maintains that the Ministers who of old took the canonical Oath did not swear the contradictory thereto when they took the Covenant whence it will follow necessarily that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that Oath if they should take the Oath of canonical Obedience and indeed it will be hard to find out a contradiction either in termes or by necessary consequence But if the obligation of the Covenant as to that second article shall be found to cease whereof afterward the lawfulness of the other Oath will be clearer 3. It would be considered that the Reverened Persons intrusted by Law to call for that Promise from Ministers do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power all they seek is obedience to them in things lawfull and honest as being presently in power being by Law ordinary Overseers of the Ministry in their duties and chief Ordainers of them who enter into the Ministry But it is said where obedience is promised there is an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Power Office and Authority because obedience formally cannot be but to a lawfull Authority therefore he that in his conscience thinketh a Bishops Office unlawfull cannot so much as promise obedience to him in things lawfull and honest lest by his taking such an Oath he make himself guilty of establishing that which he accounts unlawfull But 1. it is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for if it be obedience materially Ministers doing their duties in things really lawfull they are satisfied 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any lawfull Authority for waving the consideration of any ecclesiastical Office wherein they may pretend to be superiour to other Ministers and giving but not granting that as Church-ministers their Office and superiority were unlawful yet looking upon them as the Kings Majesties Commissioners in Causes ecclesiastical for regulating the external order of the Church in their several bounds and impowred by the law of the land so to do they being also Presbyters and having power with others in Ordination and Jurisdiction ecclesiastical it will be hard to say that their power is not lawfull and that obedience is not due to them The strictest Presbyterians will not find ground to disown their Office in that consideration There are three things mainly which bear off Brethren of both these sorts and ranks from submitting to and concurring in their duties under the present Government 1. Their fears of future evils 2. Their present thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop over Presbyters in the Church 3. Their former Engagements by the bond of the Covenant which they conceive still binds them As to the first their fears there can be no sufficient ground in these to bear them off from that which for the present is found to be their duty If evils feared should come and Brethren in conscience toward God not able to comply with them then suffering might be the more comfortable but the gracious providence of God watching over his Church the goodness and wisdom of our Soveraign and of Rulers under him considering the temper of this Nation may make all these fears vain and disappoint them and it is not for us to be too thoughtful or to torment our selves with fears before the time In the mean time it would be well considered by Brethren that bear off from concurrence if they do well in withdrawing their counsels from their Brethren and in doing that which tendeth to the loss of their enterest in and respect with persons in present Authority in regard whereof they might be exceedingly instrumental to prevent any thing that is feared 2. As to their thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop something hath been said of the lawfulness of their concurrence in unquestion'd duties even upon that supposition something also hath been said of the acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Office looking upon them as Presbyters commissionated by the King for external ordering of Church-affairs in their severall bounds and of the lawfulness of obedience to them as in that capacity It is not the purpose of this Paper to dispute much for their Church-capacity or Rule over Presbyters or anent the Office of Bishops as an order of Church-ministers Only as to this three things would be seriously pondred by Brethren 1. Where they are able to find in all Christs Testament any precept for meer Presbyters preaching and unpreaching in a full equality of power to rule the Church of Christ to give Ordination to Ministers to judge in all controversies of Religion ministerially and do all acts of Government in the Church or where they can find any example of such a Presbytery doing these acts without some superiour Officer acting with them or directing them in their actings or where there is any inhibition either expresse or by necessary consequence that no Gospel-minister should in any case have superiority in power over others in Church-affairs 2. Let it be considered if descending from the Scripture times it can be found in any Writer who lived in the first two or three ages after Christ or in any History or Record relating to these times not to speak of after-ages it can be found that there was any such Church-officer as an unpreaching Elder joyned in full equality of power with Preaching-elders in acts of Ordination of Ministers from