they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
then established in all its previledges which clearly excludes the episcopacy formerly existent therein And the extirpation and reformation ingadged to in the 2d Art must relate to the then existent Prelacy in England and Ireland and that by way of mids leading unto and for execution of the ends of preserving our own established reformation engadged unto in the first Article 2. We said already that our Parliament did rescind all acts against our episcopacy together with the solemne league and restore Prelats to the sole possession of Church Government under the King declaring clearly that the preservation engadged unto in the first article cannot consist with our Prelacie Again as this duty of extirpation is engadged unto in so far as is necessary in order to the preserving of our own established reformation by this Church principally vowed and intended so that clause in the end of the 2d Article viz. to extirpate whatsoever is found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness amounts both as to us and England to such an extensive engadgement in opposition to Prelacie that it totally excludes it even in our adversaries mould under this formalis ratio as thus opposit to sound doctrine c. Which hath been cleared upon the first Dialogue Next will this man deny that these officers Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. are not in themselves and simply abjured in that 2d article or that the Presbyterians in England would not disowne them as inconsistent with the Covenant Sayes he not that it is only a fixed presidency of order which they are for and is this all that Arch-Bishops and Diocesian Bishops do possess have we not in Scotland Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and are we not engadged to extirpat these in the 2d article how then can he say that it is only that complex frame with all these officers which we are oblidged against Do not two remarkable clauses contradict this gloss I we engadgeto extirpate all Ecclesiastick officers depending on that Hierarchie what is it only all in bulk and not all and every one this were equivalent to such a wilde assertion as if one should say that after the enumeration of these evills schism heresie profannesse which are thus Summed up whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness this engadgement did only relate to all these evills complexly and not to every one sigilatim or apart 2. Whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine in our principles is there abjured as I said but such are Bishops Arch-Bishops and I adde whatsoever is inconsistent with our established reformation and with Presbyterian government is also here formally abjured In the 3d place Timorcus is clearly against our Informer for in explaining what is that prelacy which is abjured he distinguisheth a Prelacie of jurisdiction and of meer order The prelacie of jurisdiction he saith is twofold the first is whereby the Bishop hath sole power of ordination and jurisdiction such as is our prelacy now in Scotland in which government Timorcus saith that Ministers do meet with the Bishop only ex abundanti to give him advice which is all that our Curats are allowed by law as is said above and scarce that The 2d sort of prelacie he calls paternall wherein the colledge of Presbyters have a constant Prelate or President who must concurre with them ordinarly in ordination and acts of jurisdiction He interprets the Covenant expresly to strick against the Prelate with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which prelacy he calls Popish even though the Bishop admit Presbyters to concurre with him in ordination and government Now let this man say since Timorcus whom he will not assert that these others divines do contradict in this point together with the parliament of England according to Timorcus do disowne such a prelacie as is here described and interpret the Covenant obligation as reaching the extirpation thereof doth not this articlé of extirpation according to their sense clearly reach and cut off the present prelacie of diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops obtruded upon this Church can he deny that they have the sole power of ordination jurisdiction that all the power which Curats have according to our Law is to give the Bishops advice yea and not that either unlesse he judge them to be persons of Known loyaltie and Prudence And surely if this precedency of meer order here exprest be the only primitive Episcopacie it is far short of what our Informer pleads for and will never come up to justifie the prelacie now existent And if in the sense of Timorcus and the other divines mentioned and in the sense of the imposers of that oath the extirpation engadged unto cuts off whatsoever is beyond this precedency of meer order it is incontrovertibly clear that even in their sense the prelacie now existent is abjured That Mr. Crofton and the Presbyterian Covenanting partie in England according to him are not reconcilable to our prelacie nor the Covenant in their sense appears evidently by his pleadings for the Covenant against the Oxford men and others In his Analepsis pag. 74. 75. he mentions a breviary of reasons to prove that the prelatical government in its formality is a plaine and clear papacie and that a Diocesan Bishop and ane universal Metropolitan or Pope differ only in degree and limites not in kind citing and approving of Salmasius and Beza's calling episcopacie a step to the papacy so that the very office of a diocesian Bishop as such is as unlawfull as the Papacie in Mr Croftons judgment it being with him a part thereof Again pag. 78. whereas the Oxford men plead that they cannot swear against episcopall government which they conceive to be of divine or apostolick institution he chargth them and Dr Gauden with sophistick concealment of the ratioformalis objecti and not describing of episcopall government And tells him that episcopall government may denominat a government communi concilio Presbyterorum with a Moderator or Chaireman ordinis causa which he sayes is of divine institution and exemplified act 20. where Bishop and Presbyteter are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same office and authority This he sayes the Covenant strikes not against and the prelacie which is abjured he describes to be a government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministrie above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an authority peculiar to him eo nomine as Bishop of sole ordination and jurisdiction unto whom all other his fellow Ministers are subject and must swear obedience to him c. I wonder if our Informer will deny this to be the characteristick of our present Prelats or affirme that they possess no more authority in Church judicatories but a meer precedency ordins causa which is all the Episcopacy which Mr Crofton holds that the Scripture and the Covenant according therunto will allow Thereafter pag. 72. He tells these Masters that Christ
