment of our Worthy Reformers who alwayes esteemed them pure Churches The truth is the consequence is so necessare that the most of the Prelatical party of the Church of England admit no Minister of the reformed Churches to officiat among them without reordination by which they fix a desperat Schisme between them and these Churches while they desire and endeavour reconciliation with Rome which speaks out the tendency of their principles If they think Prelacy not essential to the Political Ministerial Church as some of them do grant then our Church constitution as to all essentials was right our Pastores bound to feed and people to submit hear and receive ordinances from them Obj. Although Prelacy be not essential to the esse yet it is usful and necessare to the well being of the Ministerial Church Ans 1. As hath been said above we know of no good to which Prelacy is said to be necessate that is not easily attainable without it yea and is not win at in the reformed Churches 2 Then the former obligation on our Pastores and this Church must continue for if Prelacy be not essential nor necessare to the being of the Ministerial Churches the obligation which flowes from and is dependant on it cannot be discontinued by the introduction of Prelacy upon us it should rather confirme and strengthen this obligation in the opinion of such then dissolve it It is no question the foresight of this and other consequences of the like nature that forces the most of the now Prelats to maintaine the absolute and essential necessity of Prelacy in the Church against the evidence of Scriptâ—â—â— and Antiquity Obj 2. But what was done in the Year 1662. for the introduction of Prelacy in this Church was but a repossessing her of it that had been ejected An. 1638 Ans 1. The ejection of Prelacy Anno 16â—8 was but the puâ—geing of Presbytery from Prelacy that had been brought in upon it after Prelacy had been cast off by this Church in her first Reformation of Religion from Popâ—ry It is evident from Histories the books of discipline first and second acts of Parlt Particularly that of the Year 1592. the National Covenant and the records of the general Assemblies that with the Reformation of Religion in doctrine and worship Prelacy was also removed and cast out of this Church as an high corruption in her government So that from the Reformation of Religion from Popery Presbytery had the first possession It is true the Bâ—shops that then were did continue in their bishopricks and keeped their places in Parlt but without all Church power or jurisdiction that they had formerly exercised in the times of Popery predomming in this Church And when their Bishopricks came to vaâ—k â—horow death their places were not filled wâ—â—h others as formerly had been done till Morions Regency who for the legal right of their revenues which he laboured to enhance for his owne use and could not legalâ—y come at without some shadow of them endeavoured to bring them in of which he repented at his death as is to be seen in the history of the Duglasses which occasioned a hot contest betwixt him the Church at that time in her assemblies who stootly opposed prelacie and never gave it over till by law and praâ—â—ice it was wholly cast out of this Church Anno 1592. But King James afterwards falling too much in love with wordly designs and interests for facilitating the much courted and desired succession to the crowne of England to which Prelacy was then judged necessare laboured by sinister and subtile wayes the introduction of Prelacy upon the Church which then was most averse therefrom that he gave not over his designe in this till he had setled it by law Anno 1612. and brought it in upon Presbytery but Prelacy not being content with this establishment and exaltation it attained to in the foresaid Year never ceased working by its impositions till it came to that hight of usurpation on Church State that procured its ruine Anno 1638. All this is so clear from the preceeding records particularly Spotswoods history that he must be either an utter stranger to these or els impudently malicious that denyeth it Do men think we are such ignorants of and strangers to these things that we are not able to discover the vanities and lies of some of that party who have put pen to paper and contradicted all this as the Author of the seasonable case and others who contrare to all evidence will maintaine the possession of Prelacy in this Church since the reformation 2. Supponeing Prelacies possession in this Church since the reformation which is notourly sals till its last ejection Anno 1638. as it was in England yet till its divine right be proven it can claime no jus or right in the Church of God whose concerns cannot be antiquated and proscribed by length of time Otherwise most of the popish heresies idolatries and superstitions should have night as good clame for their being in this Church as Prelacy and it is liâ—◠〈◊〉 if ever Popery aime at its restauration and come any length towards it in this Church it will build it self on this foundation among others as Prelacy does this day in the laws establishing it Obj. But the Magistrat bringing in Prelacy and commanding all to receive and submit to it Prelacy being as some say a thing indifferent all should obey Ans leaving the debat about the Magistrats power to the last head of our discourse where it shall be considered alittle we say 1. Whatever power the Magistrat hath about the Church and her concerns as such it is astricted and subordinated to the Word of God which the greatest Patrons of Erastianisme do yeeld as Vedelius yea Erastus himself and all of that Sect hence the Magistrat may not command any thing in the Church that is contrare to or without it and if he do none are bound to obey such commands as all Protestants grant therefore till it be made to appear that Prelacy is allowed and appointed in the word our non-obedience or non submission to it altho commanded by the Magistrat cannot be justly condemned It is true Stillingfleet is at much paines to prove it to be indifferent but on such grounds as shake the foundation of our faith the perfection of the holy Scriptures and with so little successe as we remaine the more confirmed in the contrare wo were to us if we had no better grounds for Presbytery then the strongest pleaders for Prelacy have yet shewed for it 2 The Magistrat with the subject being under the divine obligations of Covenants and oaths against Prelacy have no power to command its reception neither â—â—n the subject give the obedience required without horrid sin against God If in such a case a power in the Magistrat to do and command contrare to such divine obligations and engagements and an obligation on the subject