which if they be necessary parts and members of the Presbytery they cannot be excluded and in all other acts of Jurisdiction or if there be any mention of the names or power of any such persons Or if it can be from these Writers found that there was ever any Ordination of Ministers or exercise of Jurisdiction ecclesiastical by Ministers i. e. by meer Preaching-presbyters without some one stated President over them under the name of Bishop who was to go before them in these actions and without whom nothing was to be done in these Shall not the practice of that primitive Church which followed the Apostles as it were at the heels be most able to shew us which way they went and what was their practice It is too horrid a thing to imagine and that which a modest Christian can hardly down with that immediately after the Apostles times the whole Church of Châ—â—â—t should agree to so substantial an alteration of the Government of the Church suppos'd to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles as to exclude one sâ—â—t of Officers of his appointment and to take in another not appointed by him And that it should be done so early Statim post tempora Apostolorum aut eorum etiam tempore saith Molinaeus Epist 3. ad Episcop Winton Bishops were set up in the time when some of them especially John were living viventibus videntibus non
were good that these former principles were better remembred and used in the present case Further the Presbytery of Edinburgh in their Paper printed Octob. 5. 1659. pag. 8. of that Paper speak very soberly disclaiming it as none of their principles that no difference of opinion can be suffered by them We are say they clear that in many things of common practice in a Church there may be agreement by accommodation though differences of judgment remain c. Again say they we readily yield that as we prophesie but in part men in a Church may compose debates by putting end to contentions though they be not all of one judgment and therein we judge the Apostle hath set the rule before us 1 Cor. 11. 16. A Golden Rule indeed the practice whereof in its just sense might bring us much sweet peace But not to insist upon the judgments of learned men concerning the Case of submission to and acting in duties with Meetings anent the constitution whereof or members there may be some difference in judgment If we will hearken to a man greatly learn'd and known to be no great friend to Bishops we shall hear him perswading to obedience and submission to them in things lawful Theodore Beza being written to by some Ministers in England who excepted against some customes in the discipline and order of that Church their controversie had not then risen so high as to strike at the Office of Bishops only some customs in discipline and ceremonies in external order were most stood upon He Beza Epist 12. though disliking these things yet plainly averres to them that these customes are not tanti momenti as that for these they should leave their ministry and by deserting their Churches give advantage to Sathan who seeketh occasion to bring in greater and more dangerous evils He wisheth them there to bear what they cannot amend to beware of all bitterness And albeit they could not come to be of the same mind with others yet with a godly concord to resist Sathan who seeketh all occasions of tumults and infinit calamities And he doth most gravely obtest the Ministers with tears as he saith Vt Regiae Majestati omnibus Praesulibus suis ex animo obsequantur Beza pleads for hearty obedience in things lawful to the Bishops of whom he speaks honourably in that Epistle not hinting at the unlawfulness of their Office nor offering to perswade the Ministers to do against their Office Sunt maximi viri saith he qui singulari Dei Opt. Max. beneficio papisticis Episcopis successere He accounts not them nor their Office popish but saith By the singular mercy of the most great and good God they have succeeded the popish Bishops or come in their place even as by the singular mercy of God protestant Ministers have come in the place and room of popish Priests And how well he esteems of the Office and of the men in the Office likely abating somewhat of his peremptoriness in the heat of dispute with some as he had cause may appear not only by what he saith in that Epistle exhorrescimus ut contra Regiae Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem ministri suô ministeriô fungantur But from his Epistles to Grindal Bishop of London Epist 23. commending Grindals Christians patience and lenity addeth Majori posthac paena digni erunt qui authoritatem iuam aspernabuntur closing his Epistle Deus te custodiat intanâ—â— commisso tibi munere sancto suo spiritu regat magis aâ— magis confirmet And in his 58. Epistle to that same Bishop he saith Dominus te istic at London speculatorem judicem constituit By all which it may appear that it would have been far from Beza's mind that Ministers should give no obedience to Bishops established by the Laws of a Kingdom not so much as in things undoubtedly lawful or that they should have refus'd concurrence with Bishops in ordering the Church and acting in unquestionable duties 2. The present Question concerns the case and carriage of two kind of Ministers 1. Some refuse to come to Synods although called by the Kings Majesties command signified by His most honourable privie Council where Bishops do