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
to that doctine which is according to godliness What inconsistency will the Informer shew us in this that one nation vow adherence to its owne establishment in point of reformation and Church Government and likewise vow assistance of another nation in the removal of a corruption therein tho the removall will not amount to such a compleatness of reformation at first as will be every way like unto this establishment both nations being notwithstanding oblidged respective under generall clauses to make this reformation compleat The Informer next tells us that it is doubted by the learned whither in the first Article there be any obligation to maintain presbyterian Government His first reason is because there is no express mention of presbyterian Government therin but only of our reformed religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Ans. this reason of the Seasonable case which he hath borrowed is very insignificant Our Church after long wrestling being recovered from corruptions both in Doctrine and Worship which Prelates had introduced and her Discipline and Government according to the Scripture pattern set up in Presbyteries synods and Assemblies and all the priviledges of these her courts authorized and establisht both by civill and ecclesiastick constitutions and laws will any doubt but the sceptick who will dispute that snow is not white that the discipline then reformed and establisht is in that oath sworn to be maintained He may al 's well alledge that it is not the doctrine and worship then established which we Covenant to preserve as to doubt of the government since this reformation then established takes in all the three together and in the same sense Besides his Master the Seasonable Casuist grants that there was then in Scotland no such officers as are enumerate in the 2d article but an establisht reformed government was then existent Now dare any of these new absolvers or resolvers say that it was not Presbyterian government or that this was not the sense of the imposers of that oath His 2d reason is that Independents took that Covenant and had a hand in wording that article that it might not import any particular forme of government That the words import no one forme of government but with this proviso as reformed The Seasonable case said this already to which the Apologist returned answer That the government of this Church at that time being Presbyteriall as he acknowledged there could be no other government understood then what was then existent established and reformed That to say Indendepents understood it of their government will no more reflect upon the Covenant then upon the Scripture it self which Independents do alledge will plead for their government Next I would ask this man why may not the same insignificant quirk be also objected as to the doctrine and worship viz. that only the doctrine and worship with this proviso as reformed but not the then established doctrine and worship is understood in that article and so sectaries may lurk under this generall also Thus he may alledge that no engadgement or oath in relation to his Majesties authority will binde except his name and Sirname be in it because some may entertaine a chimera of their own under his Majesties general titles Alas what ridiculous conceits are these The Doubter next objects that the English parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that oath did by the reformed government understand Presbytrie which was then settled here and that therefore we are to understand the oath in their sense who imposed it whatever Independents think He answers by denying that the English parliament understood the 1. article of Presbyterian government for then they would have thought themselves bound to reforme England according to our pattern but on the contraire in anno 1647 they toid our Commissioners that they could never finde Presbytrie necessary by any divine right and charged them with Superciliousness in judging that there is no other lawfull Church government but what they call so and with misinterpreting the article anent Church government This the Seasonable case also said before him and this hungry casuist catches up his cibum praemansum but could not see the answer returned to this in the Apology To this I say first that the Parliament of England tendered not that oath to us nor is their sense therof principally to be eyed by us as in his mould of the objection and answer he seems to suppose The parliaments of both Kingdomes imposed the oath upon their own subjects framed by the consent of both according to their own condition and exigence so that we are to look mainly to the procedour and sense of our Church and state for a discovery of the genuin sense and meaning of that oath Now it is most evident that the designe of our Church and state in framing and imposing of this oath was to establish and preserve our Church government then in being which he who denyes to have been Presbyterian in its compleat formes and courts he may deny any thing 2. We told him alreadie that whatever defection or liberty of glossing any might be guilty of yet the words and clauses of the Covenant as to that 1. article are clear and abundantly significant and will admit of no evasion And in relation to the total extirpation of prelacie out of that Church where it was existent the 2d Article is as clear and convincing And therefore whither they lookt upon themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not we have proved that they stood oblidged both by that particular enumeration in the 2 Article and also in the more generall clauses mentioned to extirpate Prelacie root and branch This man will make a meer Proteus of oaths if their sense and obligation must vary turne ambulatory or ambiguous according as men do shift or turne aside We told him of Dr Sandersons rule anent the import of the words of an oath in their genuin sense in reference to its obligation whatever liberty men may take to glosse or interpret which is the judgement of all sound Casuists 3. Dare he say that ever the parliament of England denyed that de facto Presbyterian government was compleatly established in the Church of Scotland or will he make them so irrationall as to deny this necessary consequence that therefore the 1. Article of the Covenant doth clearly oblidge this Church to its preservation as the reformed Government then existent and if his consequence cannot but be admitted surely whither they looked on themselves as oblidged to follow our pattern yea or not they held no sense of this article contrary to our own sense nor denyed our obligation to maintain our established Presbyterian Government And besides they never denyed their obligation to reforme the Church of England according to the Scripture pattern and that of the best reformed Churches in conformity to that pattern And that the Church of Scotland and other Churches where Presbyterian Government was existent were