he truly and visioly reigns over all in her so that obedience to this power is obedience to Christ as King of his Church and the contrâ—re is high rebellion against him Concl. 10. Although this power be only Ministerial and declarative of the will of Christ yet it is authoritative and binding on all the Church without exception of persons and that on a double account first on the account of divine commands enjoyning submission and obedience to its exercise in the persons of those invested therewith and also on the account of its respect to and derivation from Christ whose power and ordinance it is and whom in its exercise it doeth represent to all Concl. 11. This power is exercised either singly a part by every officer according to the nature measure of their power or in conjunction with one another conforme to the precepts of the word and practises of the Church in Scripture times Although every officer of the Church in their several orders have the whole power belonging intrinsice to it yet there are some acts thereof they cannot exerce but in a conjunction with others as ordaining of persons for the Ministry Trying and censuring of scandalous and heretical Professours or Ministers c. for which there must be fixed meetings of officers general and particular Concl. 12. The ordiner officers of the Church the extraordinarâ— being ceased are of three orders Teachers and Pastors Ruling elders and Deacons These we finde to be of divine institution and no others Many others have been brought into and obtruded on the Church but all of humane or rather of diabolical invention as alace their effects have sadly made out to the Church of God in former and present times In every one of these divine orders we finde no institute superiority in the same order of one above others as a Pastor of Pastors or an Elder of Elders and a Deacon of Deacons These who have assumed and exercised this superiority we cannot owne as the Officers of Christ nor subject to them as such till they prove their institution and mission from him which yet they have not done The outmost essey hath been for Prelacy or a Bishop who is pleaded to be a Pastour of Pastours having the oversight of them and their flocks but nothing attempted for making out the divine right of Primats Archbishops Archpresbyters Archdeacons c. This is that lowly and humble Government of the Church that Christ hath institute in his word and put in the hands of his Officers commanding them to exercise and dispense the same to all in his house under high paines of which in the second place we assert these two 1. That it is distinct and specifically different from the civil government of the Magistrat And2 That it is independant on it These two conclusions we now undertake to prove against the Erastians of our time who assert that when the Church comes to be embodyed with the Commonwealth her Government becomes one with the Government of the State and does not differ from it In opposition to these we affirme that when a Nation State or Kingdom turnes Christian in its Rulers and Subjects the Government of the Church remaines specifically different and distinct from the Government of that State or Kingdome as it was before its conversion to Christianity The reasons perswading us of this are 1. The Government of the Kingdome that is not of this world is distinct and different from the Government of the Kingdomes that are of this world But so it is that the Government of the Church is the Government of a Kingdome that is not of this world Therefore the Government of the Church is distinct and different from the Government of the civil Magistrat that is the Government of Kingdomes that are of this world This Argument leans on these three 1. That the Church is a Kingdome,2 That she hath a Government And3 That she is not of this world although in it All which are beyond disput clear from the Scriptures All that our adversaries say to this is that the visible Church of Christ is not properly but metaphorically called a Kingdome But how evident is the contrare for is not Christ Jesus the Churches visible Head and King Is she not ruled by his visible Lawes Ordinances and Officers that are properly and truely such and are not all these from above and not of this world Argum 2. That Government whose supream Head Lawes Ordinances and Officers are specifically different from the Head Lawes Ordinances and Officers of the civil Magistrat must be distinct from it But so it is that the head lawes ordinances and Officers of the Church are distinct from the lawes c. of the civil Magistrat Therefore c. The reason of the first proposition is clear for that which makes one Government differ from another is different heads lawes Ordinances Officers where these are either numerically or specifically different the Government is different accordingly it being comprehended in all these but that the supream head laws ordinances and Officeis of the Church are specifically different from these of the civil Government who will deny it that professes himself a Christian Obj. But all these come under the inspection of the Magistrat when he turns Christian Ans 1. Either these continue in the Church under the Magistrats Government what they were before or they do not if they do the Argument holds and proves the Government of the Church to be distinct from that of the Magistrats when Christian If they do not continue we ask from whence come this alteration and how will they prove it Nothing here from our adversaries but Altum silentium or nugae destitute of all reason But 2. The tearm INSPECTION or OVERSIGHT is am biguous if by it we mean the countenancing protecting and encouraging of this Government of the Church we yeeld â—t but what sayes that to the confounding of the Governments or making the Government of the Church the Magistrats if by inspection we understand the devolving of the Government of the Church on the Magistrat as the fountaine of it the ordering and disposing of its exercise the changing thereof at pleasure in whole or in part this we deny and long have we looked for proofe but have hitherto met with none Arg. 3. The Government of the Church formerly deliniated is incompâ—table with the civil Magistrats therefore it is distinct from his Government We hope none will refuse this consequence The antecedent is thus proven 1. The subordinat Government of the Church is purely Ministerial not dominative or imperial it is only declarative and not decisive not coactive and compulsive it is exercised in Christs Name and in his stead and is the representative of his special presence in his Church these are incompatible with the Government of the Magistrat whose power is Supream Magisterial and Imperial coactive and compulsive and exercised in his owne name c. 2. The