preside They refuse also to come to Presbyteries where a Moderator pretending no more power then any of themselves presides being nominated by the Bishop in the Synod to continue till the next Meeting of the Synod Such Meetings they withdraw from albeit nothing be required of them but to act in unquestionable duties for regulating the Church and suppressing according to their power of sinful disorder albeit there be no imposition upon their judgments nor subscription required nor declaration that they allow any thing they count amiss in the constitution of these Meetings or any constituent members thereof Yea where it might be permitted to them if they intreated for this to case their conscience by signifying their scruples which they cannot overcome anent the constitution of these Meetings or anent the members thereof so be they would do this with that inoffensive modesty humility and respect to the supreme Authority and the Laws of the Land and to such Meetings and the members thereof that becomes and after that to concur in their undoubted duties Concerning such Ministers the question is whether they may and ought to concur with such Meetings of their Brethren in carrying on their undoubted duties or if it be unlawful so to do 2. The other rank of Ministers are these who falling within the compasse of the Act of Council at Glasgow and of Parliament whereto it relates do rather choose to part with their Ministry then to seek a Presentation from the Patron and Collation thereupon from the Bishop yea who will quit their Ministry rather then that they will once come in terms of treating with a Bishop to try upon what conditions they may have the liberty to enjoy their Ministry and to serve God therein for the good and salvation of his people 3. As to the case of Brethren of the former sort several things are worthy their most serious consideration which may render them somewhat jealous of the unwarrantableness of their present way 1. Hath not the Supreme Magistrate even according to their own principles an undoubted power to convocate Synods when he sees it needfull Never were there any protestant Ministers no nor christian Ministers before this time who being convocated to a Synod or Church-meeting by the Soveraign Christian Magistrate did refuse to come at his command Nor is there any rank or degree of Subjects that can without the stain of sinful disobedience refuse to meet upon His Majesties command and Ministers cannot plead exemption from the common duties of Subjects 2. Brethren would consider whether it would prove a sufficient ground to justifie their not-coming to the Synod upon His Majesties command by His Council because that command to come to the Synod is joyned with another commanding to concur dutifully c. And the
command to come is only in order to the required concurrence which they cannot give as they say Is this rational that where two commands of the Magistrate are joyn'd the one undoubtedly lawful to be obeyed the other doubted of that Subjects should disobey the Magistrate in that which is clearly lawfull because they have a doubt or unclearness anent obeying him in the other command Doth it not become Subjects to go as far on in obedience to lawfull Authority as they see they may without sin against God Then it is time to stop when any thing is put to them by vertue of the Kings Command which they clearly see they cannot do without sin Had they come to the place it would pro tanto have shewed their respect to Authority albeit they had humbly declared themselves bound up from acting by their doubts And yet it may be they will in end find that they might lawfully have concurred in unquestionable duty that there was no ground to refuse this and that they might have sufficiently salved their Conscience by a humble signification of their scruple as was said and yet not refused to concur in undoubted duties for the personal fault as they apprehend of any member of the Assembly 3. What ground could they have for separation from the Synod Is it the want of liberty to choose a Moderator Or Is it that he that presides is a Bishop and claims more power then they can allow more then they think is due as of a negative voice Or Is it the want of unpreaching Elders in the Meeting As to the 1. Are they able to shew that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath by a dvine scriptural Right a priviledge to choose their own Moderator Where is there any Precept for this or any example of such election in Scripture If all Meetings of ecclesiastical Judicatories have this priviledge then also their Sessions where they take upon them to be constant Moderators have this also which belike will not please them well that any of the Meeting but themselves should be chosen there to preside or can they say that every ecclesiastical Meeting or Judicatory hath this priviledge by a divine natural right If so no civill Society or Judicatory should want it but all claim power to choose their own Presidents which were evil doctrine under a Monarchy where power is in the Prince to elect and name Presidents for Council Session c. Or are they able to demonstrate that it is not lawful for the Christian Magistrate upon whom the external ordering of all the Judicatories in his His Dominions depends to nominate out of a Meeting of Ministers conveen'd by him one grave and godly Minister of the number to order the