direct impeachment of our establisht reformation and that Presbyterians are maintaining and adhering to the same 2. Conformists do avowedly disowne and abjure our Covenants Presbyterians adhere unto and owne the same 3. Conformists are breaking and dissipating our Churches establisht order and union Presbyterians are in this practice contending for both the one party is wounding our Church both by persecution and reproach the other is taking her by the hand endeavouring her help and comfort in this her deep distresse and so the Covenant obliges to disowne the first and adhere to the second 4. The one is censurable by her the other deserves her praise Now can there be any question in this to which of these parties people are obliged to adhere according to the principles of our Reformation In the 4th place In a sinfull separation as to communion in worship it must be supposed the worship of that Church ownd and establisht therein because a party innovating herein as well as innovating in doctrine and government contrary to that which is establisht are hactenus and ipso facto in this their practice and upon this very ground schismaticks both in their worship and government Therefore to disowne them therein can be no schism for this would involve a palpable contradiction that these withdrawers in this same practice and in the same respects and circumstances therof were Schismaticks and not Schismaticks Now prelatists their doctrine is new and odd and not the voice of this Church And their worship over and above the corruption adhering to it is the worship of an innovating party and contrary to our Churches establisht order And therfore to disowne them therein is no sinfull separation from this Church her fellowship and worship while existing in her sound and purer part and opposing these innovations 5. In Schismatick separation the rent is made in the bowels of the true and genuine Church So that when a schism and rent is stated betwixt a godly Ministry contending for a pure Churches Reformation against an apostat party of the Ministry the sound professours stand preobliged to adhere unto and strengthâ—…n the sounder part upon this very ground of holding the union and communion of that pure Church against these backsliders supposing they will rent and ruine her if not opposed and so the case is here The union and order of this Church is already broken by the prelatick innovators and backsliders and by them only so that upon the supposal of this fixed schism the people of God must adhere to the sound Church and Ministry And in this extreme necessity the lesser obligation as to parochial order must give place to the greater duties of preserving and maintaining the Churches union and reformation when a course is carried on tending to ruine it 6. Every sinfull separation is from the fellowship of a Church either in her Ministry lawfull courts or Worship and ordinances according to the various relations state and condition of Separatists whether Church officers or others But in this our case Presbyterian Ministers and professours separat in none of these respects from the genuine Church of Scotland 1. Ministers separat not from her courts for none of her lawful courts are now publickly own'd or existent 2. People separate not from her Worship as it stood reformed and vowed unto when they owne the ordinances dispensed by her true pastours for that only is the true Worship of this Church Nor 3. from her Doctrine and a due subjection to her faithfull pastours in the Lord And therefore neither from the fellowship of her faithful Ministers and professours Where is then the Schism Since both the Doctrine Worship and Government of this true Church are ownd and backsliders and Schismaticks only and as such are disownd 7. Schism supposes that these whom we withdraw from are such to whom we are under obligation to adhere for it is a breach of union which is cemented and conglutinate by the obligations and duties of those who are concerned to hold it fast So that where the obligation to the duty in subserviency to this union cannot be demonstrate to be incumbent upon such and such persons and in such acts By whom and wherein this union is to be upheld the charge of Schism upon these acts which are supposed to violat that union evanishes and falls to the ground But if the person tho a Minister supposed from whom the separation is made wants that which immediatly grounds this obligation of owning hâ—…m hic nunc as the case stands circumstantiat in that respect withdrawing or non-union can be no Schism for else the most ingraind Schismaticks might be owned the Informer himself must of necessity admit this for otherwise he will crosse and cut the sinews of all his pleading and arguments which he presents in this Dialogue for disowning Presbyterian Ministers in this our case for I am confident that out of this circumstanciat case he will grant that it is no breach of any of his rules or reasons to hear them That they are Ministers and are preaching faith and repentance that they have a lawfull Ministeriall call and ordination c. All these he thinks will plead nothing as the case is now circumstantiat for adhering to them because of that in their present condition which outweighs all this and looses peoples obligation to owne them which he thinkes is no Schism but duty Now let our Informer turn the tables if there be first that in Curats present state which preponderats as to our disowning of them now tho all that he pleads as to their ordination and ministerial call were granted it s no Schism in this our case to disowne them according to his own principles and pleading in this point 2. He must grant that denying to hear hic nunc and in such a complex case is different from a denying to hear simpliciter or disowning such a mans Ministry simpliciter or absolutely as he will grant that out of this case Presbyterian Ministers might be heard and that disowning them is not simpliciter a disowning a true Ministry or Church or them as Ministers So that its this case of competition with Conformists which with him casts the ballance Hence as matters now are stated and circumstantiat and upon our principles and premised Hypotheses he must grant there is that in conformists case which hic nunc will loose our obligation to receive the ordinances from them as the ministers of this Church which is the white in the marke wherat all his arrows are shot Such as 1. that we are preobliged by a lawful Oath to extirpat and disowne them 2. That they are promoters of a Prelatick designe to ruine our Reformation 3. That they have avowedly disownd our Covenants and that we are commanded by the overturners of our Covenanted Reformation to hear them as a badge of our renouncing it and concurring in this course of backsliding 4. That they are intruders and not entring in
pure doctrine of this Church in complyance with persecuters surely they and they only are the schismaticks Had not this invasion been made upon our Church and her priviledges what would have been her Judgement of the present principles and practices of Conformists in any of her Lawfull courts would they not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks Now what is the difference here except that this party makes the greater number but will this take away the charge of schism suppose a party of notorious schismaticks should cry ouâ—… upon such as withdraw from them as schismaticks were not this a ridiculous charge and Just so is that of Conformists in this case 2. Every schism supposes ane obligation of adherence to that Church from which the separation is made Now then let him prove ministers obligation to joyn into this Prelatick course without which they will not admit them to officiat and disprove our prior obligations to opposeit or else Ministers obligation to preach and peoples consequently to hear in opposition to this course of defection will stand good on the old grounds and all the scripture comands founded on Pastours of this Church their Ministerial relation to set the trumpet to their mouth and give a Ministerial testimony against this defection and peoples obligation to hear and take warning will press and plead for that which he calls schism and a sinfull separation 3. Hence Presbyterian Ministers and professors are in this their practise never toched by all his arguments and defences but these are weapons in their hands against him and the conforming party 1. Whereas he pleads the essence of the ministeriall call which conformists lay claim unto Presbyterian Ministers answer that Nonconforming Ministers have this that they are Ministers of this Church and have a better right to officiat as her true pastours then Prelatists And if this will not plead for hearing Non-conformists why shall this argument be thought valide for hearing Curats is not the same way from Athens to Thebes and from Thebes to Athens if his concession touching the essence of their Ministerial call will not with him infer hearing Non-conformists because of their supposed schism Ergo a fortiori it will not infer the hearing of Curats who really are such 2. he pleads that corruptions and failings in administrators or even some corruptions in ordinances will not infer disowning of Ministers Why then pleads he for disowning Presbyterian Ministers and ordinances adminis red by them to whom this is so clarly applicable 3ly he pleads union But let him say what was the order and union of this Church before these innovations was it ane union under Prelacie Erastianism and persurious breach of Covenant was not our Churches Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and Goverment a beautiful order and union Now who broke this supppose we should Plead union against his withdrawing Presbyterian professours from Presbyterian Ministers will he owne this pleading or not rather disowne it because he thinks our union is schismatical well so we hold and do prove the prelatick union to be therefore untill he disprove our charge against his party this pleading is null 4. Divines do tell us particularly Timorcus chap. 7. page 32. that a sinfull separation which falls within the compass of schism is from the communion of a Church as walking according to the divine rule otherwise if the Churches deviation specially be great there is no fear of any guilt by schism in departing from it and hence infers that unless absolvers can instruct that prelacy is juris divini disowning and abjuring it cannot be schismatical Moreover this man himself grants that schism in its ordinary acceptation is taken for a causless separating and that where communion with a Church cannot be held without sin in that case separation is necessary Now then if we can prove that our non union is not causless and that communion cannot be held with Conformists in our case and circumstances without sin we are not Schismaticks by his oun confession To clear then this great point of the sinfulness of owning them in their demanded conformity we offer these considerations 1. Owning them and subjecting our selves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church hath a palpable breach of Covenant in it as the case now stands for all along we must suppose its binding force and that there is a considerable body of Ministers professours contending for it and that the question is to which of the parties contending we are bound to adhere and that according to our principles anent its binding force and the unlawfulness of Prelacie which this man cannot disprove The owning of them in the manner above expressed is a breach of Covenant many wayes specially as this man pleads for it with a totall disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their Ministry In this case it is a resiling from what we have attain'd in point of reformation contrary to the first article wherein we are bound to maintain purity of worship and Doctrine as then establisht Now their preaching is for the most part consisting of corrupt doctrine contrary to our Reformation And their prayers have severall petitions with which we cannot joyn such as for prospering Prelats and their courses Not to speak of the abrogating the lecture repeating of the creed at baptism singing a set forme of conclusion or what innovations in worship are introduced Again this is a concurience with promoters of this course of backsliding and a suffering our selves to be withdrawen from our union engadged unto and a denyall of suteable assistance to faithfull Ministers contending for the Covenant against backsliders all which are contrary to the other articles thereof This will be specially clear if it be further considered That 1. The body of presbyterian Ministers being ejected if disown'd in the manner and extent pleaded for by this Informer the presbyterian interest and our Reformation according to the Covenant will be extinct sold and betrayed 2. Hearing Curats and peoples subjecting themselves to their Ministry as the Pastours of this Church is by the Rulers required as a direct badge and Test of owning Erastianism and prelacie in opposition to the Covenant work of Reformation So that its a case of confession now to adhere to a faithfull Ministry contending for it 3. Ther 's no other way to exoner our consciences before God and the World and Declare our nonconformitie to this course of backsliding but by this practice there is no getting of wrongs redrest or corruptions in the Ministry removed Thus the Apology pag. 272. 4. We are in the Covenant engadged against Indifferency in this great work of Reformation and is not this the way to fall into it more and more 5. We engadge that we shall endeavour that this work of Reformation shall remain inviolable to posterity But what memory shall the posterity have of this work if prelats and curats be thus submitted unto 6. We engadge
strengthen the hands of evill doers Ezek 13. 22. such as stand not in his counsel Ier. 33. 22. cause people to err by their lies and lightness Ier. 26. 32. Now upon the forementiond suppositions its clear that Conformists are leading aside from our Reformation opposing the principles priviledges of this Church they are Covenant breakers from whom we are to turn away they are speaking peace to the wicked and healing the wound slightly and are ruling with force and rigour Ezek. 34. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. Witness their present violence 6. This practice of Presbyterian Ministers officiating in opposition to this course and peoples adherence to their Ministry is inferr'd from the scripture obligation of many terrible charges and adjurations laid upon Ministers in reference to a faithfull diligence in their Ministerial function and a suteable Ministerial testimony concerning the sin and duty of the time which is necessarly inclusive of their peoples reciprocal diligence in attending their Ministry and their obedience and faithfull adherence accordingly They are commanded to cry aloud and shew the people their sin Isa. 58. 1. and as they would not have the blood of souls upon them to give faithfull warning touching sin and duty and their peoples case and hazard especially in times of great sin and judgement when God is terribly pleading his controversy with them Ezek. 3. 17. hence they are enjoyned to be instant in season and out of season reproving rebuking and exhorting with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1. And as faithfull watchmen on Ierusalems walls never to hold their peace day nor night till she be establisht and made a praise in the earth Isa. 62. 6. to fulfill and make full proâ—…fe of their Ministry Colloss 4. 17. And as these comands in order to Ministerial diligence do singularly oblige herunto in this case so the scripture woes and threatnings thundered against Ministers negligence and unfaithfulness are very convincing and awakening See Ezek. chap. 3. and chap. 13. 5. 6 Hence on the forementiond suppositions it clearly followes 1. That Ministers are oblidged to be constantly instant in season and out of season in their Ministerial testimony against this course of defection 2. This case of defection and persecution ampliats and extends this duty to all to whom they can have access as the scattered preachers Acts. 8. Went every where preaching the gospel after that persecution that arose about Stephen 3. This Ministerial testimony upon the forementioned grounds must be levelled at all the corruptions of the times and all the branches and degrees of our defection 4. The duty and obligation of the people of God is reciprocall and commensurable therunto And if hearing Curats and disowning Presbyterian Ministers be not inconsistent with this great obligation let any Iudge 6. That partâ—… in a Reformed Church which having overturnd her Reformation hath shut out laid aside and persecute away sound adherers therunto both Ministers and professours and will not admit Ministers to officiat but upon the sinfull terms of complyance with their way cannot charge the sound party with schism in standing where they were owning and prosecuting their respective duties as Ministers and flocks in opposition to these overturners and backsliders For this would justify the most ingraind schism that ever was heard of Now so the case is here for all Presbyterian Ministers are cast out and they and all sound professours adhering to them persecute unless they will retract their principles and conform to prelacie Ministers in taking up a new tenour and exercise of their Ministry in a precarious servile dependence upon Erastian prelacy headed and influenced by a meer civil papacy And people in subjecting themselves to the Ministry of the servile deputes of Erastian prelates as a badge of their hearty complyance with and submission unto this blasphemous supremacy and consent to the overturning of the pure constitution and reformation of this Church So that the Presbyterians their plea is an owning of duty against Schismaticks disowning it Do not our Divines tell the Romanists on this ground that they have seperat and persecute us away from them and that therefore the schism lyes upon themselves not on us So the case is here Let this man say what would have been the judgement of our Church in any of her former judicatories anent a party owning such principles as Conformists do and persecuting or casting out all that oppose them and dare not concurr in their course of backsliding in overturning the sworn Reformation of this Church I dare appeal to the Informer himself if such would not have been judged censurable as the worst of Schismaticks And he can assigne nothing now to turn or cast the scale no ground of disparity unless he place it in this that prelatists are the greater number and have the civil power on their side And if this pityfull plea will carry it the Romanists have long since outweighed the protestant Churches in this debate which this man will not for very shame admit 7. This practice of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and disowning Curats hath nothing of the ingredients of schismor sinfull separation from this Church included therein as matters now stand and as the question is stated on the forementioned hypotheses Which will appeare in these cleare positions in the point of schism which are evident in their own light being applyed and brought home to our present case 1. Schism is a starting out from under due relations to a Church and from her Ministry and duties accordingly But in this our case and practise under debate Ministers and professours are pursuing the duties of their respective relation to this Church as it stood reformed and establisht before these innovations and the Apostat prelatick party are doing the contrary 2. In a sinfull Schismatick separation it is alwayes supposed that the withdrawing is from those who are holding the communion of the true Church otherwise we lose the basis and fundation of all sound definitions of schism But here the persecute party are owning the Reformation of this pure Church against a party of separatists who have broken her order union and National vows and who are also censurable by all her standing acts 3. In a proper Schismatick separation the principles and practice of these from whom the separation is made are supposed to be subservient to that Churches union right establishment and for maintaining her communion but to separat from those whose principles and practice is a stated opposition and in so far as an opposition to her purity and Reformation is to maintain her true union and communion and not sinfully to separat from it The Assumption as to this practice under debate might be cleard by a large induction of particulars If we take a view of the two parties Presbyterian and prelatical their carriage in relation to this Church It will be evident 1. In general That Conformists their principles and practice is a
at the door and in the way and order of this Church That they are violently thrusting out and persecuring her faithfull Pastours that they perjuriously renounce a call from the people and ordination by the Presbyterie All which grounds he must either grant will supersede our obligation to owne conformists hic nunc according to our principles or quite his plea and pleading as to the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry 8. He pleads in the close of the preceeding Dialogue that the covenant abjures Sel isme Now let us stand to this Decision the Informer will not be dissatisfyed if I shall borrow one of his topicks and shoot ane arrow from his own bow I would offer then to him this syllogisme That Schism which he pleads against is a Schism abjured in the Covenant but disowning Conformists in their present state circumstances refusing to be subject to them as the Ministers of this Church is not a schism abjur'd in the Covenant Ergo c. The assumption I prove thus If the disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their present state and circumstances and withdrawing from them in the exercise of their Ministerial function and their Ministerial testimony against prelacy and for the Covenant be that schism which is abjurd therin then a refusing to be subject to Curats against whom they are testifying as the Covenant breakers and upholders of prelacy ad not owning them as the Ministers of this Church cannot be that scism Unless he will mak this scism such a Janus as will cast a maligne condemning aspect upon both the contending parties and bring adherers unto either of the two under this imputation But so it is that disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry is condemned in the Covenant as schism this we have already made appear it being a disowning of that establisht order and union of this Church which therin we do swear to maintain and a schismatical withdrawing from her faithfull Ambassadours and others contending for the ends of the Covenant to adhere unto whom and keep up an union wiâ—…h them herein the Covenant layes upon us an express obligation putting the imputation of schismatick division and detestable indifferency upon the contrary practice Ergo upon the whole it follows evidently that the owning of Conformists which he pleads for in this Dialogue viz. subjection unto and receiving ordinances from them as the Ministers of this Church and denying this to Presbyterian Ministers is abjurd in the Covenant as Schismatical CHAP. II. The Informers charge of internal and external Schisme put upon Non-conformists â—…f impeaching the Churches constitution and her practice in point of Worship for more than a 1000 Years examind His argument from Rom. 14. Heb. 10. 25. answered and retorted upon him His answer to the argument taken from the command of seeking the best gifts considered As also his argument from ancient canons from the Act of the Assembly 1647. from the reciprocal tye betwixt a Minister and his flock to fortify his charge of Schism repell'd HAving thus cleard our question and plea fortified our practice with these arguments We come now to examine the grounds on which this new Casuist imputes sinfull separation to us therein We acknowledge the evil of Schism upon these Texts mentioned by him which might have caused sad reflectings on himself and his party who are guilty of divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and the doctrine of this Church And so are lashed by that Scripture Rom. 16. 17. And who would have have us saying I am of this or that Rabbi or Prelat contrary to 1 Cor. 1 12. It 's they who have disownd a spirituall pure unity with this pure Church and are seeking a perjurious union in departing from God contrary to that precept Ephes. 4 3. And are so far from esteeming others in Lowliness of mind better then themselves as we are enjoynd Phil 2. 2. That their Rabbies trample on all Ministers and their underlings do most insolently persecute and despise faithfull Pastours for adhering to the Reformation authority and union of this Church against their innovations Schism is no doubt an evill which hath much infested the Church and our Church and the Scripture sufficiently discovering the evill thereof we need not Cyprian nor Jeroms elogies anent unity to persuaed it Only where he insinuats from that saying of Cyprian which he mentions Who asserts from 1 Cor. 13. that who are slain in their Schism their inexpiable sin is not purged by their blood and that they are not Martyrs that such is the case of the suffering people of God at this time we may discern the cruell venome and sting of this mans malice for all the sobriety which he pretends unto I shall only tell him that as its more then he will be ever able to prove that the Lords remnant are guilty of this sin and are assembling out of the Church when attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours in this Church so he and his fellows setting these murderers upon them in this duty will if they repent not be exposed to that vengeance which the cry of their souls under the altar who have been slain for this their Testimony doth plead for He would also do well to resolve this doubt upon Cyprians Testimony viz. Whether Cyprian did ever hold or if himself will dare to assert that the blood and sufferings of the best of martyrs did expiat their guilt As for Jeroms assertion that Schism and Heresy or some degree of it go together I think it is fitly applicable to himself and fellow Conformists who since their departing from the unity of this Church and her sworn Reformation have not only to justify their course vented gross errours in point of Oaths and otherwise but are now as every one sees posting fast to Rome in denying many and great points of our Protestant profession We accord to Augustines saying that separatists as such receive no life from the body the unquestionable godliness fellowship with the Father and the Son to which many Presbyterians are admitted and wherein they shine compared with the abominable prophanity of the whole of those almost that owne Curats will by this rule declare who are the Schismaticks and separatists from Christs body The comment of the Thorn which rents the liliâ—… Cant. 2. 2. Is very suteable to him and those of his way who have now of a long time rent the Lords faithfull flock wounded our Church and taken away her vail esteeming themselves Christians of the first magnitude so he esteems his most reverend Arch-Bishops and reverend under-fathers What pitifull preambles are these The Doubter alleadges that every separation is not schism This as we heard he acknowledges and that when communion with a Church cannot be held without sin separation is necessary wherein he yeelds all that we plead since we have proved that in this our case joyning to