calls ane evasion Anent the alteration of some things in the Apostolick Church As wee disowne Stillingfleet in making the frame of government which the Apostles established in the Church versatile various or alterable So we disowne this Informer in resolving it solely upon the Churches decision what Apostolick practises are imitable or morall and what not A dangerous popish principle and wherein he will be found inconsistent with himself But for the apostolick government by the Common Concell of Presbyters wee hold it morall and perpetual upon the same grounds of the Churches union and edification which himself doth plead As for the shifts and bad issues which he alleadges Presbyterian writters are driven unto Neither he nor any of his party can make it appear but his own pitifull shifts and of others of his way in pleading for this Hierarchy wee hope by this time are sufficiently apparent As for Durells offer To get Episcopacy ane approbation from all forraigne divines we lett it pass as a peice of prelatick pageantry fitt to fill pamphlets Ad pompam non ad pugnam quid tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu Durel and the Informer cannot stand befor their evidences who have made the Contrary appear For what he adds anent our Superintendents as haveing upon the matter ane Episcopal power I referr him to the defence of the Epistle of Philadelphus against Spotswoods Calumnies printed at the end of Didoclavius page 30 31. Where he will find the difference betuixt them and Prelats cleared and stated in 12. Particulars to his Conviction unless he hath resolved Ne si persuaseris persuaderis So that worthy Mr. Knox gave no patrocinie to prelacy in Countenancing the admission of Superintendents How he hath deryved his Prelacie from Scripture and through antiquitie to reformed times Churches in their confessions Let the impartial judge by what I have answered from the beginning As for the Authors of jus divinum Minist Anglic Their proof of the identitie of Bishop and Presbyter at length cleared from Fathers Schoolemen reformed divines even from Episcopall divines in England the Informer had done better not to mention that peice then to have made such a simple insipid returne Anent the Scoolmens notione whither Episcopacy be a different order from Presbytery or a different degree of the same order for though this were granted that the scoole-men tost such a question dare he say that the Ancient Fathers both greek and latine and late reformed divines cited in that learned peice in their clear and positive assertions of the parity of Bishop Presbyter jure divino intertained any such notion as this Againe had he been so ingenuus and true to the learned authores of that peice and unto himself â—…s he ought to have been he might have found cited therein a passage of Cassander in his book of Consulâ—… Artic. 14 Which breaks this his answer all in peices and because his squeemish eyes lookt asquint upon it I shall here sett it downe that it may appear what a great charge this is which he brings against these divines An Episcopaâ—…us inter ordines ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter theologos canoniâ—…as non convenit convenit autem inter ownes in Apostolorum aetate inter episcopos presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed post modum schismatis evitandi causa episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum c That is Whither Episcopacy is to be placed among the Ecclesiastick orders It is not agreed between the Theologues Canonists but it is agreed among all that in the Apostles age there was no difference between Bishops Presbyters but afterward upon the ground of eviting Schisme the Bishop was set ever Presbyters c. Now whither these disputants did agree That alwayes from the Apostles time there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters as this Informer is not ashamed to affirme Let the greatest adversarie judge by this account of such ane impartiall witnes How could he say that these Fathers might be of this mind and likwayes these later divines that alwayes from the Apostles there were Bishops set over Presbyters What a selfcontradicting tenet is this for any rationall man to intertaine viz Bishops and Presbyters re nomine in name and thing the same in the Apostles times and in their doctrine and yet that Bishops were set over Presbyters by the Apostles and distinct from them in their times What will he make of all Ierome Scripture proofes through the Apostles times and writings anent this compleat parity of Bishops and Presbyters of the saying of Ambrose That Non per omnia conveniunt seripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunâ—… est in Ecclesia The writtings of the Apostles agreeâ—… not in every thing with the ordinance or appointment he means of government which is now in the Church What will he make of Bishop Iewel telling Harding in his defence against him That in calling it a haerefie to affirme Bishops and Presbyters to be one He reflects upon Ierome and other Fathers whom he cites against him yea upon the Apostle Paul and makes him also a Haeretick What will he make of that assertion of Beza Episcopus papam peperit The Bishop brought forth the Pope Of Whittaker That the setting up the Prelat yea the first proestos or president to prevent Schisme was a remedy worse then the disease Now if he will reconcile these sayings and assertions with their holding Bishops distinct from Presbyters to have been in and from the times of the Apostles he will prove a wonderfull Oedipus But our Informer hath not yet done with these Authors and hath another reflection upon them anent what they say page 64. That Eusebius and Iraeneus were deceaved themselves deceaved others he tells us 1. They are hard put to it when seeking to relieve themselves by discrediting these authores But this man is hard put to it if he deny that which is so Notoâ—…ly true made good by so many of the learned Were Iunius and Scalliger who are approved herein by Dr Reynolds hard put to it who demonstrats Eusebius gross errors mistakes 2. He sayes Though in some things Eusebius was mistaken most he be so in every point wherin he maks Bishops superior to Presbyters drawes their succession from the Apostles Ans. For the Catalogues of Bishops from the Apostles we spoke to it already and for Eusebius speaking alwayes in that straine the reverend authors of that peece with others doe tell the Informer that all that Eusebius sayes is that it is reported that his learned censurer Scalliger maks it appear that he read ancient histories parum attente not attentivly that he takes his measures in this point his relations upon trust from Clemens fabulus Hegesippus not extant 3. The Informer thinks it strange that they can suppose Irenaeus Iohns contemporarie and disciple to be deceaved as to Church government Answer Had he but looked upon the 4.