actions of the Meeting and by his Authority to controll the unruly Can it be made evident that the ancient Christian Councils general or provincial though they had ecclesiastick Presidents did alwayes formerly choose their own President Presides ecclesiastici in vetustis Conciliis nonnunquam nominati ab Imperatore saith Zepperus Eccles Pol. p. 742 As to the second The great exception is at the power of the Presidents of the Synods they being Bishops claim in undue power as if Authority solely resided in them at least they claim a negative voice Ans 1. Were it so and were this a fault yet it were not their fault who concur the personal fault of another cannot be any good ground for Brethrens withdrawing from their necessary duty especially it being considered what might be allowed them for easing the scruple of their Conscience as was above said If I be only admitted to consult in regulating the affairs of the Church in a Meeting where I think I should have equal authority with any that sits there Can it be sin in me to go so far in my duty as I am permitted to do to testifie against sin to give my best counsel for suppressing thereof and for advancement of holiness If I be abridged and restrain'd as to that authority which I think is due to me it is the sin if there be any of these who do restrain me and not mine shall I do no part of my duty because I cannot do all that I think I ought to do being as to some part of it restrain'd by another But Secondly Is it not granted by most judicious Divines that Presbyters having a power in several cases to suspend the exercise of their own just authority when the suspension of it tenderh to a publick good may for the peace of the Church resolve to give to one person of their number a negative voice in Government so as to do nothing without him Baxt. Church gover pag. 18. And excellent Mr. Vines when at the Isle of Wight the King could not be brought off that that in Meetings of Presbyters there should be one under the name of Bishop with a negative voice did counsel both Presbyterians and Independents to accept of the concession as they would not have all the blood miseries and confusions that after might ensue laid at their door See his considerations on the Kings Concessions Whatever may be said of that negative voice the law of the land putting Bishops into a stated presidency and yet Presbyters being admitted to rule with Bishops judicious and sober men would not lay so great weight on it as to refuse their concurrence in common and uncontroverted duties upon that account But yet one thing would be remembred that Brethren are at a very clear disadvantage in withdrawing from presbyterial Meetings where they know the Moderator doth not nor can claim more power then any of themselves All the ground of their not concurring with these Meetings must be that they do not choose the Moderator in their particular Presbyteries But he is nominate by the Bishop 〈◊〉 the Synod and yet in all reason the authority and consent of Bishop and Synod should conclude any particular Presbytery Do not Brethren remember that in time of the Commission of the Kirks ruling there were restraints laid upon Presbyteries in matters far higher and weightier concernment then that and little dinn about the same But thirdly if the Brethren refuse to concur with the Synods for want of unpreaching Elders there whose Office they account of divine institution they would remember that great Divines of the presbyterian way Blondel Vines Baxter and many others look upon these as an humane device and their reasons moving them are weighty But let them be as they are imagin'd by the Brethren yet can the removal of these without out their fault render it unlawful for them to concur in a Synod of Ministers where these are not Can the absence or removal of these supposed Church-officers render a Synod of Ministers with their President unlawful and not to be joyned with because other men are debarred from their duty they are supposed to have right to shall we run from our duty especially this being done without our fault A
fourth thing the Brethren would consider anent their refusal to concur in Synods and Presbyteries before it was hinted at and it is this They have for many years concurred in doing common duties in Presbyteries and Synods with these whom they looked upon as fixing a sinful schisme as the other they charged them with apostasic from former principles yet with these they concurred in common duties so far as they could get their concurrence and complained of their separating way when they refused And were they not bound against schism and the makers of it by the Covenant and Word of God too as against any thing else that is now made the pretence of separation from the Judicatories Fifthly Brethren would consider if in this their present practice they do not fall short of the moderation and wisdom of their worthy Ancestors with whom they pretend to be of of the same judgment who choosed rather to concur with such Meetings as these though not satisfied with their constitution in governing the Church and doing unquestionable duties then altogether to desert them or make a schime and ruin the peace of the Church Some say to this they were but men and erred in so doing but they are not angels that say so nor without danger of erring they were men of conscience and learning and more unlike to have