eyed So when a faithfull Minister is thus duely called and setled people are obliged to owne his Ministry by a due attendance upon the ordinances administred by him which is all that decency union and order and that act of our Church after mention'd doth call for which notwithstanding cannot be supposed to exclude all occasional usemaking of other gifts bestowed upon faithfull Ministers which were as I said cross to the communion of Saints and beleevers interest in one anothers gifts and graces But 4. our question here being stated upon the supposition of the greater part of this National Church their apostacy defection from our sworn Reformation and a great part of Ministers and professors adhering to their principles viz. to which of the two parties on this supposition people are to adhere in worship sure the Lords palpable blasting the backsliding party their gifts as to any saving success and on the contrary his as palpable owning and sealing with his blessing the Ministry of his faithfull servants adhering to his truth is a loud call in this broken state of our Church and case of defection and persecution to come out from the one party and way and adhere to the other So his Doubter in this and the next objection should have argued thus In this case of defection and overturning of our Reformation God being pleased to seal with a palpable blessing on our souls the word from Ministers adhering to their principles we may safely look on this as a call from God to hear them rather then the prelats perjurd hirelings whose Ministry we have found palpably blasted since they complyed with â—…his course of perjurious back siding and opposition to Gods work In this case certainly its an argument very pungent and founded on that of Jer. 3. 31 32. Where the Lord threatneth the prophets who caused the people to err by their lies and lightness and whom he hath not sent nor commanded tho they prophesie with this that therefore they shall not profite the people at all So the Argument going upon the supposition of our Churches broken and persecute state and a competition betwixt a faithfull Ministry and a party of Schismatick Innovators and overturners of our Reformation will infer nothing against our Churches setled order under Presbyterian government nor the assemblies act 1647. presupposing the same and it s not meerly the gifts but Gods saving blessing attending the same which is the ground of this argument and that practice pleaded for thereby Now as to his answer It s palpable that it meets not this argument in the least and besides his exclusive gloss is very impertinent viz. because we are to seek the best and edifying gifts fâ—…r our selfs in our siation therefore we are not to seek the best in others also What consequence is this Sure the Informer will not deny simpliciter that people are to seek after the most edifying Minister and this will follow on the very ground of our edification which we are to design in seeking the best gifts in and for ourselves Nay the one is the great mean subservient to the other a faithfull edifying Ministry is Gods Method for winning to the best gifts for my self and therefore as a mean leading to this end fals within the compass of this command to seek and Covet the best gifts So a greater then he Voetius concludes it a duty to seek the best edifying Ministry on this ground De politeia Eccles. pag. 52. And likewise on these Scriptures Luk. 8 18 1 Thess. 5. 22. And removes objections to the cotraire His 2d answer is That the Apostle is there pressing unity and not to despise the meanest gifts more then the meanest member and to avoid Schism verse 25. Ans. Then it followes that in the sense of this precept which we have explain'd seeking the best gifts is consistent with unity and avoiding Schism and consequently in this our case it s no wayes inductive to schism but consistent with a due esteem of the meanest gifted Minister who is faithfull to withdraw from scandalous innovators who have already fixt a Schism in this Church by opposing her sworn reformation order and unity Nay as matters now stand this is the surest way to keep our Churches union and integrity Since this their course has such a clear tendency to the ruine of her Reformation and pure constitution in doctrine Worship discipline and Government as is above clear'd His 3d Answer is that edification is to be sought in an orderly way not in a way that marrs the Churches peace and that though our sense of this generall direction were granted it s thus to be understood Ans. Let our sworn establisht Reformation its principles rules and design sit in Judgement and determine who are greater enemies to this Churches peace and order they or we Was not this Church priviledged with a beautifull order of Government pure Gospel-Worship and sound doctrine before Prelacy was introduced Well then the way to this Churches true peace Union and order must be in opposing their pretended order who are letting in the enemies and have broken her walls and hedge Many of them said and swore that the Presbyterial Government of this Church was a beautifull order unto which since they stand in opposition they are the most orderly who disowne them As for that which he adds of peoples neglecting Ministers set over them in the Lord he must prove that Conformists are such Ministers who are both scandalous for the far greatest part in their carriage having no visible badge of the Lords call and do owne principles and carry on a designe point blank contraire to our reformation have left the peoples conduct in the way of truth given up all their Ministeriall authority to abjured prelacy and make it their work to destroy and waste the Lords vineyard Tho it were granted that they had been so set over people yet since they are tracing wayes of Schism and innovations condemned by our Church Christs flocks cannot owne or be subject to them as their soules spiritual guides they being men that have corrupted the Covenant of Levi and made many stumble at the Law And besides since that complyance in subjection to conformists and disowning of Presbyterian Ministers which he doth here plead for is in very deed a despising faithfull Ministers set over their flocks by the Lord and standing in a Ministeriall relation to them and whom consequently the Lords people are called to honour and obey this same reason whereby he would persuade to adhere to the conforming party pleads more strongly against them And his rule aftermentioned not to do evill that good may come of it will conclude that we should not under pretence of keeping parochiall order or for eviting confusion deprive our selves of the blessing of the Ministry of Christs faithfull Ambassadours to adhere unto whom in this case we are under so many obligations As for the Canons after'cited by him against Ministers
withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism tho the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren which is contagious and may pollute us Now are not they walking disorderly cross to the doctrine discipline Reformation of this Church are they not consequently schismaticks are not their scandals infectious when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges or officiat either with or without them or people to enjoy ordinances among them without direct owning their defection and overturning our Reformation and a professed submission to their abjur'd prelacy as is clear in the acts enjoyning Ministers preaching and peoples hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy For that of Rev. 18. he sayes that it enjoyneth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship but warrands not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is I answer The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins as is expressed in the text which will consequently hold wherever this danger is whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flowes for as I said majus minus non variant speciem and we may add that other Known rule a quatenus ad omne valet sequela In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoyned Nay if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only the command of eshewing every appearance of evill will reach this withdrawing unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty Now our Covenant obligations and our Reformation as itstood established being duely pondered it will be clear that Conformists are schismaticks and destroying Innovators and there is no prior obligation to joyn with them but rather to disowne them in this course Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious and that people are obliged to leave and come out from them tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge and so he must acknowledge that this and such like commands will warrand a separation upon the general ground here intimat abstracting from that special case of Romes Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine It s very sophistical reasoning from the denyall of the special ground and nature of Romes contagion from which christians are called to separat to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept which is to reason from the denyall of the species to the denyal of the genus His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself and alledges that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church to which we are still adhering so that they have gone out from us not we from them We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established and our universal vows of adherence therunto so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation not Presbyterian government only they are properly the first dividers and deserters But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge 1. He sayes that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors whom we are bound to obey in things not sinfull So that their obedience is duty and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority and Schisme from the Church But 1. His Doubter alleadging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians not they from them which is a very clear consequence and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismaticks upon any description of Schism which he can assigne And moreover this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatick constitution since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical to be no Schism This I must say is strange divinity but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church her ordinances and over sacred Oaths and vows 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point is a high rebellion against God in disowning at mens arbitrary command the Government of his house appointed in his word and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it and against which all the nations were engadged So that our practice is obedience to God and a keeping of the union of Christs body and theirs is both perjury and Schism He tells us that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacie to be the only Government left by Christ and practised by his Apostles So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government and that of the primitive Church as well as from them To this I only say that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity Again he tells us that in this charge of Schism he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship which is Schism tho the Government were wrong I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism why answers he not our countercharge that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church and that therefore the Schism lyes first and principally at their door for that which he sayes of the Magistats command is as we have heard utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good for any thing he hath said that which he here adds of our being Schismaticks because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship is like wise naught For upon this ground of his Doubter which he cannot disprove viz. That they have made the first breach and separation they are Hactenus Schismaticks and so are to be disown'd in their worship upon that very account and ground upon which he pleads fot disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship tho he can lay nothing else to their charge or alleadge any substantial corruption of the worship And so the recocted crambe which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary their not separating there from c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship and much more then for
things in their case considered it would be a hard task to produce these Canons stricking against that practice as it stood circumstantiat considering their Schismatick withstanding the Reformation of this Church their Arminian principles and defending popish ceremonies which errors they had openly vented and obstinatly maintaind His next charge of ordaining others to perpetuat our schism is a manifest calumny this true organick Church is by this practice only propagating a lawfull pure Ministry in opposition to their destroying Schismatick course the blessed fruits whereof and its seals upon the hearts of the people of God have been conspicuous and we hope yet further will And no less gross is that calumny which follows anent our great mixt communions and admission of ignorant vitious persons unto them who he sayes by our way cannot be kept back there being none admitted at any seasons of this nature which have been very rare but upon sufficient testimonies from faithfull Ministers or elderships But is he not ashamed to object this to us whereof his party is so notoriously guilty who are knowen to admit yea call promiscuously to fill their empty tables which tender souls dare not approach unto both gross ignorants and notoriously profane to the shame and scandal of Religion and the contempt of that holy ordinance our persuading people not to owne Conformists as the Ministers of this Church we hope doth now appear better grounded then all this Informers persuasives to the contrary And that we have been in any measure succesfull in this speaks out Gods purpose not to leave wholly our married land For that which he cites out of Baxters preface to the Cure of Church divisions anent the odiousness of Sacrifices presented to God without love and reconciliation to brethren and of making a peoples communion in worship the badge and means of uncharitablness and divisions we thâ—…nk reconciliation and unionin the Lord needfull to acceptable worship but an association with scandalous Schismaticks and backsliders in their wickedness we think is no less dangerous and obstructive to reall fellowship with God in duty especially since God presses our coming out from among such and our being separat from the contagion of their sin with this motive that he will receive us And as there is a holy brotherhood which we must associat with in order to communion with God so there is a congregation of evill doers which we must hate Yea we have Davids precedency as is before observed to hate them with perfect hatred and count them our enemies But who can sufficiently admire these mens talk of unity and love who having first broken and divided this poor Church have been these so many years persecuting to the death yea sweeming in the blood of the faithfull Ministers and professors therof because hey durst not joyn to their way and conform to their supposed trifles and indifferencies Surely prelacy being the grand Idol of Jealousy provoking God against us and the fire which hath kindled all our combustions and hath opened the veins of the Lords servants and people to bleed for many years occasioned such horrid dispersion and unheard of oppression 〈◊〉 the Lords Church and people in our Land with what fâ—…ces can these upholders of this course look up to the God of Love and peace and how can they lift up sucâ—… bloody wrathfull hands to him But now his poor half proselyted Doubter confesses that there is much truth in what he has heard from this sound Informer forsooth And takes leave with a profest resolution to reflect upon what he has heard from him Whereupon he dismisses him with some of his healing advices prefacing with an admonition to seek illumination from God But had this man been serious in seeking this from God he had not vented in these trilling Dialogues such weak notions and reproaches against Gods truth and people But since his Doubter returns him no answer therunto I shall make up his want and shortly offer my thoughts upon them His first advice is not to be too confident of our own opinion as undoubtedly right but consider what he hath said in his three conferences Ans. If it be truth which we hold sure we most hold it by faith in a pure conscience and not be wavering and â—…ossed children We acknowledge not the Cartesian principle and the popish doubting way as found divinity and a confidence of truth is far from a self confidence As for what is offered in his three dialogues I hope it is sufficiently antidoted by what is said above so that it needs not in the least demurr our persuasion 2. He will not have us think the matters of difference to be the substantialls of Relegion since persons of both persuasions may keep love and fellowship without renting the Church and neglecting ordinances because greater differences have been and communion not broken thereby Ans. If these matters contraverted be not substantialls why then have they made such a substantiall bloody contest for them â—…anquam pro aris focis for so many years and if communion must not be broken in a Church upon this account why have they rent and overturned our Church and persecute away so many godly Ministers and professors for these things denying all fellowship with them in their worship for adhering to their principles and disowning this course of conformity had prelatists suffered Presbyterian Ministers and professors to stand as they were in this Church to enjoy their principles and to follow their respective duties according to their stations faithfull Ministers to preach and Gods people to enjoy the fruits of their Ministry he might with some colour have pretended to this desire of union and fellowship but since prelatists have cast them out and do so cruelly persecute them for adhering to their principles and owning these duties this pretence is nothing but deceitfull hypocrisy He adds that the difference is but a matter of government and if we separat for this we would have separat from all Churches since christianity began and if Christ held no comunion with a Church where prelacy was he hath then seldom had a Church and hath been for many years a head without members Ans. This is nothing but a renewed repetition of groundless assertions for how proves he that our plea is a matter of government only surely their course strikes at the whole of our Reformation as hath been cleared Again how proves he that we would have separat upon this ground from the Church for so long a time tho it were granted that our plea were only a matter of government since he hath not yet produced instances of such a prelacy as we have in any Church Besides since the Informer pleads for prelacy upon pretended Apostolical precepts and practices and yet doth here vilify it unto a meer punctilio and makes it such a sorry business as persons may come and go upon it at their pleasure we may easily discover what nimble Sophisters and