and their party to prelimit the Presbyterian Ministers of this Church Especially which is our advantage in this comparison the children being supposed under no previous contrary obligations to that which in this case the fathers put upon them in relation to prelacie as the non-conformists are under counter obligations to that which is now demanded of them by their persequutors Mr Crofton in his analepsis pag. 145. tells us that considering the Covenant as made by the people of England as a Kingdom and a Politicall body professing the reformed religion it looks like a nationall obligation that the confluence of publick assent and authority by the people collectively and distributively considered the accession of Royall assent makes it a Publick and nationall Covenant binding all persons of the nation that sware or sware not personally and our posterity after us in their particular places and all that shall succeed unto the publick places and Politick capacities of this kingdom to preserve and pursue the things therein promised so long as it remaines a kingdom under one king and in the profession of one reformed religion He enforces this with the lord chief Barons speech to the condemned traytors at the old baylie you were bound to beare allegance to your king yea though you may not have taken the oath of alleadgance your selves yet yow were bound by the Recogintion of king James and his posterity made at his first coming to the crown of this Realme by the whole parliament being the whole collective body of the kindom hence he inferrs that they and their posterity must needs be bound who themselves have universaly by the authority of such who were intrusted for them engadged the faith of the nation for I see not saith he how they can give away our estates or take pardons in the name and to the security of the nation if they may not in our name make oaths promises and Covenants to bind us and our Succeeding generations and posterities in sense whereof I cannot but desire all that wish well to England to consider the Covenant the Solemne League and Covenant So that with Mr Crofton it is an uncontrovertible point that the obligation of this Sacred oath reaches the posterity which he makes good from the sense and pleading of the Lord chief Baron in the point of alledgance and fealty to his Majesty which is the sentiment of all Lawers and of the law itself So that what our Informer calls ane odd fancy appears to be a most solid truth consonant both to Scripture reason and the law of nations As for the next objection of his doubter anent the fathers oblidging for the child in Baptism it is not our argument nor is sutable to the state of this question which is concerning a Covenant taken for our seed al 's well as for our selves and if he acknowledge that the father binds not in the name and room of the childe then it toucheth not our point for our question is about fathers taking on engadgements for themselves and their posterity As for what the Informer adds here its good that he acknowledges that ane oblidging force flows from the binding mater in that baptismall Covenant and that the childs obligation is strengthened by his vow which is enough in our case against him since the matter of our Covenants and vows fall under divine precepts to which the obligation of the oaths and vows is accessory So that having sworne to keep these holy engadgements unto God we must performe and here he contradicts his forleader the author of the seasonable case who will have us either acknowledge the matter of the Covenant indifferent or not plead the force of an oath or vow as superadded to that which was duty before The doubter next objects That having sworne against prelacie we must not any more dispute or question the obligation citing Prov 20. 25. This objection he advantagiously for himself but foolishly propones that he may make way for some discourse forsooth upon this Scripture We acknowledge as well as he that we are not forbidden to enquire into an oath and vow in what cases and how farre it is binding Nay this is commanded since we must both sweare and performe in Iudgement which requires a knowledge and inquiry as we saide before and when an oath of vow is found materialy unlawfull and vinculum Iniquitatis it is no transgression of this precept to quite it Such an inquiry as is in order to the understanding and performance of this vow in faith we will allow whither to young or old Only for what he sayes of many who were put to sweare at schools and colledges and engadge in this Covenant who could not do it in judgement it is a calumnie which he cannot justifie all being exhorted and instructed therein who were come to Years of discretion so as to be in capacity to enter into this Covenant with judgement and if lesser young ones present in congregations where it was sworne did signifie a spontaneous consent it was no more then what Israels litle ones did by their presence before the Lord Deut 29. Well but what is forbidden ehre to make inquiry saith he how the vow may be eluded This is ingenuouslie saide and hereby his own lips condemne him and all his party who have been now for many years racking their wits to finde out evasions how to elude this Sacred vow Witnesse the many pamphlets on this Subject since his Majestie 's returne and this mans among the rest But the Doubter alleading that upon enquiry we will finde our selves bound against prelacy both by the nationall solemme League He falls upon his impugnation first of the nationall Covenant telling us as touching it that the terme of the Popes wicked hiearchy will not include prelacie as the survey of Naphtali fully proves well let us hear these proofs The first is because king Iames and his counsel the imposers of that Covenant and the takers of it Anno 1580 did in anno 1581 ratifie the agreement at Leith made betwixt the Commissioners of the state and Church anno 1581. which was in favours of episcopacy And would the king and counsell the next year have acted so contrary to it if they had thought all episcopacy to be abjured therin Ans. Is this the great demonstration which the Survever and he have drawen out to prove this point this being nothing but the old musty store of the Seasonable case better propounded therein then it s here To this I say first it is a very weak or rather wilde proof to conclude that such a corruption as prelacie could not be imported in that expression Because the takers and imposers did some time after counteract and contradict their engadgement must the sense of a promissory oath and Covenant be measured by the after practice of engadgers Sure he will not darre to admit this rule and yet it s the very topick of his argument I would but ask