erred in this their way then these who say they erred and prove it not Some alledge a disparity between the case of Ministers then and now upon the account of clearer engagements against Episcopacy by Ministers now then by them who lived in these times and upon the account of the standing of Synods at the time when Bishops were brought in upon them in our Ancestors dayes whereas now they were not standing when Bishops are brought in but raised and sit now as holding and depending upon Episcopacy It shall not be denyed there is some disparity and difference between the case of Ministers now and then simile non est idem but any difference that is observed is impertinent and not material to this purpose to make the concurrence in these Synods now to be unlawfull which was to our Ancestors lawfull For as to the former ground of disparity it is certain Ministers then accounted themselves as really bound against the allowance of episcopal Government both by the Covenant and by the Word of God as any do judge themselves engaged against it by late Bonds whether they did mistake in this or nor we say nothing but that they did so judge it is out of question and yet they thought their practice in concurring in all lawfull matters in Synods and Presbyteries consistent enough with their judgment touching Episcopacy and their Bonds against it And as to the latter of these differences it can be nothing material as the rendring concurrence with Synods and Presbyteries now unlawfull which then might be lawfull For the Meetings now and then are of the same constitution nothing altered Nor is there any thing in these Meetings to affright from concurrence in them now more then at that time nor any more holding of or dependency on Bishops now when the King's Majesty hath taken off the restraint which for a time He put on then if He had not at all restrained them neither any more then was of these Synods and Presbyteries which of old did sit when Bishops were brought in upon them Neither is it likely that Ministers who now refuse concurrence would have given it had their Judicatories not been restrained from meeting This seems a very bare pretext Sixthly Brethren would consider well if in refusing to concur with their Brethren in undoubted duties where they may salve their consciences by humble modest expressing what they judge amiss they do not run themselves either upon the rock of ecclesiastical Independency in their several Congregations in administration of Discipline if they mind to have any Discipline at all or to combine in clandestine Presbyteries of their own which they may consider how either it shall be taken by the christian Magistrate or how it shall rellish of that spirit of unity and love that should be amongst Christ's Ministers and whereaway in end this principle of division from their Brethren in unquestioned duties may lead them whether to divide also from their Brethren in the worship of God and to teach people so to do somewhat of this is already seen and to endeavour the fixing of a perpetual schisme the seeds whereof are sown with too much animosity 4. Now cometh to be considered the case of such Brethren of the Ministry as choose rather to quit their Ministry then once come in termes with these upon whom the Law hath settled a power to order them in the exercise of the same It would be most seriously thought of whether it be right that any Ministers of Christ should set their Ministry the service of God the benefit which the Lord's people might have by their good gifts to say nothing of the interest of their families at so low a rate as not to have used all lawfull means trying at least upon what termes they might enjoy their Ministry before they had fallen upon that extremity to desert it If any man will say it is no lawfull mean to speak with a Bishop in that matter though it might tend to his continuance in the Ministry and perhaps might be in some measure disappointed in his fears he had need to examine well whether conceit or conscience ruleth most there and to think of it how he can justify the deserting of his Ministry without the utmost essay to hold it It must be confessed that it is a new and rare Case that men will rather embrace suffering then once speak one word to persons intrusted with power by the Law of the Land whatever they be to try at them upon what termes they might be permitted to preach the Gospel The comfort it is to be feared of suffering upon such an account will not run very clear But it will be said the thing that is stuck at is the canonical Oath enjoyned by Law and which the Bishops will require this some say they cannot take conceiving it contradictory to the Covenant and to the Word of God But 1. Such as have not so much as come in termes with the Bishops and of whom that Oath or Promise hath not been particularly required seem to leap too soon to suffering before it come to them and before they had tryed if possibly there might have been relevant grounds for dispensing with the Law towards them Had they been personally put to take that Oath and if so there could be no dispensing with them nor they able to digest that Oath then they had more clearness in their undergoing suffering 2. As to contradiction to the Covenant if Timorcus pag. 37. may be believed and he seems tender in the matter of others there is no contradiction between the canonical Oath and the Covenant he