backsliding in this case and especially the joyning to a backsliding party who are not the true Church is much different from adherence to a Church tho backslidden It s a far different case not to leave the communion of a Church because of some corruptions and not to joyn with an unsound party of a Church drawing back from her Reformation So that upon a due consideration of the matter of fact and Presbyterian principles its evident that these Testimonies do levell against Conformists 2. It s a far different case to owne the Ministry of a corrupt Church wherin prelacy is universally owned and wherein there hath been no other way of entry into the Ministry for many generations but by Prelacy and to owne a party of Schismatick Intruders introducing Prelacy over the belly of a Presbyterian Church and shutting out her faithfull Mininistry surely these Intruders are in this case the Brownists 3. It s a far different case to submit to a Ministry meerly Episcopal and to keep the Worship in a Church long under this Government and to submit to an Episcopal Erastian Ministry and a Church Government fundamentally corrupt deriving all its power from an Antichristian supremacy and meer civil papacy after it hath been eminently and universally disowned by that Church and vowed against Especially when a backsliding party only do thus usurp over the sound Ministry and have ejected them and this Erastian abomination is set up to raze this true spiritual Government of the Church once universally setled and owned 4. It s a far different case to submit to an Episcopal Ministry so far as pure while Episcopacy is universally ownd and no obligation is upon any to disowne it further then its own corruption in that case will amount to and infer and to owne and submit to an episcopal Erastian Government introduced by an Innovating party into a Presbyterian Church against her standing acts solemn Oaths and vows universally taken on by that Church against the same while a faithfull Ministry and the great part of the people are in Conscience of their vows contending against it Surely this superinduced obligation requires a higher degree of zeal against that defection and renders it the more hainous The high places permitted to David and Solomon before the Temple was built are censured in after times greater light and obligations do in this case cast the ballance These considerations do clearly repell any argument which he would draw from his citations to our case But now to view them The English Presbyterians in that piece do first assert page 10. that all in the same bounds most be under the care of the same Minister and that these limits ought not to be brangled Ans. This shall be easily accorded give us our beautifull Church-order and a lawfully called Ministry and this parochial order shall be observed and obeyed 2. page 11. A man under a wicked or Heretical Minister must remove his habitation rather then brangle parochial order Ans Then it follows in their principles that when the order and union of a Reformed Church is already brangled by Innovating Schismaticks whose wickedness and errors are palpable men may attend a more pure Ministry without Schism by clear consequence sure he is a loser by this 3. page 12. to appoint Elders in every Church and every city is all one and converts in the city must joyn with the congregation in Churchfellowship Ans. But what if a party in the city call themselves the Church shut out the true Minister and bring in one of their own must not the true converts own their first Minister and oppose these Innovators Surely this Testimony rebounds another blow upon our mis Informer 4. page 25. evil men defacto have been officers Hophni and Phineas Scribes and Pharisees whose Ministerial acts were not null and Christs commission authorized Judas Ans. This will as much plead for owning Presbyterian Ministers as Conformists And if he alleadge that they are disorderly Schismatical c. and therefore must not be ownd in this case I answer â—…he must prove this which he hath not yet done 2. He must acknowledge that the granting that the Ministerial acts of Church-officers are not null by their sins will not plead for hearing Ministers in every case untill aliunde and from other grounds our obligation to owne such men as our Ministers hic nunc be made good which he hath not yet done as to Curats Neither Hophni or Phineas nor the Scribes and Pharisees were rooting out the faithfull Ministry of the Church of the Jews who would not concurr in a course of defection after they had laid down a course to overturn the ordinances which is the case of Conformists in relation to us as is evident Again state the question so that Hophni and Phineas and the Pharisees Ministry could not be owned without partaking in their sin then this man must needs grant that Gods people were obliged to disowne them and had disowned them Now we have proven this to be our case as to the owning of Conformists 5. page 42 43. Israel is called the people of the Lord even after the Calves were set up at Dan and Bethel and Cajaphas was own'd as high priest though they came to the office by bribry and faction and the highpriest had an hand in crucifying Christ. Ans. The same reply and retortion recurs as formerly what will he say if we plead this for presbyterian Ministers whom he will not call worse then these mentioned nor will he say that our Presbyterian Church is worse then that Church So that he must grant this will not reach his conclusion till more be supposed and proved in this point Again tho God in his soveraign dispensation had not as yet cast off the ten tribes having a faithfull remnant among them yet I hope he will not from this plead for owning the Calves or the Priests Ministry whom Jeroboam had obtruded and set up contrary to Gods institution and for keeping up that wofull breach in Gods worship and in Israel which was therby promoted and this is a fit emblem of their Innovating prelatick Ministry Beside that the high priests were men in a considerable measure deciders and Interpreters of the civil Law and might in that respect be owned But however it is as we have said bad arguing from the comporting with corruptions in that old dispensation and Ministry especially when drawing near an end to the receiving of abjured corruptions into a Church which has been rid of them and from a non-separating in the first case to conclude against a non-union or non complyance in the second And thus neither will Pauls carriage toward the high prist Acts 23. plead for adhering to Curats upon the same grounds For he will not say that Paul understood not his office in a spiritual sense to be now expired and that he was not to be owned as a teacher who was every way destitute of the truth of the
Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies Next Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove that personal faults corrupt not the worship which wee deny not but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion as to the owning of Curats untill he first prove his forementioned suppositions wherein he begs the question and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers untill this Informer prove his suppositions and disprove ours in this debate In a word the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and inferring a conclusion of owning them but it will either first be retorted upon himself or secondly the universality of the argument and the conclusion deduced there from so limited as utterly to irritat his design since he must acknowledge that there may be a Lawfull separation from a Ministry and ordinances altho not polluted by personal scandals And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawfull far less a non union and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case or meerly from this ground that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshipers or administrators thereof is a gross petitio principii ignoratio elenchi and which his case supposeth many things which are to be proved as 1. That Conformists are this Church 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat is properly a sinfull separation 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Ministers And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismaticks who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism or else he must so limit this position as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said Fourthly he presents unto us that passage page 254. where he shews That the godly in England tho separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church and approves their doing so and in keeping communion therwith in unquestionable duties the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth telling us ibidem that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retain the true faith it s to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved that Christ himself is where his ordinances are and some union with him the head that though a privat scandalous brother ought to be cast off yet not an Orthodox Chuch Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples adherence to them untill this Informer prove that the prelatick party are our nationall organick Church which will be ad Kalendas Graecas 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation from a Church so and so polluted Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatick destroying Innovating party or a separation from them rather then a sound Church contending against them which would quite invert his scope and arguing and the ground and hypothesis thereof For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the peoples adherence to them sure he would charge them with begging the question as we do Consormists in this point and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them Fiftly Mr Rutherfoord sayes ib idem We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is ador'd and from baptism where the sign of the cross is yet we are not to separat from the Church Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship tho not absolutly corrupt 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church Ministry to be joyned with and to which we were joynd 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto and disowning of a backsliding party who are not our Church is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions especially when as is said the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent Mr Rutherfoord tells us there that we separat not from the Church when we profess to hear the word and allow the truth of Doctrine and do not Presbyterian professors owne the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Pastors Beside Mr Rutherfoord tells us that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation as Paul separat not from the Jews till they blasphemed yet saith he there was no cause why people should joyn to that Church before that time since they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apostles Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided and rent by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority union and purity introducing Innovations into her contrary to her Reformation and vows and casting out her faithfull Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Ministry contending against them is no sinfull separation from the Church nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere page 253. But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repell what is said viz. that he asserts there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church if true and to go to a purer though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which he conceives purest Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest for 1. He is still speaking of a Church thus intirely less pure in comparison of a more pure But blessed be God their prelatick impurity has not infected all our Church their being 1000 of Ministers professors who adhere to the truth This man will not say that this will plead for a peoples adherence to a party of Schismatick backsliders Intruding upon a pure Church Introducing Innovations into her and ejecting her faithfull Ministry as Conformists are now doing which will be yet more convincingly clear if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord layes much weight upon this that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto a party of Innovators and
our obligation to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland page 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. His fancied contradiction which he imputes to us as to the sense of the first and second article refuted The Informer stands in opposition to Mr Crofton The sense of the English Presbyterians as to the first Article not different from our own ibid. That the English Presbyterians did looke upon themselves as oblidged to reform according to our pattern which is the Scripture pattern proved at large from several passages of Mr Crofton page 60 61 62 63 64 65 The Informers allegeance that the first Article is ambiguous and that our Church and state being but a part of the imposers of the Oath their sense cannot determine its meaning vain and impertinent pag 65 66 67. Chap. 4. page 67. The grounds upon which the Informer undertakes to prove that the obligation of the Covenant ceaseth although its oblidging force for the time past were supposed examined He begs a supposition of the indifferency of prelacy how poorly and impertinently cleard page 68 69 70. His first ground taken from the command and authority of Rulers generally considered and found impertinent to support his conclusion though his supposition were granted page 71 72. His 2d ground touching the alteration of the matter sworn as also his third taken from the hinderance of a greater good by the performance resolving in his sense wholly upon the Magistrates command absurd when applyed to our case which is fully cleared page 73 74 75 76 77 78. His absurd and inconsistent reasoning about a greater command overruling the lesse and our obligation to obey the rulers as prior to that of the Covenant page 7. ibid. also page 79 80. His Argument taken from Num 30. examined at large he contradicts Casuists and the text hath manifold incosistencies in his reasoning while resolving all his rules into the Magistrates lawes the Informers rules pleaded against him and according to the mould of his ple ding doth cast dirt upon the Magistrate page 80 81 82 83 84 85 86. His impertinent repetitions some further absurdities wherewith his Explication of the second rule in reference to the Magistrate is lyable page 87 88. His Argument from Eccles. 8 20. weighed page 89 90. His limitations of the third rule anent the Oaths hindering a greatergood resolving still upon the command of the powers absurd and contradicted by Casuists and many wayes crosses his design and pleading cleared at large page 91 92 93 94 95 96. His reflection upon Ministers in leaving their charge examined as also his Arguments from the Rechabites page 97 98 99. Chap. 5 page 99. The Informers answer to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites His trifling way of moulding our Argument And in what sense wee plead this passage page 100 101. The Informers absurdity which he endeavours to fasten upon us in this Argument viz that an Oath can bind against a command of God impertinent to the point and such as the Informer himself stands oblidged to answer in maintaining the Authority of the sacred text page 102 103. he is contradicted by Jacksonand inconsistent with himself in this point Page 104 105 the violence which he offers to that passage Deut. 20 10 discovered and cleared from Interpreters and many circumstances of the sacred text and parallel Scriptures page 106 107 108 109 110. His grosse and foolish distinguishing in this transaction of Joshua the league and the peace discovered page ibid. as also his opposition to learned interpreters here He supposes but doth not prove a limitation in Gods command to cutt of the Canaanites His absurd supposition that Joshua brake his league with them when he know them to be such page 111 112. his instance anent Rahab to prove the limitation of Gods command to destroy the Canaanites considered and emproven against him As also his Argument from the 11 of Joshua 19 examined And Solomons imposing bond servants upon these nations pleads nothing for him page 113 114 115 116 117 118 119. The manyfold inconsistencies of his answers upon this point observed page 120 121 122 123 124. The impertinency of all he answersupâ—… this point though granted His answers to our Arguments from Zedekiahs Oath to the King of Babylon examined As also to the Argument taken from Psal. 15 4 Page 125 126 127 128. His reflection on the Assembly 1638. In declaring the nullity of the Oaths of the Intrants under Prelats groundlesse and impertinent to the point ibid. His argument offered by way of retorsion Comissaries though abjured in the Covenant are owned by us and why may not also Bishops without hazard of perjury largely scannd The vast difference betwixt the one and the other practice cleared in several points both in respect of the officers owned and of the manner of owning them page 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136. THIRD PART Chap. 1 pag. 2. THe question stated and cleared from our Churches state before and since the introduction of prelacy and the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists page 2 3 4 5 6. The different grounds which the presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly plead upon for the peoples adherence exhibited Separation in many cases not Schism The many groundlesse suppositions that this charge of Schisme is founded upon exhibit and cleared page 7 8 9 10 11 12. The state of the question largely drawen forth upon a true account of the matter of fact and of our principles aâ—… Arguments offered to acquit this practice of the charge of Schisme such as 1 That the Presbyterian party are this true Church 2. That they are under no obligation to joyn to the prelatick interest 3. They have a ground of retorsion of all that is pleaded by the prelatick party on this point 4. The Covenant obligation engadges to the practice controverted which is cleared in severall particulars page 13 14 15 16 17. 5. It falls under Scripture obligations which is cleared in several particulars page 18 19 20 21. 6. That the Prelatick party will be found in their persecution the grand renters and dividers of this Church 7. This practice controverted hath nothing of the ingredients of a sinfull separation from this Church which is cleared in 7 particulars at large page 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Finally this practice cannot be that Schisme abjured in the Covenant The Informers Argument hereanent emproven against him and that the disowning of presbyterian Ministers falls under the imputation of such a Schisme cleared page 27 28 29. Chap. 2 page 29. The Informers charge of internall Schisme upon non conformists his Elogies of Schism and Testimony of Cyprian considered and this charge retorted upon him page 30 31 32 33. His charge of condemning all Churches for a thousand years who have owne Bishops liturgies c. examined found groundlesse and impertinent to the point His Argument from Rom
14. Examined and retorted upon him His charge of Externall Schsme in separating in acts of Worship fortified by that passage Heb. 10 25 Examined page 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. The doubters argument from 1 Cor. 12 v. 31. that wee ought to seeke the best most edifying gifts advantageously for himself but fraudulently proposd by the Informer Considerations to clear and enforce this Argument The Informers answers examined at large page 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 42 His Argument for adhering to Conformists taken from the reciprocall tye betwixt a Minister and people Ezek. 33 8. Heb. 13 17. Mal. 2 7. 1 Thess. 5 11 12. As also from Mr Durham on the revelation page 105 106. examined at large page 53 54 55 56 57 58 59. the premised texts improâ—…en against Conformists plea from this supposed tye and relation ibid. Chap. 3 page 58. The doubters argument from Curats not entering by a call from the people and that passage Acts 14 23. cleared and emproven page 59 60 61 62 63. The Informers first answer that several whom we refused to own entered by this call ibid. his exception upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined his first answer touching the use of the word to expresse the action of onesingle person proved from Acts 10 41. examined the use of the word cleared from parallels criticks and Interpreters page 64 65 66. His second Answer that Greek writers use this Word to signifie ordination without suffrages and that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas examined The granting that this was the action of Paul and Barnabas distinct from the Churches suffrage will not help the Informer Page 67 68 69. He walks crosse to interpreters in this answer page 70 71 72. His third answer that wee will thus give advantage to independants for popular election of Ministers examined wherein the difference betwixt the independents and us in this point is cleared from the Judgement and principles of Presbyterian writers page 73 74 75 76 77. His last answer is that if wee disown Conformists for want of this call we null the Ministry of the Christian world for above a thousand years upward and the Ministry of this Church to the year 1649. examined even the later Antiquity clear for this call by the testimony of Marcus Antonius de Dominis the Council of Paris anno 559 the examples of Eradius Ambrose c. Yea of Bishop Bilsone page 78 79 80 81. That patronages are abjured in the Covenant cleared against the Informer and his exception anâ—… our Churches perjury because of the use of patronages after the Covenant repelled In what sense the prelatick ordination is pleaded by us in disowning conformists of the term Curat The Informer honestly grants that it signifyes one who serves the cure though not the Minister of the place but the substitute of another page 82 83 84 85. His answer anent the charge of Perjury and reasoning anent the lawfulnesse of disowning Ministers because of Scandals who are not censured examined His reasoning found frivolous and retorted upon him page 86 87 88. his great argument from Math. 23. Anent the supposed command of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees examined Several circumstances of the sacred text offered to discover how very difficult it is to prove that there is a command of hearing them as Church officers The consequence from hearing of them though granted to the hearing of them denyed upon five grounds As also his reasoning from Simeon Anna Joseph and Mary their attending the Temple-Worship examined page 89 90 91 92 93. Mr Durham on Revel 3. pleads nothing for the Informer in this point page 94 95 96. His reasons to prove there is a command of hearing Matth. 23. as above described examined and repelled page â—…7 several answers of the Informer to our charge of intrusion and the queries that he propones thereupon as also his retorsion upon this charge examined and found vain and frivolous page 98 99 100 101 102. His answers to the doubters Argument anent the abjuration of Episcopall Ministers in the Covenant as dependent upon the hierarchy confuted His retorsion that wee were bound upon this ground to disown all the Ministers at the taking of the Covenant who had been ordained by Prelats unlesse they renounced their ordination ane empty knack reflecting on the reformed Churches justifying the popes plea against them page 103 104 105. Chap. 4 page 105 The Informers answer to the doubters Argument anent separation from a corrupt Church In what respects and how far this separation is owned His answer anent the not separating from the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the asian Churches Rev. 2 3. Though tainted with most grosse corruptions c examined The discrepancy of our case from theirs in this point cleard in some particulars and our cause fortified from Scripture directions to these Churches page 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113. The impertinency of these instances to our case cleared from hence several wayes ibid. The Informers answer to these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5 11 2. Thess. 3 6. Rev. 1â—… 3. Examined and found contradictory to his concession anent a necessary separation from a corrupt Church when highly corrupted page 114 115 116 117. His answer to the retorted charge of Schisme upon Conformists for seperating from this Church examined and found naught He therein cuts the sinnewes of his arguing against us page 118 119 120. His answer and reasoning concerning lecturing examined God never appointed a dumb reading the Levites gave the sense of the Law c. the exceptions anent the disuse of our first Method of lecturing and the want of Circumcision and the passover for a considerable time in the Jewish Church help him not in this point page 121 122 123 124 125. Chap 5. page 126. The Informers answer and reasoning upon the point of scandal and offence in reference to the owning of Conformists considered The Informers groundlesse supposition anent the duty of hearing Conformists Our Orthodox sense of Rom 14. and 1 Cor. 8. in the point of Scandal cleard at large from the exposition of Chrysostome on the first text and Pareus on the second page 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133. The Informer upon supposition that a practice is lawfull and offence flowes from it holds that the command of the powers will loose the giver of offence from guilt and remove this liberty of the practice and the nature of offence how absurdly cleared in fyve points page 134 135 136 138. He is herein contradicted by Amesius The instances of the Brazen serpent and Gideons ephod improven against him ibid. His absurd glosse upon Acts 15 28 that the things before indifferent were made necessary by the meere determination of the Concil largely repelled Calvin classes him with the Papists herein His manifold inconsistencies observed and absurd exposition of scandalum acccptum and datum which