were But what is meant by discipline in that Covenant The substantialls of it sayth he and necessary policie as exprest in the first dook of discipline 9. Cap. which is unalterable tho particular formes as some think may be changed But 1. Why will this versatil Informer bemist his reader what dark and generall expressions Whither means he the essential necessary Policy according to that phrase of the book or a necessary Policy exprest and asserted in that book If the first I would ask him 1. Why condescends he not upon that essential and necessary policy and gives no account of its nature and extent as it is contradistinguished from that which is not necessary but mutable 2. If by substantials of Governmentâ—… he mean all Church-officers of divine appointment according to the Scripture account of their qualifications their authority and its due exercise with what sense or reason can he suppose or any els that this wil not determin a particular form cansubsist without it how can a particular form be more formaly and explicitly described then thus But next if by necessary Policy he understand the Policy held out and asserted in that first book I would ask him 1. Why excludes he the second book which was at this time extant and received and which doth in severall chapters viz. 5 6 7 8. treat of the Pastor Doctor Elder and Deacons office which he will no doupt own as substantiall peeces of Church-policy being so clearly asserted in Scripture 2. Why answers he not to the account character of that first book given by the Apoll pag. 10. who tells him that it overthrowes prelacy in the establishing of Church-sessions the way of election and triall of Ministers and severall other things contrary to the episcopall method will he by this silence consent that prelacy stands in opposition to the substantialls of Church Government and the utterly necessary Policy therof to a policy indeed unalterable to use his time phrase if he say that he understands by this phrase that policy which is necessary in either or both these books but not the intir Policy delineated therin how will he prove that the Covenant-obligation in the Intention of the imposers reaches the on and not the other Next I would ask this Informer whither thinks he that particular forms of Government are alterable yea or not if not how comes he to distinguish them in this from the essentiall necessary Policy which he cals unalterable if he think them alterable why doth he not positively assert this but presents this opininion as the thoughts of some only and censurs Stilling fleets opinion herin pag. 76. Besides if by substantials of Government he unstand the disciplin asserted in that book he justles and deals stroaks what his reverend father B. Spotswood in his character therof exhibit in his History pag. 174. For first he sayes it was framed in imitation of the Government of the reformed Church in Geneva which all know was Presbyterian 2dly He sayes it it could not take effect as being but a Dream And did he call the substantialls of Government but a Dream thinks this man Surely either the Bishop or our Informer dreams 3dly He wisheth Iohn Knox had retained the old policy and therefore in his sense this policy was distinct from Prelacie On the other hand the framers the Ministry owneing it supplicat the Parliament after it was drawn up for the restauration of the Discipline of the ancient Church and for discharging the Popes usurpation and of all that Discipline that did flow therefrom as inconsistent with the Discipline of the ancient Church and the Disciplin contained in that book How absurd is it to suppose that it was only substantialls which was at this time existent and no particular forme it being a forme of Government and the Discipline of this Church which the Covenant oblidges unto and the Apologist as well as the Assembly 1638. could have given him a large account and proof of a particular forme at this time existent In a Word let us have all the substantialls of Government i. e. AllChurch officers divinely appointed with their due power and Assemblies higher and lower and it will quickly justle his prelacie to the door and make him him and hisFathers feest he dint of the true Church of Scotland her sword and censures for what they have done if they repent not CHAP. III. The Abjuration of Prelacie in the solemne League and Covenant vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer Also Mr Crofton and Timorcus acquit of affoording any Patrociny to his cause Dr Sanderson stands in terms of contradiction to him in this point BUt now this our Oedipus and doubt resolver who hath acquit himself so dexterously in absolving us from the nationall Covenant marches up after the Seasonable case to try how he can play the absolver as to the solemne league And his Doubter making a wide step to the 2d Article wherein he allegeth Bishops are abjured and that Protestant Bishops are meant To this he answers That it s not every kinde of Protestant Bishops that is there intended and that Timorcus pag. 14 16. holds that all episcopacy is not abjured but that they could in England freely Submit to the primitive episcopacy viz the precedencie of one over the rest without whom nothing is ordinarly to be done in ordination and jurisdiction that they assert its only the English kinde of prelacy expressed in the Article for that end that is abjured which we have not in Scotland That Mr Vines and Gattaker assert that its only that complex frame consisting of all the officers there mentioned that is abjured that the Assembly of divines was reconcilable to moderate episcopacie That Timorcus holds that the English parliament our commissioners were not against all Episcopacy citing likewise Mr Crofton pag. 70 71. hence he concludeth that the English preshyterians would not cry out against conformists as guilty of perjury Ans. I. It is a very pityfull shift to measure our obligation in Scotland against Prelacy by the 2d Article of the league which relates to the Church of England wherein only that prelacy was existent For since Scotland from the time of our reformation never had such a Prelacie as the adversaries acknowledge they must consequently grant that the prelacie which that article engadgeth to extirpat is not solely or mainly the Prelacie which we stand oblidged against in that Covenant but a Prelacy inconsistent with Presbyterian Government and under that formall consideration which in the first article we are engadged to preserve In order to which preservation of our reformed discipline from our own Prelacie the 2d Article which doth relate to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland is subservient as a mean to its end This is convincingly clear for I. Extirpation and Preservation being opposite terms and the last being made use of as to our Church of Scotland must needs relate to Presbyterian Government as