us the Image and lineaments of our present prelacie in the Jewish Church Government For 1. We cleared above that the Ecclesiastick Sanhedrin was distinct from the civil and that the priests had a distinct independent authority and ministery But the prelats derive all their spiritual authority from the Magistrat 2. He cannot shew that either the Highpriest or any inferiour priests had the sole decisive Suffrage in their ecclesiastick Courts or such a negative voice as the prelats exercise assumein their pretended Synods and presbyteries The learned Iunius will informe our Informer De Cler. Cap. 24 Not 13. That par consortium honoris potestatis fuit inter sacerdotes sed ordine impari qua familiarum qua temperis respectu Penes concessum sacerdotum ex lege fuit ordinaria jurisdictio ecclesiastica That is Among the priests there was a like participation of honour and power though in a different order partly in respect of families and partly in respect of times the ordinarie ecclesiastick jurisdiction belonged to the assemblie of the priests according to the Law Thus he Sure then it belonged not to the Highpriest alone farr less to any inferiour priests and therefore none of them all had our prelats negative voice in judicatories or a sole decisive Suffrage so that they were farr from our prelats principality as to directive and corrective power And therefore though we should grant that his argument will hold as to our being oblidged by the policie of the Jewes and to have the government of the Gospel Church this moulded yet our present hierarchie is so different from it that it will not help his cause in the least But the doubter objects that there ought not to be such a subordination under the new Testament To which he answers That the Old Testament-subordination being to maintaine order and unitie in the in the Church there is the same reason for it under the new and stronger because the Christian Church is of larger extent then the Iewish and the danger of schismes and the necessity of preventing them the greater And what better way for this then Gods way thus exemplary pointed out to us although the New Testament gave no other ground Gods own model being best for the Church I answ 1. He must plead for much more then a meer subordination of Officers if he speak to the point as is clear from that is said And his Doubter if he had dealt fairely should have objected that the New Testament Church ought not to have the same mould of government that the Jewish had and that there is a vast disparitie betwixt their prelatick Erastian Hierarchie and the Jewish Church-Government Both which grounds doe break the force of his argument But it is good that our Informer hath the doubters arguments and objections of his own moulding 2. Though he know reason of a subordination under the Old Testament he should have said of that particular mould of government which the Iewish Church had but his general one to maintaine order and union in Gods Church he should have said in that Church under that special dispensation yet we have showen him some Reasons of their particular policie which doe not reach us And shall onely resume to him that we have neither 1. Such a distinction of tribes Nor 2. A common Temple and common Ministry in one Temple for the universal or for any National Church as they Nor 3. Have we such types and shaddowes from which as upon the former grounds this mould of government did flow Nor 4. Such various sanctuarie offices and degrees and varieties of administrations requiring as Bishop Bilson hath told him such varietie and different degrees of Administratores the Word and Sacraments being concredited to all Ministers without distinction c. Besides hath not the Apostle in the forementioned passage Hebr. 7 12. Given this Informer a sufficient Reason why wee are not tyed to the same Policie viz because that the Priosthood is changed i. e. their particular frame of Church officers that therefore there is made a change of the Law that is of the legal ordinance both of worship Government 3. Darene say that Christs Church under the New Testament may have every mould of government which may be in it self or in respect of some circumstances commendable and subservient to these ends of order and union Where is Christs faithfulness as a Sone over his own house beyond that of Moses Where are all the New Testament prescriptions in point of government Officers Lawes Censures if the Church thereof like a Tabula rasa may have any government introduced into it which may be in its own time and place good and Ministers framed according to the Old Testament dispensation 4. How will our Informer extricat himself as to the Jewish High priest in maintaining this Answer to his doubter Was not his office a special mean of order and unitie in that Church and to prevent schisme s and divisions And is there not the same reason that the Christian Church should be thus kept from that evil by a supream Highpriest or bishop What better way for this then Gods owne way And what better pattern for modelling the New Testament-Church in point of her government then this pattern Surely the Pope will thank him for this I know he sets aside in contradiction to Saravia as I shall shew the Highpriest in his argument as a Type of Christ the man forsaw that this would cast his argument in to ane intire Popish mould but he is not so forseeing as to prevent his being snared by his own reason caught in the brieres of contradictions For 1. He dare not deny that this Officer was a singular Mean of their order and union Hence he must grant that his answer to the doubters objection is naught and that Gods way of preserving order and union in the New Testament Church is different from his way and the means of preverving it under the Old and that the Samenes of the end of Gods ordinances and institutiones under both dispensations will not plead for holding the same institutiones Was not order union and the edification of the Church the great end of all the Mosaical Ceremonies and Pedagogie Were not the Jewes for this great end of order and union to keep their solemne Feasts To go up to Jesusalem solemly and joynly three tymes in the year To have one common Temple one Altar c. And must therefore the Christian Church observe the same ordinances and institutions 2. How will he prove that the inferiour Priests were not Types of Christ as well as the Highpriest Dare he say that their praying for the people and their sacrificeing were not typical of Christs intercession and sacrifice as well as the praying and sacrificing of the High priest though not in the same degree of eminencie I grant that the Apostle Heb. 5. speaking of the authority and honour of Christs Priesthood presentes
c 24. not 1. acknowledges that De Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primordijs nihil ex Scriptura imâ—…ne ex patribus quidem qui ante Synodum nicenum floruerunt quicquam certi demonstrari potest That nothing certanly can be made appear concerning the beginings of the Church of Alexandria from Scriptur no not from the Fathers who florished before the council of Nice Baronius Anno. 44. 11 42. saith cum Apostolorum nomine tam facta quam scripta reperiantur esse suppositia c. Since there are suppositious both words and Acts under the Apostles name since what is related by true writers remaines not incorrupt it may make one dispair to reach that is true and cerâ—…in So much is the great popish historian forced to confess The Informer should likewise have done well to have put into the mouth of his doubter Joseph Scalliger his grave difficulty about the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem Related by Didocl Cap 4 p. 123. Wherin he proves Eusebius relation to be contrary to our Lords prophecy anent the destruction of Jerusalem and to Josephus his History To this I add that he will find many learned men doe hold that the first successors after the Apostles in these supposed Catalogues were meer Presbyters who according as they were more eminent in the Churches and consequently their memories referved therein whose Natales as Iunius speaks that is their dayes of banishment martyrdome or death were keept in the Churches records accordingly they were cull'd out by the Fathers to fill up these Catalogues though they were contemporary those they named Bishops in conformity to their own times For this I recomend Franciscus Iunius his learned discourse to this purpose Cont. 3 l. 2 c. 5. not 18 errori causam prebuit c the cause of the error he means in those contradictory confused Catalogues of Bishops was that there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appoyinted by be Apostles in the Churches c. It s then evident which is the Collection of Diocl. upon what is premised 1. That the Ancientes without examination having from their progenitors receaved many fabulous stories delivered to the posterity such thinges as can neither be reconciled to Scripture nor with themselves 2. That they might fill up their Tables of Bishops and conforme the first ages to their own they culld out the most famous Minister for zeal piety c and put them into their Catalogués 3. Whom they thus put in they called them Bishopes in conformity to their own times though they were meer Presbyters For as we saw upon Phil. 1. himself acknowledges that the Fathers used the names indifferently So by this time wee suppose it is convinceingly evident that ouâ—… Informers great argument from his Testimonies is lost There is a great consent of the learned in this that for the first purest age the Church was governed by Presbyters without Bishopsblondel Apol Sect 3 p 3 14. 3 5 p. 308 378. Shewes the consent of the learned heerin For this Church of Scotland we have the Testimony of Ioanes Major de Cest. Scot l. 2. of Fordon Scoto-chronicon lib. 3. Shap. 8. likwise of Blond Sect. 3. All shewing that this nation haveing imbraced the Christian faith Anno. 79. till the year 430. When the pope sent Palladius as our first Bishop was governed only by Presbyters with out Bishopes so that we had our union to the see of Rome together with Prelacy Clemens of the first century in his Epistle to the Philippians maks but two orders of Ministery Bishops and deacons these only he sayes the Apostle set up to propogat the ordinances to believers And this to be a remedy to end all contests about Episcopacy page 57. c. The same we heard of policarp in his Epistle to the Philippianes we heard of Augustins Testimony Epist. 19. to Jerom. Dr. Reynolds in his Epist. to Sr Francis Knolls cites Chrysostom Ierom Ambrose Augustin Theodoret and many others ancient and modern to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Jeroms Testimony upon Titus is famous for this point who assertes and proves at large from Philip. 1. Act. 20. Hebr. 13 17. 1 Pet. 5. That by Gods appointment and in first Apostolick times afterward the government was by Presbyters communi concilio Presbyterorum by the common councel of Presbyters that by divine appointment Bishops Presbyters are one that the difference betwixt them had no better ground then contudo or Custom That divisions by Satans instinct occasioned the difference afterward made betwixt Bishop and Presbyter That their equality was not his privat Judgement but a Scripture truth The same he hath in his Epistle to Evagrius But now let us hear what ouâ—… Informer hath Scraped together from his masters Saravia Dounam Tilen c. To infringe this Testimony 1. He â—…ayes That Ierom speaks onely of the first gospel times when mentioning the identity of Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostles did by their own presence industry Supply the rowme of Bishops but as they began to fail by death or their bussines called them elswhere and upon the Churches inlargement the Schisme that arose upon the Presbyters equality Bishops were set up over Presbyters This he proves because jerom sayes that from Mark the Evangelist The Presbyters choosed out one and called him Bishop even to the Bishops heraclius and Dionisius but Mark died before Peter and Paul Then he compleans of Smectimmuus as dealling defectively in leaving out this in their Citation And of Mr. Durham on the Revel paâ—… 225. and thatMr Durham takes no notice of jeroms similitud in speaking of this Election of Presbyters in relation to their Bishop viz As the army doth choose the Emperor Thus far we have our Informers first great defence Which brings to minde a remarkable saying of Marcus Anton. De Dom. De repub Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 3. Numb 46. Sunt qui Hieronimum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere ille tamen dum consuetudini Sole ecclaesiasticae ecclaesiaeque humano decreto tribuit quod ab Apostolis jure divino est factitatum aliquantum certe deflexit neque in hoc aut excusari potest aut in alium contrarium sensum trahi verba ejus neque aliam Sententiam neque defensionen neque excusationem admittentia sunt haec in Epist. ad Titum c Some would he saith draw jerom to a contrary minde against his will but whil he doth ascribe only to Ecclesiastick Custome and the Churches human deccree what was done by divine right he went out of the way and in this he cannot be excused nor can his words admitt of any other sense or meaneing So much was this mans ingenuity beyond that of our Informer But to the point I Ans. 1. Wee have nothing here but the old Song which hath been answered by many Iunius decler c. 15. Not. 16. tells him That tria distinguit tempora
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
to preside Ergo he speaks exclusively and cannot put Mark among the series of them for Mark was ane officer of a higher nature Moreover the Informer tells us that Mark died before Peter and Paul hence I infer against him ergo Ierom could not reckon Mark among these Bishops of Alexandria for Ierom drawes his proofes for the Presbyters divin right of governing in Common from Act. 20. phil 1. 1. Pet. 5. And from Iohn the last of the Apostles and maks this divine Presbyterial government run along all the Apostles time and tells us that the Bishops who were set up came in by custome and afterward and by degrees when it was toto orbe decretum decreed through the world to put the power upon one ergo these Bishops of Alexandria behooved to be sett up long after Mark was in his grave according to jeroms calculation And wheras he compleans that Mr Durhame leaves out that Clause Where jerom maks use of a simile anent the armies choosing ane Emperor That he may make the Bishops power when brought in as little as can be It s answered that passage will as little help him as the other for jeromes scope is to shew That the Bishops first rise and power over Presbyters was by their own free election not by divine disposition as the Army chooses the Generall Now no simile must be strained and hold in every poynt else it were not a simile Scripturparables themselves mast not be strained beyond the scop And besides jerome cannot be supposed to give at that time even de sacto far less jure divino an Imperial or Lordly power to these Presbyters thus chosen out by their brethren and made Bishops over them unless he would Cross his own doctrine since he maks this choic and Election of the Episcopusâ—…reses to be the humâ—…n Custome posterior unto and different from the divine appointment of governing in a parity which first took place Likewayes jerom sayes in his own time quid facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth the Bishop except ordination which the Presbyters doth not So that they had not then arrived at any imperiall power And because this man tells us even ad nauseam of this passage a Marko Evangilista I will turn here the weapons point upon him and demand Since Ierome make these Alexandrian Bishops from Mark to have been sett up by Presbyters free election how comes the Prelats he pleads for to be Elected and set up at Court while the poor Creatures the Curats over whom they are set to play the little emperoures have no more Interest as to their choice and Election then the silliest Monck in choosing the pope I add here that this supposition of his that Ierom holds the Apostles to have supplied the Bishops rowme for a time though no fixed ordinary Bishops untill the Churches growth and their necessary absence did necessitat to set them up for preventing schism will Crosse what himself and Downam also doe plead defens l. 4. c. 5. Sect. 3. If at least they will not make Ierome oddly to contradict himself viz. that Ierom in Catal. Scrip. Eccles holds that Iames immediatly after the Lords suffering was Constitut Bishop of Ierusalem Besids that neither of them will prove that to be the true jerom But now the Informer will resolve the great doubt against what he hath said viz. That Ierome proves from Scriptur Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and that schismes by Satans instinct gave occasion to change the government from the Common Council of Presbyters to another mould of setting up one over the rest to whom the whole Care should belong c. To which he answers that Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time had come unto beyond what the first Bishops had viz. That at the first Presbyters had a hand in government but after omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum de lata that is the wholl care was put upon the Bishop But if we take Ierom to speak of the first introduction of Bishops then he must be understood as speaking of the Apostles own times Ans. 1. Upon this ground the Informer must grant that in Ieroms sense Bishops who only in ordination were superior to Presbyters had a greater power then the Bishops first set up by the Apostles which will clearly exclud his diocesian Prelats who have sole power in ordination and jurisdiction as no divine Bishops And Next it will follow that the ishopes set up a Marco or after Mark were meer presidents or Moderators since they were less in power then these Bishops who onely in ordination differed from Presbyters So we see the rebound of this answer will strik his cause dead And he must feel another rebound of his own blow as to his Complaint of our leaving out what maks against us in Ieroms words For I ask why he leaâ—…es out here Ieroms scripture proofes evincing that Bishops Presbyters are one jure divino Why leaves he out Ieroms Collection upon all these scriptures which runes along the through Apostolick age viz. That the Bishops are more by Custom then by any true dispensation from the Lord set over Presbyters for although he after bringes in this as ane objection yet it ought to have been set downe here as the main conclusion of Ieromes arguing and his testimony is very blunt without it Again how comes he thus to disguise what Ierome sayes of Presbyters governeing Communi Councilio or by common Councill as if it Imported no more then haveing a hand in government which he maks Compatible with prelacy wheras Ierom maks it distinct from and anterior unto even the first human prostasy Beside their governeing Communi Concilio Imports particularly their joynt decisive suffrage in government which he doth but meanly express by their governing in Common 2. What a rediculous conceit is this That Ierom speaks of the power of Bishops in his time beyond the first Bishops Ierom speaking of Presbyters expressly as contradistinct from Bishops and of the Presbiters existent in the Apostolick Churches while the Apostles were alive as himself just now explained iâ—… in saying that the Apostles by their presenc and industry supplied the want of Bishops over these Presbyters So that he compares not the Bishops in his time with the first Bishops who came in by Custome but these human Bishops who thus came in with the first scripture Bishops we know not wher to find this versatil proteus in his answers here and may truely alleadge that this Testimony pinches him and his fellowes Next will he stand to this exposition of Ieroms words which he here offers viz That the first Bishops admitted Presbyters to governe with them and the after Bishops in Ieroms time governed alone Then he must grant that the first and second Bishops were of very different cutts and so he breaks his Argument from the Catalogues all in peeces and must grant that the word
affectation of primacy began in the Apostles owne time and therefore we need not wonder that it spread shortly thereafter Ierome tells us that this change was Paulatim by degrees and upon specious pretences of order and union and therefore it is no wonder that this monster in its nature and dreadfull effects was not seen at first His 4t Reason is That Ierom makes this change to have been for remedy of Schism and it is absurd to say that the Government of the Apostles was lyable to this evil But this inconvenience is salved if we say that the Apostles for preventing Schisme which parity breeds set up Bishops over Presbyters Ans. 1. To begin at his last part he eschews not this inconvenienc himself for he makes the Apostles to have Governed the first Curches Episcopaly keeping the Episcopall reyns of Government stil in their owne hand in Ieroms sense till their absene and Schism procured that change which Ierom speaks of So that with him the root of Schism was sown in that Church which they Governed Episcopally the Presbyters with him ab initio yea first or last not haveing a power of ordination and jurisdiction and he maks jerome to reflect upon the Apostles as if they had bettered Christs appointment as to Government I pray him how grew up the Corinth Scism while Paul acted the Bishop over that Church as he and the rest of hisparty doe plead The men of his way say that the Apostles keept the reyns of Government in their own hand until they were about to die before wich time there were schimes in their Churches Did not the Apostles foresee this and if the Apostolick Episcapacy was by lyable to schismes much more that of their substituts 2. It is too gross ane Inferenc to say that Because Ierome holdes that for preventing schismes which were at that time the Government was changed therefore Ierome charges it upon the Apostles Government he may as well say that a mans asserting Corruptions to be in the Church will infer his imputing them to the ordinances Was there nor discord among the disciples under Christs own immediat Government but did that reflect upon his Holy Government that this recorded Did not Paul and Barnabas divid part asunder but did Luke in relating this Charge it upon the holy Apostolick Government 3. The absurd reflexion upon the Apostles Government which he speaks of lyes upon his party and these who first brought in and now after its evil effects are discovered uphold this hierarchy which is so crosse to the Apostolick parity Ierom sayes they brought in this imparity for remedy of schisme but leaves the charge of reflecting upon the Apostolick government upon the Authores of this innovation and upon its promoters still it mustly His 5t Reason is That Ierom in his writtings derives Episcopacy as high as from the Apostles making Iames Bishop of Ierusalem Titus of Crete Mark of Alexandria and Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be that which Aaron and the levites were in the old Testament Then he adds that if we make him contradict himself it must be with advantage to Bishops Ans. Wee have heard already that it is past doubt with many godly learned that the Fathers used the terme Bishop in a various and general sense and spoke of the Apostles and of extraordinary officers after the mode and custome of their own times wherein these offices and designations were prevalent It is this Informer who puts a contradiction upon Ierome while he maks him assert Episcopacy to be set up by the Apostles upon occasion of the Corinth Schism in contradiction to his Scriptur proofes of the parity of Bishop and Presbyter from the Apostles doctrine and brings him in here as asserting the Apostles to have been formaly Bishops from the begining Wheras our answer hath none of these inconveniences and tho it were granted that it is the true Ierome who asserts this of the Apostlés which we put this Informer to prove yet we accommodat this with his other doctrine by what is said of the aequivocall sense of the word Aaron and the Levits authority might in Ieroms judgement be as to Church government in general derived in the nâ—…w Testament and also as to a distinction of Church officers therein But if he should alledge that Ierom assimilats here the one government and the other he will mak him plead for a gospell Aaron and pope In a word Ieroms judgement as to the divine right of Presbyterian parity being so clear and by him founded upon the Apostles writings ought to preponderat any other general or ambiguous expressions anent Bishops and as a rule to expound the same in the sense most suitable unto this his judgement especialy since the Fathers usage of speech as to Bishops is thus general and ambiguous as is said But the Doubter objects to purpose That Ierom letts the Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then by divine right To this the Informer repones his recocted crambe againe viz Ierom speaks of the power which Bishops in his time were invested with beyond the first Bishops And that Ierom in that same Epistle expones Consuetudo or Custom by Apostolical tradition That if we understand him of Consuetudo or custom after the Apostles this will fastten upon him a contradiction That he sayes of the first Bishops who governed by commoune Council with the Presbyters that they differed onely from them in ordination but of these in his owne time ad unum omnis cura delata the wole charge was put upon one Ans. As for this conceit of Ieromes distinguishing here onely Bishops of his own time from these of the Apostles time we have confuted it already and shown its absurdity and that it is most crosse to Ieroms scope and words who proves a compleat parity among Ministers and ane identity of Bishop and Presbyter in Name and thing all alongst the Apostles times and writings even to Iohn the surviver of all the Apostles So that it is most absurd to fancy him to speak of Bishops in the Apostles timet The Informer offers but a gross distortion of his words for he sayes of the Bishop who differed only in ordination from Presbyters quid facit what doth the Bishop except ordination c in the present time but of these who have all the Care he sayes Paulatim ad unum cura delata the wholl care was put upon one in the preterit time pointing out these who came in upon that schism which with the Informer was in the Apostles time The objection tells him that Ierom applyes the Bishops mould whom this man calls first Bishops to his owne time when he sayes what doth the Bishop except ordination c And haveing proved Bishopes and Presbyters to be all one he sayes Sciant that is let the present Bishops know that they have their power more by Custom then divine appointment 2. As for Ieroms expounding Consuetudo or Custome by