gave his Disciples charge that they should not affect superiority one over another or princely power over Gods heritagâ—… and puts them to prove that the office of the Ministry may in ordination be divided or that there are more orders of the Ministry then one which our Informer still begs a supposition of viz. Bishop or Presbyter or more officers in the Church then Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their apostolick authority That the Presbyter in whom are required the same qualifications to whom is to be yeelded the same obedience subjection andrespect who recives the same ordination and is charged with the same duty and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop to be ruled by him and not to exercise his office but by the Bishops licence and that the Presbyter must swear obedience to the Bishop as his ordinary Which are the grand postulata and topicks of all this mans reasoning in point of prelacy The autitheses of which tenets we see Mr Crofton most evidently maintaines as the sense of the Covenant in point of episcopacy he further describes pag 80. and 81. the prelacy covenanted against and anent which he challengeth these Masters proof of a jus divinum to be such wherein one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the congregatious and pastors of a Countie or many Counties making one diâ—…cess who is by office bound to a pastoral correction and government of them that these Bishops may be subject to one Metropolitan Church and Archbishop to whom they shall swear obedience adding that if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universall Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Archbishops as the Archbishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters these not being differences of kind but degree Adding further that no more is pleaded for Prelats divine or Apostolick right in the Church of England but what is pleaded by Bellarmine the Council of Trent for she Papacie Now from what is said I darre referre it is this Informer himself whither Mr Crofton doth not clearly disowne all the essentialls of our present prelacy and hold it to be abjured in the Covenant the office of our present Bishops and Arch-Bishops being incontravertibly such as he here describes And whither Mr Crofton holds not our prelacy arch-prelacy and metropolitan primacy to stand upon the same basis with the papacy and to be equally with it excentrick to the Scriptures and that he esteems consequently the Bishops and Arch-Bishops which I hope he will not deny to be abjurd in the Covenant to depend as such upon the Pope as a part of his hierarchy Next pag. 81 he sayes that it is not the first sort of episcopall government formerly described wherein all Ministers are invested with equal power and auhority or dignity are all of the same order and governe by common counsel but the specificall prelacy last described which presumes it self to be a Hierarchie So that with Mr Crofton our present prelacie falls within the denomination of the Hierarchy abjured in the solemne league and of the Popes wicked Hierarchie abjured in the nationall Covenant for he tells us in the preceeding page that none can deny that a quantenus ad omne c. He tells them moreover in that same pag. that had he lived in the Churches of Ephesus Antioch Phillippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia invested with the same ministeriall authority which he then enjoyned he might have stood up a Peer to any Bishops therein so that he esteemed no Bishop there but Presbyters Besides pag. 82. he cites severall writers to prove that the authority and distinction of Episcopall and Archiepiscopall chaires metropolitan primacies owe their institution to the Church of Rome or politick constitutions of Princes He tells us pag. 84. out of Cartwright and Whittaker that the Church in respect of Christ its head not his vicar or superiority of single prelats is a monarchy in respect of the ancients and pastors that governe in common all the Presbytrie with like authority among themselves not a superiority over them it is an Aristocracie and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest it is a Democracy The inserted parentheses are Mr Croftons and let any judge whither he assert not with these authors a Presbyterian frame of government opposit to diocesian Bishops and Arch-Bishops In his Analepsis in answer to Dr Gauden pag. 2. he charges him as before the Oxford men with an uncertain proposall of the object and the ratio formalis of the Covenant obligation as to prelacy under the general terme of Episcopacie therein also lasâ—…ing our Informer for the same laxness and ambiguity telling them that by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synonimous titles of Church officers and are found to have been so used in the primitive times of the Church and of the Fathers adding that the government of the Church by its Ministers in their severall assemblies with a Moderator Ordinis causa to dispose and regulat what belongs to order is the primitive episcopacie which he grants to the Doctor that the Covenant will not strike against then pag. 3. and 4. he describes the Episcopacy which the Covenant strikes against And pag. 5. summeth it up thus that the Covenant cannot be accomplisht by the removal of Prelats pride c. Whilst the Preeminence prerogative Paternal power and juridicall authority assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the gospel as the only immediat successors of the Apostles So our Informer makes them c. are continued What will this Oedipus answer to Croftons assertion Have not our Prelats this preeminence above Presbyters as a distinct order from them and have they not a juridicall authority over them by our law and practise and his pleading too doth not Mr Crofton in terminis assert that the Covenant obligation can never be satisfied untill such be removed are they no more in Church judicatores but Moderators and Chairemen set up Ordinis causa to order the actions of the meeting doth not our law give them a negative voice in the meeting and alloweth Presbyters only to give them advice if their Lordships do judge them prudent and loyall Again wheras the Dr pag. 18. did conclude that the Hierarchy being dead must rise in another qualitie Mr Crofton tells him pag. 6. That if it arise according to the Covenant it must be in the establishment of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies or Synods of Church officers Communi consilio Presbyterorum this phrase of Jerome he frequentlie useth to debate and determine the affaires of the Church and Exercise all acts of discipline and Ecclesiastick power
each having a Prefident to propone questions gather suffrages c. and no more Which mould of government whither it would not smooth our prelacie to a compleat Presbyterian parity let the Informer himself judge It is incontrovertibly clear from these passages of Crofton that even in their sense whom our Informer alleges to stand on his side the present prelacie is abjured Finally as for the authors after cited and that declaration of the sense of the 2d article which he mentions we say as it is not clear nay the contrary is evident that such proposals in explication of that article were either mad or approven by all or the soundest Presbyterians there present so it is al 's evident that if prelacy even as by them reserved be found contrary to sound droctrine and the power of godliness that article of extiâ—…pation doth most clearly and formally reach it Neither are we so much concerned in the problemarick glossings or disputes of any persons in England they not having tendered that oath unto us as in the obligation of this oath and that of the Nationall Covenant lying upon us to preserve our reformation as it stood then establisht Moreover this man would take Dr Sandersons advice here that an oath being stricti juris the meaning is to be kept when clear from the words but if it be doubtfull every one is to take care that they indulge not their own affections and inclinations or give way to too large a license of glossing to the end they may with more ease loose themselves from the obligation or give such a sense to others or take it to themselves as the unconcernd do see that the words will not bear both for fear of perjury and ensnaring of others Thus he de jur prom praelect 2. parag 9. The Doubter objects next that we are not concerned in the parliament of England sense but in the sense of the Church and state of Scotland who imposed the oath and meant it against all sort of prelacie To this he answers that it being a common league of the three Kingdoms the meaning must be determined by all the three and that Timorcus shews that the Parliament of England their sense mas with concnrrence of our Commissiners Ans. 1. We have already made it good that giving the Informer the advantage of the sense of the 2d article which he alledges it will notwithstanding clearly exclude our present prelacy Timorcus telling us expresly pag. 16. that the Covenant aperily oblidges against Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. which termes he sayes are lyable to no ambiguity and particularly against all such exercise of prelacie as is by one single person arrogating to himself sole and single power in ordination and jurisdiction Darre this man deny that our present prelates have this legall prerogative expresly allowed them by our lawes is not all Church government to be managed by them with advice only of such of the Clergie as their Lordships forsooth shall judge loyall so that the prelacie which Timorcus and the English are for is point blanck cross to the present hierarchie and the three nations sense of that article will as we have proved never be reconciled to his sense and pleading in this point 2. We told him also that it is not the 2d Art Whereby mostly or principally our obligation against prelacy is to be measured it being that which relates especially to England where Prelacy was then existent and whatever sense any there do put upon that Article yet they never offered to put any glosses upon our great engadgement to preserve our reformation then established and never imagned nor offered the least limitation of our obligations both by the National Covenant as then particularly applyed against prelacie and likewise our obligation in the first part and article of the League to preserve our establisht reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government which consequently stands inviolable according to its native and necessary meaning in contradiction to our Prelacie or any Prelacie whatsoever as he dar not deny that this Church and Nation at the imposing did understand the same Our Informer permits now his Doubter to tell him that we are engadged to preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland which was Presbyterian and that therefor in the 2d article we swear against all kinde of Prelacie Prelacie and Presbytery being inconsistent To this he answers that if we are in the 1. Article bound to maintain Presbyterie and in the 2d left at libertie for some kinde of Prelacy and with all if Presbyterie and Prelacie be inconsistent then we have sworne contradictions viz to admit of no kinde of Prelacie and yet admit of some kinde of it Ans. 1. He hath it yet to prove that either we or England are left to a latitude according to the Genuine sense of that Article as to any prelacy or whatever government else is inconsistent with Presbyterian Government because 1 the generall oblidgements to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat what ever is found contrarie to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness will as I have said necessarily import both as to us them ane engadgement against all kind of Prelacy under this notion and upon this ground 2. As for Englands reserving a latitude for a proestos which he here alledges Timorcus will tell us out of Doctor Sanderson of this rule as to the interpretation of promissory Oaths that tho it s granted that promissory imposed Oaths must be interpret according to the sense of Imposers as our private Oaths according to our sense yet both these rules are to be limited so that neither our private sense of our spontaneous Oaths nor yet the sense of those who impose Oaths upon others must be other then will comport with the just signification of the words and phrases in the Oath vow or Covenant for this were to destroy saith he the simplicity necessary to every Oath and indeed not to interpret but to coin ane Oath or new obligation Now the obligation of both Nations in this Oath is to endeavour reformation according to the Word of God and to extirpat whatever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness If therefore a fixt Moderator or any supposed moderat mould of Prelacy be found contrary thereunto no mans glossings whatsoever can according to this necessary rule prejudge the native import signification and extent of these generall clauses In the 2d place his contradiction here imputed to us is but his owne airie imagination for it is not ad idem and eodem modo Wherein he imagineth the contradiction to lye Our duty to preserve and our obligation thereanent being relative to the establisht Government of the Church of Scotland and the extirpation engadged unto being relative to another nation and Church wherein that species of Prelacy particularized in the Article was existent so that there is no liberty left for any kinde
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