that the Bishop at his first rise was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery Blondel at large mantains the same only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb And least our Informer or any else alleadge that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme This eminent light of the reformed Church adds but whither that device of man profited the Church or no the times after could better judge and that the effects issueing upon it dicovered that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery The same saith Sadael viz that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme opened a gap to ambition So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers adds That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self which though at first it did not appear yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church See the appendix to jus divin Minist Evangel In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators 2 That even this much they doe condemne as a deviation from the first appointment and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator and our present diocesian erastian prelat is so plaine and obvious that nothing further needs be said to clear it Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats To clear it further its evident if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government that 1 They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters Episcopi Presbyteri una eadem est ordinatio That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination we heard is Ambrose assertion 2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients As it is by our new hierachical pleaders The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the Pastour of the whole diocess and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him so Dâ—…wn defens lib 2. c. 4. p. 67. Field of the Church 56. c. 27 Sarav de trip epis p 87. Spalaâ—… l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5 And Chrisostom Hom. 17 on Matthew calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios Christs vicars Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayes Dominum sacerdâ—…tes in sua ecclesia c. That the Lord condescended to elect constitut to himself Priests in his Church 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei Gods Court or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum sed assessores Episcopi not Councellours only as are our Curats and scarse that but the Bishops assessors Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap 44. Calls them Principes Princes or Chieff Augustin Serm 86. Calls the Brethren ineremo Patronos rectores terrae Patrones and Rectors of the Earth Chrisostom expressly shews on 1. Tim. 1 Hom 11. Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi c That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church The homily begines thus postquam de Episcopis dixit eosque formavit quidnam illos habere conveniat a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit Cur id quaeso quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dixit â—…ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt that is after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have and from what it is necessary they should abstain omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters he passes over to deacones Why so I pray even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed and what he said before concerning Bishopes the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters I know he addes sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam and Bilson and by Bellarmin before them But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere that is that onely by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended viz to this power and in this onely they seem to do injury to Presbyters The learned Iunius de cleric cap. 7. not 611. tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Presbyterorum non Episcoporum quod si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ordinatio ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio The hand suffrage is here the Presbyters but if it be meaned of ordination then ordination belonges to them And having proved this construction sence of the greeke from Suidas he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters although because they stepp up by their suffrage they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves who upon the ground of order not of power saith he are set over them by there owne suffrag He also tels Bellarm. de cleric ca. 15. not 29. That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes yet the Bishop ordained onely signo sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained but not ordinatione veritatis or by the true ordination which that signe represented Some add that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators he did not rightly expound his text while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one theâ—… same Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops from whom Gratian
such was and is the sense and acknowledgement of the reformed Churches themselves as from their confessions we have made appear For confirming this further because the Informer hath told us frequently of MrCrofton let us heare how he will bespeak him in this point In that piece intituled The fastening of S Peters Fetters pag. 40. He tells the Oxford men of the Church of Scotlands Philadelphian purity in delivering in writting and excercising in practice that sincere manner of Government whereby men are made partakers of salvation acknowledged by Mr Brightman on Apocalyps 3. and the Apology to the Doctors of Oxford and of Beza's epistle 79 to Mr Knox exhorting him to hold fast that pure Discipline which he had brought into Scotland together with the Doctrine And pag. 41. he cites the corpus confess pag. 6. Where the collector layes down this as the ground of that Churches purity of doctrine and 54 years unity without Schisme that the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles as it is prescribed in the word of God was by litle and litle received and according to that Discipline the Government of the Church disposed so near as might be which he prayes may be perpetually kept by the King Rulers of the church These English Non-conformists Beza the Author of the syntagma in Croftons sense and himself together with them thus clearly avouching Presbyterian government which Mr Knox introduced to have been the government of this Church since the reformation and which King Iames also owned For after he hath told us in the same page of Arundel Hutton and Matthews three English Arch-Bishops their approving the order of the Church of Scotland he tells the same Oxford men of the joy which King James profest in the assembly 1590 that he was born to be a King of the sincerest Church in the world Again pag 39. he makes mention of this Churches two books of discipline as the great badge and Test of her government and in answere to the Oxford mens exception against that article of the Covenant which binds to preserve the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland viz. that they were not concerned in and had litle knowledge of that government he tells them that he wonders how an university conversing in all books could profess they had no knowledge of these books So that in Mr Crostons sense and in the sense of the Presbyterian covenanters in England the government engadged unto in that article is that platforme of Presbyterian government contained in these 2 books of discipline which adversaries themselves do grant to comprehend an intire frame of Presbyterian government Again pag. 141. he gathers from the tenor of the Kings coronation oath at Scone that the royall assent was given unto Presbyterian government in pursuance of the obligation of the solemne league and Covenant and that in his Majesties most publick capacity as King of great Britain France and Ireland for himself and Successors and asserting clearly the equity of the obligation he asks the learned in law whither the royall assent by such expressions publickly made knowne as here it was unto acts and ordinances of parliament in his other dominions to be past here anent be not sufficient to make an act of parliament a perfect and compleat law by the equity of the statute 33. Hen. 3. 21. c. So that Mr Crofton clearly asserts our obligation to Presbyterian government to be contained in the Covenant and to reach all his Majesties dominions For he tells us in the preceeding page that to all such as apprehend the constitution of England to be Merum imperium wherein the King hath supremam Majestatem it is evident that his Majesties ratifying the Covenant thus hath rendred it nationall Again Timorcus pag. 70. asserts that the parliament who imposed the Covenant anno 1648. sent propositions to the King wherein was demanded the utter abolishing of episcopacie Which is point blanck cross to the character of that piece obtruded by the Informer and doth evidently demonstrat compared with these passages of Mr Crofton that the whole body of Presbyterian covenanters in England both imposers and takers parliament and people understood that article of Presbyterian government The Doubter here poorly grants that England and Scotland did not understand that article in the same sense but alledgeth that since our Church understood it of Presbytry we are bound to it in that sense Upon this he assumes That it will not follow that we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and state but rather that in relation to government it is with out sense since the imposers themselves were not aggreed as to its meaning Ans. we have already made it good both from the sense and scope of the national Covenant the judicial interpretation and application of it to our former prelacie expresâ—…ie the nations universall taking it so and the authorizing thereof both by King and parliament as well as by the recommendation of the assembly from the total extirpation of prelacy and setting up Presbyterian government in all its courts in consequence hereof that that article of the solemne league which relates to the preservation of the then existent Reformation in doctrine worship discipline and government cannot without extreme impudence be distorted to any other sense then a preservation of the Presbyterian government then existent Especially the league being framed and entered into by us for our further security in relation to what we had attained And this being the article framed by the Church and state of Scotland at that time and this being also their scope and designe discovered in their treaties with England when that Covenant was entered into I dare appeal this mans conscience upon it whither ever any demurre here anent or any other sense of this article was offered by the English when the nations first entered into this oath or whither the imposers thereof in Scotland would have engaged in that league with the English upon any other termes then these and in this their sense of that 1. article Thinks the Informer that if any such thing had been muttered in the first transaction of this business that the English did not look upon the Presbyterian government as the reformed government of this Church that the Scots nation would have transacted with whem in this league Nay when as Timorcus tells us it was debated branch by branch phrase by phrase in the convention house in the parliament in the assembly of divines was there ever such a notion as this of our Informer started that by the reformed government of the Church of Scotland Presbyterian government was not to be understood in a word dare he deny that the godly conscientious Ministers and people of England did in the sense of this oath and even in imitation of the Scottish or rather the Scripture patterne plead for and had begun to set up Presbyterian government and are closs to their principles to this day But
certainlie attaind by keeping then breaking it then the Rulers commuting the Oath or altering or breaking of it he must acknowledge to be sinfull upon his own ground Since they might have attaind these good effects of obedience preaching the gospel and unity by keeping this Oath and might have more surelie and better eshewed the forementioned evils then by breaking it And then let him in the third place seriously Consider whither the Rulers sin in commutting or breaking this Oath for neither a greater nor more certain good will warrand my breaking of the Oath to follow them in that sinfull course and loose me from my obligation 4ly It will hence follow that he playes the petty sophister here in calling disobedience to the Magistrat in this one point of a sinfull command in relation to this Oath which on the formentioned grounds is proved Sinfull a disobeying of authoritie For he dare not say that disobeying a sinfull command can come under this character And the true state of this Question is not whither it be a greater good to obey the Magistrat or keep ane oath but whither it is a greater good in this particular to obey him in Embracing abjur'd Prelacie or to stand to the Oath and the issue of this is whither it be best for the Church of Scotland to have or want Prelats which from what is said is soon determined 5ly What if these pretended good issues be countervaild by greater evills such as persecution of many thousands godlie faithfull Ministers and Professors laying waste Gods heritage Blood miserie confusion schisme the godlie adherers to this Oath being without all question this Pure Church famine of the word c. Nay according to Dr Sand. rule mentioned where is the Relaxation of all parties engadged in Covenant one with another as well as with God were not the Churches of both nations nay in all the three Kingdoms engadged to one another in this Oath now thinks he not that this prospect of a greater good in breaking this oath should have been laid to the eye of the representative Church in the three Kingdoms in order to the change of government And should not all parties engadged in this Covenant have dispensed with it and with one another in contemplation of this greater good and for obtaining this better government thinks he that such a great question as this What is this greater good in point of Church Government And that other Question Whither such great and solemn Oaths may be laid aside in order to the obtaining of it Are Finally decided by the Magistrats Law without the least owning the Church representative and besides he dare not say that all are bound to obey the Magistrat in all things indifferent Is not subjection by the acknowledgement of most and even of his Master the surveyer different from active obedience Finally as for what he sayes of Ministers the Apologist told him and his master the Seasonable case and I do tell him again that God calls no man to preach the gospel by such ane unlawfull meane as perjurie and breach of Covenant and that in this case Ministers suffering for truth is a Confirmation of the gospel Phil. 1. 12. That in deserting and not preaching they are meerly passive being persecute for their integritie so the charge and guilt of not preaching lyes upon their persecutors Besides the state of the question in truth and in our principles importing a competition betwixt sin and suffering and duty and sin not a lesser and greater duty the folly and impertinency of his instance anent the lesser duty over-ruled by the greater exemplified by that I will have mercy and not sacrifice repeated here ad nauseam as also that instance of Paul and those with him their casting their goods in the sea c is most evident The sin and perjurie of this course of conformitie being our principle which he cannot disprove even though we should grant all his pleading here which goes but upon a begged supposition of prelacies indifferencie and the indifferencie of the matter of the Covenant what a flat folly is it to tell us of preferring greater to lesser duties wheras with us the question and case is anent Ministers duty when the Magistrat refuseth to admit to preach but upon sinfull terms which one consideration makes all his tatle here evanish in wind Suppose the Rulers of a land discharge all preaching but upon the terms that Ministers should commit some horrid act of wickedness would this man admit any to plead as he doth for doing evill that good may come of it and to tell what a weightie duty it is to preach the gospel and that the lesser duty of forbearing that evill commanded is overruld by the greater obligation to preach c. Well he and his partie like the pharisaik teachers twixt whom and us he insinuats a comparison are sure blind Informers and leaders and may be set to learn better thou that teachest another teachest thou not self For they have vented such principles anent sacred Oaths as some heathens would be ashamed of and which banishes all faith out of the world For what he adds anent the Rechabites when he shal equiparat the matter of their vow a thing meerly civil relating to their abstinence from wine and the manner of their dwelling with the weighty and great duties of a Covenant with God for publick and personal reformation and withal prove that hazart will equally plead for the laying aside of the last as in some cases it may warrand a dispensing with some part of the first the parallel shall be admitted but till then it must pass among the rest of the Informers gratis dicta The Dutch annot on Jer. 35. 7. Shew that Ionadab probably put this ingadgment on his posterity upon his foresight by a prophetick spirit of the judgments and desolations to come upon Israel in order to their inoffensive walk and for inuring them to parsimony And as for their dwelling at Jerusalem in case of hazard they shew on 11. V. that the Rechabits laid aside in this one thing their fathers command because it was but a humane ordinance which in obedience to the law of God they might in some cases wave which was also Ionadabs intention and acceptable to God And that in giving this account to the prophet of their practise in reference to their dwelling now at Jerusalem upon the Assyrians invasion they do shew that their fathers charge and their vow was not to be extended to this case So that in their sense there was no breach of the vow properly and strictly taken but onely the laying aside of a part of a humane ordinance in case of extreme hazart and this according to the nature and designe of the vow it self and the first institution therof CHAP. V. The Informers answers to our Argument for the Covenant obligation taken from the Oath to the Gibeonites and Zedikiahs Oath to the King of Babylon weighed Upon the
of schisme which he sayes we are carrying on in opposition to the peace and liberty of this Church which Christ has bequeathed to her in legacie This heavy charge we would gladly know how he will instruct and because he cannot stay to discuss that point in this dialogue we will therfor supersed our enquiry here and pass over to his third dialogue and Examine therin the grounds of this accusation which we doubt not to discover to be as Irrational as these examined in the preceeding Dialogues A Confutation Of the Third DIALOGUE Upon the point Of SEPARATION Wherein upon exhibiting the true state of the Question the practise of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and denying of a subjection to Conformists as the lawful Pastours of this Church from vvhom Gods people are bound to receive the ordinances is vindicat from the charge of a sinfull Schismatick separation the true and solid grounds of this practise offered and the Informers arguments against it fully ansvver'd CHAP. I. The question stated and cleard from our Churches state before and since the introduction of Prelacy the different condition of Presbyterian Ministers and Conformists Separation in many cases not Schisme The Informers groundless suppositions Arguments presented and prosecuted at some length whereby this practise is acquit of the charge of a sinfull separation and discovered to fall under Scripture precepts and obligations as duty THE state of the Question in the third Dialogue is anent sinfull separation and Schism whether the people of God be guilty of it in adhering to such Ministers as contend for our Reformation rather then Curats or Conformists And whether they stand in this case of our Church oblig'd to adhere to the one or the other as their true Pastours from whom they are to receive the gospel ordinances and to whom they owe subjection reverence and obedience accordingly This state of the Question our Informer cannot in the least pick a quarrel at it being most suitable unto his pleading which is all along grounded upon this supposition that conformists do stand in a Ministerial relation to this Church and professours therein from which he concluds peoples obligation to adhere unto them as their only true and proper Pastours And in correspondence to this principle and inference doth universally and absolutely fasten the charge of intrusion and Schism upon Presbyterian Ministers and people as to their respective acts of preaching and hearing in their present state and circumstances So that if we can overturn this his grand topick fortify the antithesis therof he must grant that all his reasoning in this Dialogue falls to the ground For clearing this let us take a litle view first of our Church of Scotland her case at Prelacies introduction 2ly of her present case 3dly of the different grounds which the Presbyterian and Prelatick partie plead upon for the peoples adherence 4thly on whose side the separation stands Schism is a sinfull separation from a Church with whom in what acts we are bound to adhere So that when this Question is cleared who are that Church to which we stand under obligations to adhere it will go far to clear this debate First As to the state of our Church at Prelacies Introduction I shall lâ—…y down these three suppositions in relation to the matter of fact First that our Church from the infancie of her Reformation together with popry rejected Prelacy and in her National capacitie and in her supreme Judicatories disowned it as contrary to the Word of God as a piece of Antichrists wicked Hierarchy And in her National capacitie abjured the same often solemnly and universally This hath been already clear'd upon the preceeding Dialogue 2ly Presbyterian Government hath been look't on by our Church as the only Government of the Church appointed by Christ in Scripture and as the hedge of her reformed Doctrine Nay the owning of it hath been the great badge and Criterion to try her true members the subscribing the books of Discipline and the nationall Covenant of old and the solemn league of late with engadgements of adherence to Presbyterian Government have been the ordinary door of entry into her Ministry This as to mater of fact is clear and undeniable 3ly Our Church hath Judicially condemned Eâ—…astianisme and Ministers their state offices and appointed Judicially the censuring of the opposers of this her establishment as scandalows Assembly 38. Sess. 16 17. Confirmed and renewed in Assembly 39. So Assembly 40. Sess 5. In the 2d place as to our Church her present condition these things are clear and undeniable 1. That all the legall right of the late work of Reformation is removed in the act rescissory 2. Presbyterian Government is raz'd and the Church-Government monopliz'd in the Arch Bishops and Bishops obtruded upon this Church And the right and liberties of Presbyters and all our former Church-Judicatories is removed and taken away 3ly Ane arbitary and Erastian Prelacy is set up in opposition both unto our Churches intrinsick power of Government and likewise her particular frame of Presbyterian Government 4. All her vowes and great Oaths both in the National Covenant as explaind An. 1638. And in the solemn League against Prelacie and for maintaining her reformation are disown'd raz'd and cassat as far as legall enactings can reach 5. Ane express badâ—…e is appointed as to both Ministers and people their owning this course of defection and disowning the late reformation viz. ministers submitting to Erastianism and Prelacy and owning their new courts and peoples hearing their viâ—…ars and substitutes for the same scope in thâ—… rulers diclaird designe 6. Ministers betwixt three and four hundred disown and stand in opposition to this course and a great part and body of the professours of this Church have likewise disownd the same stood their ground Hence upon what is said it followes in the 7th place that ane ax is laid to the root of her reform'd Doctrine Worship and Government The great hedge thereof is removed viz her solemn vows and beside her doctrinall principles anent the Antichrist and his Hierarchy the Churches intrinsick power of Government Christian libertie the unlawfulness of significant ceremonies in Gods Worship her Doctrine anent Justification the Imperfection of obedience Christs certain determinat and full satisfaction for sinners in opposition to the Socinian and Arminian errors The morality of the Sabbath c. are opposed by this innovating prelatick partie And next for her Worship beside what corruptions are already introduced and others pleaded for as the perth Articles c. It is upon the matter subjected to mens arbitrary impositions And our National Covenant and Confâ—…ssion is disownd ae stricking against popish corruptions and also our late confession as asserting the above-mentioned Doctrine principles And for Government the Curats are meer slaves of Prelats in all their meetings by his negative voice and the Prelats themselves are but the Magistrats creatures And
thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie moralitie of the Sabath free election c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment and Christs appointing Officers lawes and censures as head of his Church his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an 81 daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church with no other name then that of a conventicle 8ly Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her priviledges concerning heads of religion heresy excommunication and censures clear this Next Church-Judicatories were not discontinued but sat upon their old ground and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only Hence 9ly It s clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings at Linlithgow 1606 at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution to the priviledges of this Church And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie before they were raisd So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly c. For the 3d point viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly do plead upon for the peoples adherence take it shortly thus the prelatists do plead first that they are Ministers and in that relation to this Church 2lv That corruptions in administrators will not according to our own principles warrand separation from ordinances 3ly they plead order and union which they allege is broken by peoples withdrawing These are the cheif topicks they insist on On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question first from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers professours adhering to our Churches reformation principles and priviledges are the pure genuine Church of Scotland tho now fled into a wilderness whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren 2ly that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church and invasion of Christs Kingdome prerogatives and ordinances subjecting the lawes officers and censures of his Church unto men exauctorating putting in officers without his warrand that Prelats and their deputes consequently have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection 3ly that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly 4ly That hence it followes because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it and therefore to disown Curats both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church and as standing in a stated opposition to her likewise as the obiects of her censure if she were in capacity to draw her sword That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge beside the corruption Worship and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church and leading the people away from our vowed reformation c. In the 4th place to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands let us premise these things 1. Every separation is not sinfull even from a Church which hath the essentialls yea and more then the essentialls a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation But further in these cases separation is not schism I. It if be from those tho Never so many who are drawing back and in so far as drawing back from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind For this is still tobe held fast according to many scripture comands as we shall shew So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken was as another Athanasius I and I only am left in point of tenacious integrity 2ly if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts and authority while those from whom we separat own that corruption 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access after a National Churches reformation is overturnd and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners For in this case the persecuters separat from them and chase them away 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders in that which is of it self sinfull or inductive to it which is far from separation strictly taken The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill and hating the garment spotted with the flesh do clearly include this 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation which will not warrand separation from the Church National nor infer it by Mr Durhams acknowledgment on scandal pag. 129. For if scandals become excessive he allowes to depart to another congregation 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship the precepts to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean be separat 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge Prev 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation Act. 2. 40 will clearly import this by consequence 2dly This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which must be proved as first that the Prelats and their adherents are the only true organick Church of Scotland which is denyed her frame and constitution being such as it said surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number as they should have been if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish These souldiers who keep the Genâ—…rals orders are the true army not the deserters of the same Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd constitute and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland or this partie whose constitution
their way and party is in many respects sinfull and since he Instances the protestants plea for separating from Rome on this ground knowes he not that the Papists tell us such stories anent union with the Church and that suffering without the Church is no Christian suffering to Iustifie their bloody persecutions which very well sutes his case And no doubt the protestants answer viz. That we are in Christs Church because owning his truth tho separat from their synâ—…gogue and that notwithstanding this pretence the blood of protestant Martyrs is in their skirts doth sute the case of Presbyterians in relation to their persecuters But the great charge followes viz. That we are guilty of as groundless and unreasonable separation as we shall read of in any age of the Church Bona verba How is this made good first saith he in casting off Christian love which is heart Schism 2. He chargeth with external Schism in separating in acts of Worship Now what if we recriminat in both these and retort this double charge upon himself Have they not disownd the Worship of Presbyterian ministers Professours and charged all to separat from them meerly for non-complyance with their perjured Prelats 2. Have they not for many years glutted themselves with their blood I may say sweemd in it upon the same very ground of forbearance as to prelatick complyance and endeavour by multiplyed lawes and Acts to root them out of the very nation Good Sir Pull this beam out of your own eye that you may see a litle clearer in this point But as to the first he sayes that we make difference in Iudgement as to lesser matters Church Government a ground of difference in affection as if they were no Christians who are not of our persuasion in these things putting thus lesser points into our creed and un unchurching and unsancting all who are not of our persuasion therin Ans. As to the first general charge I know none more guilty then themselves who are contending with fire and sword tanquam pro aris focis for these their lesser points and with unheard of rage seeking the ruine of all who dare not comply in Judgement and practice with them therein 2. I thinke Christian affection to their souls is best seen in opposing and testifying against their soul-destroying sins Thou shalt by any means rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him is an old standing rule Levit. 19 17. And if they be even hated in so far as owning pernicious wayes it s no more then what David avowes Psal 139 21 22. do not I hate them that hate thee I hate them with a perfect hatred I account them my enemies I hate the work of them that turn aside it shall not cleave unto me 3. As we have not so learn'd Christ to call every thing lesser or small poâ—…nts which his latitudinarian party have the confidence to term thus so we know no point of truth reveald and commended to us in the word as the object of our faith and matter of our practice which should be keept out of our creed lest our saith become much shorter then the Scripture pattern And we acknowledge not the new patchment of mens Lawes which this man and his fellow-Conformists have annext to their creed and which can pro arbitrio make or unmake these his lesser points But he sayes that we unchurch and condemn all Churches in all ages who have ownd Bishops Liturgies festivals and othâ—…r ceremonies And if we make the removal of these things necessary to a Church there hath not been a a Church for above a 1000 yeares together Ans. To make the last part of this argument not to contradict the first he should have said that there has not been a Church without these things mentioned these 1600 years but the man seeing his first flight or Rodomontade too fierce he did well to clap his wings closser Upon a review of this page I find our Informer in this charge playes but the pityfull Camelion and versipellis for finding that this assertion of his that Christians of all ages since Christs time and in all places have own'd Bishops Liturgies Festival dayes and other ceremonies would have drawn upon him the heavy burthen and task of a proofe he lightens himself of this burthen by a prudent almost which in this point is very significant But his confining the liturgies Festivals and other ceremonies within the compass of the last thousand years sullied with all popish abominations appearing too simple inadvertency within the compass of two or three lines he secures it with a much above But lest this prove too broad reckoning he instances the second or third century from whence he sayes we beginne our reckoning as to Bishops festivals liturgies and other ceremonies But 1. why mends he the matter so inadvertently as to run in such a wide uncertainty as the the length of 200 yeares in that calculation which he imputes to us 2. I challenge him to shew what presbyterian writter did ever commence the original of liturgies and festivals with his blind c. of other ceremonies which will travell who knowes whither and include who knowes what from the third far less the second century I affirm that its more then he or any for him can prove that the Church hath had Bishops liturgies and festivals since Christ. Our writters have abundantly proved the contrary and we challenge him to shew either his Diocesan Bishops liturgies or festivals and the c. of his ceremonies in the first Apostolick Church or in these two ages mentioned by him That there were not diocesan Bishops then or long after we have already proved and far less Erastian Prelats For holy dayes let him shew by divine appointment any other then the Christian Sabath in the Apostolick Church if he can or in the first succeeding ages As for the feast of Esther it is acknowledged to have come in by custome after the Apostolick times For liturgies we assert that the Apostolick Church and age knew no such thing as set impos'd liturgies and formes other then Christs prescriptions as to baptism the Lords supper and that they pray'd as was suteable to the present action and circumstances of time place and persons If he betake him to the liturgies which are ascribed to Peter James Mathew Andrew Clement Mark Dionisius Areopagite and other Disciples protestant writers will stigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfit That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church is proved by clear testimonies Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. shews that in their publick Assemblies christians did pray sine monitore quia de pectore that is without a prescription because from their heart And in his treatise de Oratione sayes that there are somethings to be asked according to the occasions of every man that the Lords prayer being laid as a fundation its lawfull to build on that
fundation other prayers according to every ones occasion Agustine epist. 121. tells us that liberum est It s free to ask what was in the Lords prayer alijs atque alijs modis some times one way somtimes another Likewise Justin Martyr Apol. 2. tells us that he who Instructed the people pray'd according to his ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We might also tell him of Bishop Andrews success or rather disappointment in seeking an old Jewish Liturgie which when sent to Cambridge to be translated was found to be composed long after the Jews rejection so the Bishop being asham'd suffered this notion to die and the Liturgie never saw the light See Smectim and Didoclav pag. 615 16 17 18 19. seq 2. What consequence is this that because we disowne a Schismatick party of Innovators introducing these corruptions mentioned Ergo we disowne them as no Churches wherein these have been admitted Must we bring in or comply with every corruption once purged out the retaining wherof may be consistent with the essence of a true Church what consequence or reason is here Again doth not he and all his brethren stand in direct opposition to the order and government of the Presbyterian Church of this Nation and unto all that own 's the same will he then admit this consequence that he unchurches her before prelacie came in and other reform'd Churches govern'd Presbyterially So we see himself must acknowledge this his reasoning naught The Doubter alledges that these things mention'd are of later date then the Apostles To this he answers that Bishops were from the Apostles time The contrary wherof we have proved either as to diocesan or Erastian Bishops such as he means yea even a proestos which in the Apostolick age had no place as we have made appear Next He tells us that Polycrates in the debate about keeping of Esther with Victor Bishop of Rome alledged Iohns authority But how proved he this is the Question not what he alledged surely bare alledging as in other cases so specially in divinity is bad probation Then he asks if we will hence infer that they were no good christians who used these things suppose that they came in after the Apostles times I answer we thinke that in so far as innovating they were not Sound Christians and so must he thinke unless he will be wise above what the Apostles have written Then he tells us that from Rom. 14. It appears that albeit some thought he should say understood and knew that by their Christian liberty they were fred from the ceremoniall Law and therefore made no distinction of dayes or meats yet Paul enjoyn'd them to bear with the weak to account them brethren and not despise them and the weak were not to Iudge the strong Ans. 1. How proves he that the points in controversy viz. prelacie laying aside our vows and Covenants Erastianism liturgies and festival-dayes for mystical ends and uses are such nothings or indifferent matters as meats or dayes were at that time wherin pro re nata the Church might use her liberty As for diocesan Erastian prelacy we have made its antiscriptural complexion to appear so that it is not within the compass of any Lawfull liberty of the Church to embrace or establish it We have also made the binding force of the Covenants appear and that the laying aside of them consequently is a horrid guiltyness which this liberty can never be extended unto Likewise the liturgies and imposing of set formes of prayer and adstricting publick Worship therunto have been sufficiently impugned from Scripture and divine reason by several of the godly learned and discovered to impeach the spiritual liberty of Gospel Worship The holy dayes also have with the same evidence been impugned by our divines who have proven that they do impinge upon our Christian liberty are contrary to the fouth command enjoyning worke all the six dayes except on such occasionall fasts and feasts as are held out in the word likewise are reprobate by the New Testament prohibitions about superstitious observation of dayes The Jewish dayes being abrogat as the Informer cannot but grant how dare we impose upon our selves a new yoke If it were here pertinent to dilate upon these points our principles herein might be abundantly fortifyed and the truth cleard to his conviction and by consequence the impertinency of this parallel argument and his pityful pâ—… 1. 10 principii in equiparating the points now controvered with these things which are the object of Christian liberty The Informers gives us nothing here but magisterial dictates Again that tolerance which the Apostle speaks of as to dayes and meats relates to that time and case only of the weak Jews when the ceremonies tho dead were not yet buryed as they were to be honourably especially while the temple of Jerusalem stood and the legal worship therein by Gods providence was continued But as these observances were ever discharged to the Gentiles except as to blood and things strangled for that exigence only of the weak Jews so after when christian liberty was known and this particular exigence was over and the ceremonies buried It is within the liberty of no Church to unbury them or tolerat these or such like observances in others Finally this very text condemns him tho his begged supposition were granted For 1. The eater must not despise him that eats not why then do Conformists pursue Nonconformists with such grievous punishment and Lawes they not only despise but persecute to the death and vilely reproach them who art thou that judgest another mans servant why then do they Judge censure Nonconformists so highly in their pulpits and pamphlets and the Informer in this as Schismaticks of as deep a dye as ever the Church was infested with 2. He that but Doubts is damned if he eat saith the Apostle Why then do they so violently press consciencious Doubters to their way 3. If thy brother be grieved saith the Apostle with thy meat thou walks not charitably Why then are they so uncharitable as to grieve Nonconformists with prelatick exactions if the Judging and despising the forbearer be forbidden much more are their cruell edicts and constraining Lawes whereby they burden the consciences of tender forbearers in this case The practice of Victor as to the Asian Churches was no doubt highly uncharitable but it was so mainly because of his censuring about such a trifle as Esther-observation we see from this schism the sad effects of innovations and that the Churches unity peace is best keept by adhering to the simplicity of the gospel and so our departing from the gospel simplicity in point of government and introducing abjured prelacy is the chief ground of the present schism and confusions in this Church But now followes our Informers main charge of external schism in sâ—…parating from the Churches communion in word and sacraments contrary to the apostles direction Not to forsake the assemblies Heb. 10. 25. It
seems saith he that some then out of pride and singularity for sooke the ordinary and orderly assemblies of Christians Ans. In this accusation his so much boasted of charity is evaporate What! No assemblies for worship in this Church but among Conformists doth he not thus unchristian and unchurch all the Assemblies of Presbyterian Ministers and professors for worship why persuades he people to forsake these Assemblies and who now Iudges another mans servant as he who brands withself-conceit ignorance and schism all these Assemblies of Nonconforming Ministers and professours who dare not comply with prelats Again how proves he that no assemblies are orderly except the Prelatical we avow our meetings for worship to be the most orderly according to our Churches established Reformation and that their Assemblies are cross to her constution order and union both in respect of Curats perjurious intrusion the doctrine which they deliver and their manner of worship which is cross to this Churches practice and appeintment his charge of schism and disorderliness is still begged but not yet proved and orderliness is with him described from Church-walls and as for unity why have they east out hundreds of Ministers from officiating because they durst not joyn with Conformists in their perjur'd course of defection if this man be not here self convict let any Judge Let him produce if he can in our Assemblies for worship that which is contraire unto the nature constitution and worship of the assemblies mentioned in that scripture and untill this be we may on better ground recriminat this charge upon his withdrawing people from the Assemblies of Presbyterian ministers and professors The Doubter alledges poorly that all do not forsake their parochial Assemblies but some do now and then keep them He Answers that tho all withdraw not in alike degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable that people advance from step to step that some after withdrawing from them hear only the Indulged or those who have still preached without conformity in their own Châ—…rches and within a little will hear none of them that some hear in their own Churches but will not communicat the reason whereof he cannot understand since the efficacy of Sacraments depends not on the Minister that the lest degree of separation makes way for a greater that Baxter in his cure of Church divisions tells of some turning separatists who dyed Infidels Ans. He hath not yet proved that the withdrawing which he mentions is a Sinfull Schismatick separation and we hope we have made the contraire appear As for these degrees he mentions we say 1. His cruell uncharitablness to Presbyterian Ministersis here very conspicuous since he will not allow them to be in the least heard or own'd in their present case and circumstances Certainly to tye up people from occasional improvement of the various gifts which God hath bestowed upon his ministers even in a setled state of the Church and in her right constitution is cross to that interest in one anothers gifts and graces which the members of Christs mystical body upon the ground of their union and communion with the head and among themselves are priviledged with And in impeaching this the Informer blotes himself with scismatick uncharitablenes of the deepest dye 2. As it s no strange thing that in such a time of darkness desertion and defection peoples recovery be gradual and sometime attended with Infirmities in the manner of duties incident to us while in time so the contrary influences of love to truth and duty and fear of hazard may be easily productive of such variety in the carriage of poor tender souls in this matter In a word the Lords supper being a special badge of our union and communion in and with Jesus Christ It s no strange thing that tender souls scruple to pertake thereof from men at so palpable a distance from him as Conformists especially while this ordinance may be enjoyed more purely elswhere He tells us that Schismaticks ar cut off from the body and receive no life from it and if we may drawan inference and retortion from this assertion the people of God must judge Conformists to be such For these effects of separation which Baxter mentions we bless the Lord the contrary effects of sound piety in many who were prophane while owning the Ministry of Conformists are convincingly apparent since they separated from them and the effects of backsliding from Gods truth viz. gross prophanity or atheisticall Indifferency in the matters of God are as sadly evident in those who having once own'd Presbyterian Ministers have return'd to Conformists again As for what he objects and answers anent some of their own party going to others then their own parish-Curats whom unless insuperable le ts hinder to attend their own parish-Church he would have his fellows not to owne We are not much concernd to notice any further then to tell him that parvo discrimine refert which of them people go to the best of them being as a briar and the most uprights as a thorn-hedge and all of them blotted with such Schismatick opposition to this Church her pure constitution and principles as may put it beyond debate with tender souls lovers of truth and duty that they ought adhere to Christs faithfull ambassadours rather then any of them The Doubter objects that its hard to hinder to go where we may be most edifyed since we must Cover the best gifts 1 Cor. 12. 31. He answers 1. that the Apostle is not directing private Christians what gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of gifts and every one should be content with his own given for the edification of others yet that he should seek after better not in others but in himself Ans. Our Informer doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way of representing this and some objections ensuing for 1. He supposes that this is lookt upon in it self as a sufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers without previous consideration of all the circumstances of our present case and also in supposing that nothing casts the ballance in the Judgement of the objecter as to profiting or not profiting but difference of gifts whereas we grant that the soveraign Influence of Gods Spirit who teaches to profit renders the means and ordinances effectual to salvation whether the Ministers gifts be great or small 2. We grant that tho people have a discretive Iudgement as to gifts and their own profiting and are to try the spirits yet in a setled state of the Church they are not to shake off the due regulation and guidance of a faithfull Ministry set over them in the Lord so as to be wholly at their own disposal herein since there is no Justling betwixt the privat discretive and publick Ministerial judgement in this matter 3. As in the tryall of Intrants not only the sufficiency but suteablenes of gifts for such a people is to be