Ecclesiastical officers who are there abjured Nay doth not Timorcus tell us that in England the Commissaries exercise a power in Church discipline by a delegation from the Bishop And doth not Bishop Lighton deny this to be competent to our Commissaries here For in that passage of the letter now cited he sayes we have nothing but the name of Commissaries he means in respect of these in England who exercise ecclesiastical discipline under the Bishops Didoclavius pag. 458. Cites Cowellus in Interprete about the office of the Bishops Commissary in England speaking thus Commissarij vox Titulus est Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis saltem quousque commissio permittit in partibus Diocesios a primaria Civitate tam Longe dissitis ut Cancellarius subditos ad principale consistorium Episcopi citare non potest c. That is that Commissary in England is a title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so faras his commssion will allow in places which are so far remote from the cheif city of the diocess that the Chancellour without great molestation cannot cite them to the Bishops cheif court Didoclavius tells us ubi supra that according to the Statutes of England the Chancellour is the Bishops principal officiall the Commissary the Bishops foraneous officiall To conclude 1. The Bishops power as to Civills and their deputation of this their power to Chancellours is a most gross usurpation Contrary to the Scripture which forbids the Minister to entangle himself with things of this life Our Lord himself would not so much as be an arbiter in a civil Cause Paul speaking of the ministerial duties saith who is sufficient for these things The Apostles must Give themselves continually to the Word Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 2. of Tim. 2. 4. Proves that pure antiquitie Knew nothing of prelats thus medling citing Jerome super Sophon cap. 1. who expounds that place against Ministers medling in Secular affaires And Cyprian who applies this place against one who took upon him to be executor of a Testament Lib. 1. Epist. 9. concil Carthag 4. Cap. 20. Apostol can Can. 6. Seculares Curas non Suscipite Likewise Ambrose who affirmes that Worldly Government is the weakning of the priest Lib. 5. Epist. 33. Smectimnuus pag. 32. Sect. 10. cites concil Hispall 2. Cyprian Epist. 28. against this deputation of prelats power to Chancellours Commissaries c. and Brings in Bishop Dounham aknowledging Defens Lib. 1. that in Ambrose time and a good while after which was about the year 400. till presbyters were wholly neglected the Bishops had no ordinaries vicars Chancellours Commissaries that were not Clergie men But this restriction they affirme to be a meer blind and Challeng him to shew any such under-officers of Bishops in those times So that they hold this to be one main point of difference betwixt their Bishops and the primitive Bishops 2dly in England not only hath the Commissary a Civil administration under the Bishop but hath Likewise power of Spiritual censures and a great part of the Bishops ecclesiastical administration committed unto him both over Ministers and others such as suspension deposition excommunication See Didoclav pag. 464 465. de officialibus Cartwright 2. repl part 2. pag. 69. who shews that the prelats not only exercise Tyrrany themselves over the Church but bring it under subjection to their very Servants yea their Servants Servants such as Chancellours Commissaries c. 3ly it is clear that since the reformation we never had in Scotland such Commissaries but our Law and practice since that time and since Popish Prelacies were dissolved hath much reduced them to the state Quality of other civil officers whose administration of its own nature depends upon superiour civil officers For this we have as I said Bishop Lightons own Confession that we have but the name of Commissaries here who have nothing to do with Church discipline Only their civil power is invaded again by the Prelats 4ly B Lighton and this Informer do both plead that its only the officers enumerat in the 2d Article of the Covenant and the Commissaries as then moulded Existent in the Church of England that this Oath oblidges against And so according to their Principles and pleading our Commissary here so vastly discrepant from theirs falls not within the compass of the Covenant abjuration Hence finally the owning of the Commissary in his Lawfull civil administrations can be no acknowledgement either 1. of the English Commissaries Power which he hath not Nor 2dly of the Prelats usurpation upon this civil office no more then the simple using of our civil Laws and the ordinary civil courts during Cromwells usurpation was a homologating the wickedness therof which this man will not dare to assert An usurper may be in titulo and such submission and improvement of the civâ—…l power invaded by him as doth acknowledge the providentiall Title and his being possessed of the power de facto and having as they use to say jus in re or actual providential possession therof If there be no active concurrance towards his Establishment is as to civills free of any guilt of the usurpation and will import no acknowledgement of the usurper his Pretended jus Which is the Judgement of all sound divines and Casuists But the case is far different as to our Informers deriving his deputed Ecclesiastical Ministery or spiritual authority from the Bishop because 1. the Prelats office it self is a gross usurpation contrary to the Scripture so is not the Commissaries office 2dly the Pelats usurped possession of unlawfull power over the Church which is Christs Kingdom cannot give him so much as a providentiall Title and therfore all acknowledgement therof is unlawfull Thirdly his submission to prelacy as now it stands Circumstantiat is an acknowledgement both of the possession and jus which this man will not deny and this is far dictinct from an act which doth but indirectly acknowledge the usurpers possession So that his Conformity is ane express acknowledgement and owning of a gross encroachment upon Christs Kingdom his Church which is toto Coelo different from acknowledging a possession de facto of and a Providential title unto a part of the civil administration of the Kingdoms of the world which are mutable And as for a testimony against this usurpation I suppose that had the people of God disowned these civil courts upon this ground of the Covenant obligation his party for the preceeding reasons had signally cried out against it as an AnaBaptistical rejecting of Lawfull civil Government more then he doth upon this Pretence alledge a homologating of Prelacie in this acknowledgement But however we say that the people of God their notour and standing testimony against Prelacie it self as now Established doth sufficiently reach this among other its usurpations although this piece of civil Government be eatenus or in its own nature and as such owned as formerly But now our Informer charges us with another breach of Covenant upon the ground