Reformation whereof these points mentioned are one main piece rather then such as have turn'd aside to this course of perjurious defection Sure our obligations mentioned do every way include Presbyterian Ministers exclude Conformists Presbyterian Ministers are maintaining the peoples right and liberty to call their pastour Conformists are selling away this peice of her reformation liberty and thus crossing the scripture-pattern the first are adhering to this Churches vowes and people are obliged to owne these Ministers that are pursuing the ends the other are casting them away c. Again 3. all the motives mentioned in the premised act of parliament and in our Churches publick acts in opposition to patronages and prelatick usurpations in a Ministers entry are still binding and in force according to our principles as the Informer will not for very shame deny and he must admit this supposition since in this point he professeth to argue against us upon our own principles and so what did then engadge to restore this peice of our Churches libertie and Reformation the same doth now bind to adhere therunto and consequently to owne the Ministers that contend for this Reformation rather then the backsliders and deserters thereof 4. This man dare not assert that the granting conformists to have the essence of a Ministerial call will in every case infer the conclusion of hearing them or that the granting a Minister to have this is the only adequat ground which will in all circumstantiat cases make hearing necessary For 1. What if he be violently obtruded by a part of the congregation upon the previously call'd Minister his labours to whom the people stand oblig'd to adhere Again 2. What if he be promoting a Schismatick course setting up an altar against an altar as some of these men tell us in their Pamphlets will a people cross their principles as to his having the essence of a Ministeriall call if they refuse to follow him in that Schismatick course Nay he will not say it 3. What will our Informer answer to Presbyterian Ministers plea for peoples adherence to them upon their lawful call mission and entry to their charges will this infer a necessity of the people's owning them and deserting conformists If it will not as he must here say or yeeld the cause then he must confess that acknowledgment of the essence of Curats call will not absulutely plead for hearing them untill before the Scripture barr and by the constitutions and reformation of this Church they can prove their claim to be better then that of Presbyterian Ministers to officiat as her true Pastours which will be ad Kalendas Graecas whatever he can pretend here as to disowning of Presbyterian Ministers in their administrations notwithstanding of their having a lawfull call and pastoral relation to this Church will be easily retorted upon himself and abundantly counterballanced by that which in the case of conformists may be pleaded to supersede and stop the peoples owning of them in this circumstantiat posture of our Church So that the state of the question here being this whether Ministers ordained by Bishops and presented by Patrons or those who are ordained by the Presbytry and called by the people have best right to officiat in this Church as her Pastours according to the Scripture rule her reformation and principles and to be own'd or disownd by the people accordingly The decision will be very easy and favourable to Presbyterian Ministers and exclusive of all his fraternity And whatever he doth here alledge anent Pâ—…esbyterian Ministers schism intrusion or disorder will be easily retorted upon himself reputando rem in universum ab initio Or tracing matters to their true originals But now what sayes our Informer to this argument of his Doubter as he slenderly propones it to make it foordable 1. He tells us that sundry whom we refuse to hear entred by the peoples call But tho it were granted that such might be heard who are but a few how will this plead for all the rest and loose his Doubters argument as to them 2. we told him that it s not the want of the peoples call simply and abstractedly from the circumstances of our case that we ground upon in disowning them no more then it is Presbyterian Ministers want of an Episcopal ordination which he pleads simply as the ground of disowning them But our ground is their standing all of them in a direct stated opposition to the Reformation union and order of this Church and driving on an interest and design tending to overturn it and by consequence being lyable to her highest censures and likewise their persecuting and opposing faithful Ministers contending for her Reformation 3. All those who he alledges entered by the peoples call havng by their conformity to this Prelacy and Erastianism disowned their first entry in this manner and obtained presentation from Patrons and collation from prelats according to their new acts and orders are now of the same stamp with the rest as to their principles and carriage and consequently the peoples disowning them upon the fore-mentioned grounds in this our case falls under the same obligations with their disowning others and the rather because their apostacy is an aggravation of their guilt But now what sayes our Informer to this text Acts. 14. 23. which is brought by his Doubter to prove the peoples right in the election of Pastours He grants that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is borrowed from the custom used in some of the ancient Greek states where the people signifyed their election of Magistrats by the stretching forth of their hands because the word so signifies Well what then hath he to quarrell at in this argument for the peoples right in the call of Ministers from this text 1. He tells us that Doctor Hamond and other Criticks shew that the word is oftenused by writters to express the action of one single person as it s taken by Luke Acts 10. 41. Speaking of Gods chusing or appointing So that the word is not necessarly to be understâ—…od of the action of many chsiung by snffrages Ans. That the Greek Word in its ordinary and constant acceptation doth import and is made use of to signify a chusing by suffrages and lifting up or extending the hands Presbyterian Writers have proven from a full consent of Criticks Interpreters and the best Greeck authors The Syriack version shewes that the word is not to be understood of the Apostles ordination of Elders but of the Churches election of Elders in rendering the text thus Moreover they made to themselves that is the disciples mentioned in the former verse made to themselves for such as were made were not Elders or Ministers to Paul Barnabas but to the multitude of the disciples in every Church while they were fasting with them praying commending them c. Which election could not be but after the Grecian form by the Churches lifting up or stretching out of
more justly because of Conformists present case plead for disowning them as is said and cleard above After this he cites Mr Durham on Revel 3. inferring from what is said of the Angel of Sardis and Laodicea that a minister as to his case unsound may be owned and esteem'd as such But how impertinent this is to our purpose any may see for their scandalous carriage in their walk is much more then unsoundness as to their case which notwithstanding we acknowledge will not of it self and primo instanti warrand separation from ordinances in every case But we have cleared that we have much more to lay to the charge of Conformists then either inward unsoundness or outward scandalls simply considered even their corrupt Doctrine their intrusion their stated opposition to this Church her principles union and Reformation As to what Mr Durham adds and our Informer cites in relation to the ordinances their not suffering derogation in whatsoever hands they be anent a due ministerial respect to the Pharisees tho their rottenness was discovered by our Lord that Judas was to be received as an Ambassadour with other Apostles that God makes usefull Instruments sometimes and that edification doth not necessarly depend upon the holiness of the Instrument Act. 3. 12. Matth. 7. 23. It s utterly remote from our purpose as is clear from what is said for neither can he prove that this practice is a separation properly such nor doth that case of an Improvement of the pharisees teaching during that time of the legall dispensation now shortly to be abolisht meet our purpose nor the case of Judas hid abominations correspond with that of avowed perjury and apostacy from the vows and Reformation of our Church Nor is there here a supposed prior obligation of adherence to conformists ministry preponderating any objection as to their scandalls What can this man say if we shall plead these reasons of Mr Durham for adhering to Presbyterian ministers viz. that ordinances ought not to be despised in whatever hands they be that even the pharisees and Judas himself might be heard and therefore much more Presbyterian ministers of this Church that God can make even graceless men Instruments of good that the efficacy of means depends not on the holyness of the instrument Now will he admit a conclusion of owning Presbyterian Ministers from these principles nay he thinks that maters stand so with them because of their supposed Schism and disorder that for as applicable as these things are to them yet they ought not to be heard And so by his own confession and pleading this will conclude nothing for him untill his above mentioned groundless suppositions be made good Now let me retort of our Informers angry Querie here how can they Justifie withdrawing people from Presbyterian Ministers since not so bad as the scribes and Pharisees if they have either knowledge or moderation He must then of necessity grant if he will not contradict himself that all these grounds will not plead for hearing in some cases that the London Ministers assertion anent the validity of the Episcopal ordination for substance repeated here again ad nauseam falls utterly short of proving his conclusion Those Ministers do assert that the Presbyterian ordination is the more pure and conform to the scripture pattern what will he then say to this conclusion that upon this ground and especially because Conformists themselves owne the validity of Presbyterian Ministers ordination they are inconsequent to themselves as well as going cross to scripture and sound reason in disowning the ministry of the Presbyterian ministers of this Church and withdrawing people from hearing them Let him pull out this beam from his own eye and his answer shall easily serve for us The Doubter alledges that in Math. 23. We are not bidden hear the scribes and Pharisees and that the words will not bear that He answers that he forbids not to hear as we forbid to hear Conformists Ans. 1. We have seen that there is more may be alledged from the Scripture as to a prohibition to be their ordinary and constant hearers at least which he pleads for as to Conformists then he can alledge as to a command of hearing 2. That the tollerance or allowance of a hearing of them during that shortly to be abolisht legall dispensation is far from coming up to his conclusion of owning curats in this our case 〈◊〉 He answers that Mr Durham speaks of a ministerial respect due to these Pharisees and that without hearing this ministerial respect is Lame Ans. Mr Durhams reason anent a Ministerial respect is in relation to the Improvement of their teaching tho granted in the greatest latitude he can imagine will not inferr his conclusion of owning Curats in this case as is already cleared Admitting that a due Ministerial respect will infer hearing in Mr Durhams sense and instance yet in our case which I told him Mr Durhams assertion will not speak unto acknowledgment of a man to be a Minister and capable of a Ministerial respect in so far will not bear this conclusion else the Informer hath in a clap devoured and eaten in again all this Dialogue in pleading against this Ministerial respect in hearing Presbyterian Ministers whose Ministerial authority he acknowledges 2ly He answers that our Lord enjoyns obedience to that which they bid do and that as sitting in Moses chair and how could that be except the people heard them teach from Moses chair he that bids obey a Ministers injunctions from the word of God consequently bids hear him deliver his doctrine from the word Ans. We told him that for any thing that he or any of his fellow pleaders have yet offered from this text these Pharisees might be civil national doctors and interpreters of Moses Iudiciall Law and of 〈◊〉 municipal Law from his civil chair who was King in Iesurun which will no more infer a hearing them teach and preach as Church officers then our obedience to the King Council parliament and Session will infer that conclusion 2. His parallels as to the command of obeying a Ministers doctrine from the word its inferring an injunction of hearing him deliver these doctrines from the word is in this case and question pityfull sophistry and begging of the question in supposing that these anent whom this injunction was given were Ecclesiastick Ministers which he hath not yet proved 2. That teaching from Moses chair is in this case equivalent to Ministerial gospel teaching and preaching from the word of God which he has not proved either since as I said Gods word contained the Jews municipal Law which civil Judges might in that capacity deliver and interpret in relation to external righteousness betwixt man and man in things of this life Finally granting they were to be heard teach and expone which he hath not yet made good from the text it will nothing help his cause for the reasons often given so that the separation which he improves this place
as such Let our Informer take heed of this praemunire for this dangerous error which he hath fallen into will expose him to the severe censure of all protestant Churches 2ly Hence Ministers who were ordained by Prelats with Presbyters concurring were no more bound yea less bound to renounce their ordination simply then Zuinglius or Luther were obliged to renounce theirs especially since their ordination was in a protestant Church and under Prelats owning the protestant profession which our Informers charity will no doubt esteem a considerable difference and their not renouncing it simpliciter will no more make them still dependent upon the Prelates as to their Ministry when prelats are removed then Zuinglius and Luther were dependent upon the Pope as to their ordination and the acts flowing therefrom after their separation from the Church of Rome or infer that they did owe their baptism to the Pope or the ordination of the popish priest who baptized them and were concerned to be rebaptized So that the popish cause and interest is much obliged to our Informer if his pleadings for our prelacy wil hold good and it is no bad omen that both interests are thus embarqued together in this man and his fellows reasonings for them and must stand and fall together which fortifies our hope and confidence that as the first hath begun to fall so the other shall gradually decay wither and fall with it CHAP. IV. The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church and the retorted charge of schisme upon Conformists examined OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists and therfore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter some more arguments in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge which I shal now consider and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter in presenting these arguments which he hath disguised in their genuine strength and shall examine his answers which when weighed in the scripture ballances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceeding The Doubter hath another argument that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church This objection he curtly and advantagiously propones making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice from a Church to which we are bound to adhere which this new advocat has not as yet made good 2. That any corruptions generally or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt will warrand a separation which is a principle we do not owne We acknowledge a Church may be joyned with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject But as to corruptions we say if the contraverted joyning be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances there can be in this joyning no stain but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case cannot be performed without a direct complyance with or stain of these corruptions then a proportioned separation is needfull in so far as suitable to that exigence and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned and that fellowship is not intirely to be broken off upon the preceeding ground in these things wherein there is no such hazard But now what sayes he to this argument 1. He tells us we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption and that this will not be granted Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption and therefore to be disowned The 2 answer is that its a mistake to think that for corruptions and even great corruptions a Church is to be separat from Then he tells us of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denyed that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted as it was by Ieroboams calves Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him and from these instances of not separating from a Church notwithstanding of great corruptions shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church as having a worship not substantially corrupted whatever other personal faults or corruptions they may be lyable unto that yet they are a true Church as to the main and that therfore they ought to be joyned with as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia wherein there were great corruptions were still adhered to by professors What will he say in this case I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismaticks to call our selves the Church of Scotland But what if we return this answer to him again that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church out of which Prelats were ejected vows against them universally taken on and Presbyterial government compleatly setled therein Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of Scotland or for them to usurp her name who have thus overturned her Reformation So that untill he make good the above mentioned hypothese or suppositions viz. that Conformists are the true organick Church of Scotland that this our practice is a separation properly such that its meerly because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curats with all their corruptions rather then our Presbyterian Ministry and Church which is both free of them and contending against them untill these and such like suppositions be made good his argument from the preceeding scripture Iostances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions is a meet petitio principii and will not help his cause in the least Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions For 1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies by the bad influence of judaizing teachers tho they were of a large yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture or strengthned by such an universal acknowledgment as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers far less publickly avowed and obstinatly and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers which makes their case wide from
slippery fingered Gentlemen he and his fellows are as to the retaining and holding of divine institutions and that they can easily expose them to sale for obtaining easefull serenity and other worldly designs Or how proves he that its the government of our Church which they have introduced or that they are the Church or that we are in this practice separating from our Church Hath not Christ a mystical body in Scotland without prelats or finally how proves he that there is alike ground for Joyning to prelacy introduced by an Apostat party after it is cast out and abjured by all as there is for Joyning in fellowship with a Church continuing Long under that corruption and not purged and reformed from it The Joyning with them in their worship being demanded as a badge of our consent to prelacy it self and all the corruptions attending the same 3. He pleads for charity and that we say not Conformists are graceless because of this difference he tells us that for all Corinths corruptions the Apostle spends a whole chapter upon Love and that such as have least truth have least charity that the weak christians who understood not their liberty Rom. 14. in being loosed from the ceremonial Law had least charity as they had least truth and so papists to protestants Ans. This charge lyes most directly home to himself and those of his way Let more then 20. years Law practice in relation to the ruine of a faithfull remnant of Ministers and professors who adhere to the reformation and government of this Church and their vows for promoting the same discover what hath been the charity of our Prelatical party Beside whatever be our thoughts as to their state with God and without judging their eternal condition it s no breach of charity to know such as are seducers from Gods way to beware of sin and the ensnarings of such seducers for which we have so many scripture commands as we have heard and the Judgment of discretion in relation to evils which we are to eshew is not that uncharitable judging in matters Lawfull and Indifferent which is condemned Rom. 14. 3 4. for else we could not act in faith And the same Corinthians whom Paul exhorted so much to Love he enjoyned also to come out from among the ungodly 2 Cor. 6. and to flee the contagion of their sin 4. He advises to consider the danger of divisions Gal. 5. 15. Mark 3. 24. since the enemy mocks religion upon this ground and while each fights with another all are overcome which he illustrats with the story of Scilurus his sheaf of arrowes Ans. Divisions indeed among Gods people are sad and have had sad effects but union must be in truth and duty and cemented with these bonds since it is the unity of the spirit which we must seek Eph. 4. 3. and therefore not in a way of defection and Rebellion against God and in breaking his Covenant which is nothing else but a combination against him It is in the Lord that we must be of the same mind Phil. 4 2. and Christ who prayed so enixly for his disciples union Joh. 17. 21. prayed also for their sanctification in and by the truth 17. ver and that they might be kept from the evill of the world 15. ver And the Apostle Paul who is so great a pleader for Love and union would not give place by subjection to deceitfull workers no not for an hour Gal. 2. 5. The best way to mantain union preserve the Gospel which their dividing innovating course of backsliding hath exposed to so much prevalency and reproach of Papists is to keep our garments free of their defilements to put away that accur sed thing which hath made us so weak before enemies 5. He advises his Doubter to acquaint himself with the writings of the old Non-conformists in England such as Cartwright Bradshaw Ball c. Who testify against the Brownists for their separation from that Church for which he sayes much more might have been alledged then for ours Ans. We acknowledge that these worthy men have done well upon this subject and that separation which they wrote against But our case anent a Church purely reformed from corruptions of doctrine worship discipline and Government and under universal oaths of adherence to that reformation infested encroached upon and invaded by a party of Schismatick overturners of her reformation standing in opposition to a faithful Ministry and professors adhering to them is so vastly discrepant from their case anent keeping up fellowship with a Church universally tainted with corruptions from which she had never been purged that by no imaginable grounds can a consequence be drawen from the one to the other And any consequence relating to us or application of the pleadings of these Divines against the Brownists will properly strike against his dividing party who have gone out from the fellowship of this pure Church to which they were Joyned and did vow adherence to her constitution and reformation yet notwithstansting by them thus miserably rent and destroyed for many years As for these Rules of Mr Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions which this Informer doth afterward commend unto us we are not much concerned in their explication or application since they do not in the least-strike against what we maintain therefore we shall briefly run over them For the first here mentioned anent not making communion with a Church stricker then Christ hath made it when we disowne dividers and Schismaticks renting and destroying a pure Church and introducing abjured innovations we do not narrow these terms of communion which Christ hath given For he hath commanded us to withdraw from such as cause divisions and offences contrary to our received ordinances and not to have fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness to turn away from Covenant-breakers And it s their dividing party who fall under the censure of this rule who make complyance with abjured prelacy the terms of their communion and so cruelly persecute all who will not conform to their course of backsliding There is no doubt equal danger on the other extreme in making the terms of our communion laxer then Christ hath appointed For the 2 rule which he mentions anent a due impression of the evill of division and discord and the reasons and necessity of union I think indeed had this Informer and his party kept up a Scripture impression of this they had not for the punctilio's of their trifling Conformity so miserably rent this poor Church and overturn'd her Reformation For the 3. anent not engadging too far in a divided sect it reaches Conformists another blow who have so far engadged for Prelats and their Interest that for many years it hath been the great work of our Laws by the instigation of them and their Rabbies to root out all Ministers and professors of this Church who do not conform and owne this course of backsliding Dare this petulant Informer call
backsliders who are destroying and ruining the pure Church but in this case our prior obligation is in order to adherence to that pure Church and her faithfull Ministry thus opposed as is said But now at last our Informer who hath been hitherto silent as to any inference from his citations drawes out a general conclusion from them that in Mr Rutherfoords Iudgment and the English divines neither the personal faults of Ministers Nor real faults about the Worship much less supposed only will warrand a separation which when admitted lifts not his cause one hair breadth off the dust as is clear from what is said since he hath proved none of these three either 1. That they are the Church of Scotland to which we are bound to adhere according to the tenour and principles of our Reformation nor 2. That this practice of disowning them in this our case is a sinfull separation Or 3. that we disowne then meerly for personal scandals or some corruption in Worship Whereas we have proved that abstracting from both these we have ground of disowning them as Schismatick Innovators destroying this Church and himself must grant that there may be a non-union unto yea a separation from a party ground lesly assuming the name of a Church though neither their personal faults do pollute the worship nor the worship it self be simpliciter disowned or else he must yeeld the cause when this is pleaded in behalf of Presbyterian Ministers and for not separating from them since it is upon this ground that all along he pleads for people's disowning them though he dare not say that the ordinances are polluted by their supposed scandals After this our Informer exhorts his Doubter to try all things and not to be ashamed to retract what is amiss as Augustin wrote books of retractions and Ierom exhorted Ruffinus not to be ashamed to confess an error Ans. I think indeed we are to search all things by the rule of the word and had he with a single heart and an eye to the God of truth searched better he had not obtruded upon Gods people in defence of so bad a cause such insignificant arguments for demonstrations But why exhorted he not his Doubter to hold fast what is good as well as to try all things It is not fit to be ever learning and fixe in nothing And no doubt this latter part of that scripture precept justifies our opposing their Innovations But he pleads for retractions and it s no wonder to see men who have Justified the casting aside such solemn Oaths and vows unto God plead for retractions But if he and his party retract not such monstrous retractions the very naming whereof would have made Augustin and Jerom astonished the wo threatned against perjury backsliding breach of Covenant is very near them His concluding prayer that God bless us with truth and peace is good and heartily accorded and surely when our Jerusalem shall have this spiritual prosperity peace and truth which this man pretends to pray for within her walls prelats and their wofull train and corrupt principles which have made such sad breaches in her walls will be without them And the prosperity of such as love her will ruine her enemies His Doubters Resolution to hold fast what is good upon the proof of all things makes up his lame advice And having thus fortifyd the Knowledge of the serious Doubter in that which this man hath been misinforming him about and antidoted this poyson we pray that all the sincere enquirers for truth may hold it fast against the times errors and defection The character of schism presented to us at the close of the pamphlet is verifyed in the party he pleads for since their proud usurpation of the name and authority of this Church after they have thus rent and separat from her demonstrats this their schism to be superbiaeproles And in their taking up such grosse unheard of principles anent Oaths anent Magistracy c. to maintain and uphold this usurping hierarchy they are like to fall under that other branch of the character of schism that male perseverando fit haeresis And because of the corruptions which it is like to be more more productive of It may very probably become also mater haereseos The Lord awake for judgement and send a plentifull rain to water his in heritance and revive his work in the admist of the years and make his face to shine upon his sanctuary in these lands which is disolat for his names sake CHAP. VI. Animadversions Upon the PREFACE And title Page HAveing thus examined what this new Casuist hath offered in these Dialogues we shall here subjoyn some Animadversions upon the Preface prefixt to this pamplet 1. His profest design is to let people see the sin and unwarrantableness of separation as the Epidimicall desease of the time Ans. I think indeed it is so and upon whose side this separation lyes and who hath brought in this flood as he calls it not since 78 but 62 I hope may be now no doubt to the impartiall discerner It s no strange thing to see men charge upon others that whereof themselves are so eminently guilty Papists call themselves the only Catholicks and charge Protestant Churches with separation just as this man and his Innovating party deal with us they only must be the Church of Scotland and we the Schismaticks though not many years agoe it would have been thought I beleeve by many of these men themselves as strange aâ—…e absurditie and paradox to term such a party owning such principles and practices as they now doe the Church of Scotland as to affirm that nihil was aliquid non ens ens or that Zenith was in the situation and place of Nadir such ane intoxicating thing is backsliding and sinfull self love 2. He praises Magistrats in the bounds where he is whose authority together with his mightie convictions forsooth brought back people who went once to hear Presbyterian Ministers out of noveltie Ans â—…s no small peice of our sin and desolation that the Magistrats sword given him for protection of the Lords faithfull Ambassadours in following theire duty according to there solemn vowes to God should be improven in such a sinfull opposition to them What peace and order in this Church hath attended their monstrous perperjurious backsliding were 20 years experience may discover especiallie to those who have seen and known the beautifull order of our first glorious â—…temple the verie rubbish whereof is yet refreshfull in any remains of a faithfull Ministrie that is left 3. Against his modest reluctancie forsooâ—…h some of authoritie and learning among his party thought it fitt that these his Dialogues should see the light because schismatick principles and practices are not laid aside but carried on and this Informer thou ht it a mater of conscience to discover to such as are willing to be informed how unwarrarantable such coursâ—…s are if Scripure and even the Doct ine
all ordinary places appointed for divine worship nay scarce any place of residence in their native land free from the fulmina thunderbolts of Prelats mad rage But what sayes he to this argument he tells us 1. That tho Christ preached thus yet it was not to separat from the Iewish Church nor did he disowne the hearing of their teachers but allowed to hear Scribes and Pharisees with a proviso to beware of their leaven that he sent those who were miraculously heald to the Priests and did not bid disowne them Ans. 1. Whatever be concluded as to Christs disowning or seperating the people from the teachers of the Church of the Jews at that time wherin the Informer hath offered nothing which will amount to a demonstration of what he affirmes and his assertion tho granted will not fortify the conclusion he aimes at yet this is certain and undenyable and in so far his Doubters parallel argument stands inviolable against him viz. that our blessed Lord preacht after this manner which he condemns Since he condemns in universum simply Presbyterian Ministers preaching and peoples hearing them in this manner abstracting from the disowning of Curats and their Ministry so that this answer meets not the objection as levelled against his principles And he cannot deny but that in so far as Christ and his Apostles were owned their ordinary Jewish teachers were separat from and disowned but he condemns all owning of Presbyterian Ministers and withdrawing from Curats as ingraind Schism and sinfull separation This answer is the more forcible if it be considered that our Lord had liberty of their Synagogues to preach in yet he frequently left them and preacht in privat houses and in the fields and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may use this liberty whom in a peice of cruelty beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees to Christ they have banish't from pulpits 2. As for our Lords not putting people to separat from that Church or the teachers thereof we have already shown how far it is from his purpose and what a wide consequenceit is from a non-separation from the Jewish Church and teachers tho corrupt while that legal dispensation stood which was shortly to be removed and the Gospel Ministry erected in its place and from our Lords tollerance thereof as Gods ancient Ministry though now corrupt to which he was to put an honourable close to conclude that a people are to disowne a faithfull Gospell Ministry and Church in complyance with a number of destroying Innovators ejecting them and razing a sworn Reformation which all that Church are bound to defend This is such a palpable inconsequence as any may upon first view discover it 3. There was beside what is said this reason in special wherefore our Lord would not have the Jewish Ministry at first universally left because he came as a Minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers he was to come to the temple as the Kings Son and Lord of all the Prophets who went before him the Law being to go forth from Zion and the word from Jerusalem Jesus came first to his own Therefore the Jewish Ministery and teaching was to stand for a time to make this apparent and as Christs great witness for his authority and the Doctrine of the gospel either for their conviction or conversion hence he appeald unto the Scriptures which they heard dayly read and preacht Search the Scriptures for they testify of me And when he enjoynd the healed leper to go and shew himself to the Priest it was to offer the Sacrifice which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them So that to make the substituting of the Gospel to the legal dispensation and ordinances apparent and its Ministry to the Jewish Ministry and Priesthood to which Christs death and resurrection only was to put a final period it was necessary it should be own'd in some measure And Christ could not wholly disowne it without stopping a great part of his mediatory fulfilling of all righteousness for he was as head of the circumcised people and as of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh to obey the Judicial and ceremonial Law and therefore he duely attended the passover and all the solemn feasts which could not subsist in their exercise without the standing of that old Ministry Now how far this is from our Question and inferring the owning of Curats in our case is obvious to the meanest capacity What he sayes of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees is already answered But now this Informer will offer some special reasons of Christs-preaching after this manner to cut short our argument here the first is Because he was to bring in the Doctrine of the gospel and preach himself the true Mesâ—…ah which was needfull to be done and because of the opposition of his doctrine by the Jewish teachers Ans. 1. Altho he was to bring in the doctrine of the Gospel into the world yet as he was sent first and immediatly to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and to exercise his Ministry toward them mainly upon which ground at his first sending forth the Disciples he commanded them to go to these lost sheep not in the way of the gentiles so he had the synagogues and Temple to preach in and frequently did so and yet notwithstanding went to the fields with great multitudes and to other places then these appointed for their ordinary and publick Worship and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may do the like who are denyed our Conformists Synagogues or ordinary places of Worship they being upon important grounds obliged as our blessed Lord was to officiat and bestirre themselves in the exercise of their Ministry And therefore 2. Since he reasons from the necessity of the Work which Christ was about and the opposition which he met with therein from his enemies these samegrounds pleads strongly for Presbyterian Ministers officiating in the manner contraverted because the preaching of the gospel by Christs faithfull Ambassadours was never more necessary and never met with greater opposition from its enemies and therefore upon his own grounds it followes that Ministers ought to embrace all occasions of preaching and in any place where they can have accesse Sure he dare not restrict the necessity of the work and the persecution from which he infers the Lawfulness of preaching after that manner to that particular necessity and persecution attending the first planting of the gospel or affirm that these grounds may never again recur for legitimating of this practice since thus he would condemn ouâ—… first Reformers Come we to the 2d Reason which is this Christ was head of his whole Church and was not to be limit in the manner of his Ministry as ordinary teachers but might preach where and when he pleased since all belonged to his Ministry and that none will say that he is pastor of the whole Church but the Pope nor can any meer Man do what Christ did in
every thing But our meetings he sayes are in despite of the Law and we add disobedience to our schism Ans. 1. We shall easily acknowledge that all Christs actions are not imitable such as those of divine power as working of Miracles and the actions of divine prerogative as the taking of the ass without the owners liberty the actings of his special Mediatory prerogative such as the enditing of the scriptures giving of his spirit laying down his life instituting Church officers Col. 3. 16. Joh. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18 19. These are not imitable nor yet such actions as were meerly occasional depending upon circumstances of time and place as the unleavened bread the time and such like circumstances of his supper But we say there are actions imitable as 1. in general Christs exercise of graces which have constant and moral grounds and are commended to Christians for their imitation every christians life as such ought to be an imitation of him the precious mirrour of grace Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me for I am meek c. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us Joh. 13. 15. I have given you an example that ye should doe as I have done The christian must walk as he walked 1. Joh. 2. 6. 2. In particular Actions on Moral grounds flowing from the relations wherein Christ stood do oblige and are examplary unto those that are under such relations viz. Christs subjection and obedience to his parents and paying tribute to cesar do exemplify children and subjects their duty as in that capacity so his Ministerial acts and faithfull diligence therein do exemplify Ministers duty Now the question is as to this manner of Christs preaching in this case that is not in the ordinary and authorized assemblies of that Church but in the fields and in houses whether the grounds of it will not sometimes recur and oblige ordinary Ministers for it s ratio exempli we are to look unto rather then the meer circumstances of the Individual act as Chamier tells us Tom. 3. lib. 17. de Jejunijs And for evincing this in our case our Informers own answer is sufficient if we shall but suppose which neither our Informer nor any of his fellows have ever been able to disprove that Presbyterian Ministers are under a relation to this Church as her true Pastors and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly His grounds are the necessity of the work and the bitter persecution of Christs enemies both which grounds are still vigent in relation to Presbyterian Ministers as is said For what he adds of Christs acting this as head of his Church and not limit in the exercise of his Ministry as ordinary Ministers none of which is an universal postor It is very insignificant here For 1. every piece of Christs Ministry his very teaching and teaching in the temple was as messenger of the Covenant who was to come unto that temple and in the capacity of head of his Church yet are examplary for Ministers duties according to their measure 2. He dare not say that our Lords preaching after the manner instanced in the objection of his Doubter or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors was meerly founded upon this ground and did flow from no other cause and principle but this viz. that he was not limited in the way and exercise of his Ministry for he hath already assigned other Reasons of this viz. the necessity of the work and his persecution simply considered so that if he should assert this his 2. answer would contradict his first and besides he will not deny but that such as were not heads of the Church and who were in an ordinary peacefull state thereof limited in the exercise of their Ministry did preach after this manner for the officers of the Church of Jerusalem Acts. 8. in that scattering and persecution went every where preaching the gospel So did our first Reformers not to stand upon that moral precept given to the Apostles who were not heads of the Church viz. when they persecut you in one city flee to another and the Informer will not say that they were not to carry the gospel-message with them in this flight Now that which those who were not heads of the Church but Ministers yea and ordinary Ministers have done the parallel of and warrantably surely that Christ did not upon any extraordinary ground now expired But such is this way of preaching Ergo c In a word as its easily granted that ordinary Ministers are fixt and limit to their charges in a setled state of the Church so he dare not deny that a Churches disturbed persecute condition will warrand their unfixt officiating upon the grounds already given and he should know that others then the Pope were universal pastours and even in actu exercito of the whole Church viz. the Apostles as himself acknowledged nor can he deny that ordinary Ministers are in actu promo related to the whole Church as her Ministers given to her by Christ and set in her As for what he adds of our meetings that they are against the Law he knowes that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Christ should be excommunicat From the violence and persecution of which Law himself infers our Lords officiating in the manner contraverted and he can easily make the application to our case and answer himself The Doubter thinks it hard to be hindred by the Law from hearing the word of God and other parts of worship or that Ministers be hindered to preach iâ—… being better to obey God then men He answers 1. that the Law allowes and commands us to hear the word preachâ—… in our own congregations in purity and defends it which is a great mercy and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in a way contrary to it Ans. 1. Granting that the Law did allow some to preach faithfully what saith this for their robbing so many thousands of the Lords people of the Ministry of some hundreds of faithfull Ministers will a piece of the Rulers duty in one point excuse their sin in twenty others and loose the people from their obligation to duty towards Christs Ambassadours This is new divinity 2. The law allowes none to preach in the manner he pleads for but with a blotâ—… of perjury in taking on the Prelats mark and complying with a perjurious course of defection and allowes none to deliver their message faithfully in relation to either the sins or duties of the time which is far from allowing to preach in purity and in this case we must rather adhere to Christs faithfull shepherds upon his command tho cross to mens Law then follow blind unfaithfull guides in obedience thereunto and this upon that same ground of Acts 4. 19. which he mentions But he sayes that answer of the Apostles will no way quadrat with our case why so 1. Because the Apostles had an immediat extraordinary