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
The seasonable CASE of Submission to the Church-government As no◠re-established by Law briefly stated and determined By a Lover of the peace of this CHURCH and KINGDOM 1 Sam. Chap. 15. 22. Behold to obey is better then sacrifice Confess Suec Cap. 14. Civilibus legibus quae cum pietate non pugnant eò quisque Christianus paret promptiùs quò fide Christi est imbutus pleniùs Published by Order EDINBURGH Printed by Evan Tyler Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty 1662. The Case anent submission to the present Church-government re-established by Law stated and considered THe exceeding great bitterness of the continued and increasing sad distractions amongst the people of God to the hindrance of their edification in faith and a godly life with charity and peace amongst themselves should put all the Ministers of Christ to most serious thoughts in considering how far they may under the present dispensations of God without sin accommodate in following unquestionable duties with and under the established Government of the Church And although as to a cordial allowance of the present change they cannot yet attain something remaining whether of scruple or affection which maketh it unpleasing and their concurrence with it to ly heavy upon their spirits yet if there be found no manifest transgression in concurring under the same in matters of unquestionable duty they would wisely put difference between gravamen spiritus and ligamen conscientiae something in the will that rendreth them averse and the prevailing clear light of a well-informed conscience to which how uneasie it is to attain in this point of controversie they can tell who have truly tryed it binding them up from concurrence as a thing in it self unlawfull Men who walk in the fear of God and are zealous of His honour had need to be very jealous of their own zeal that it carry them not to the rejecting of a real duty which to their apprehension sits too near a sin Ministers whom sober-mindedness doth greatly become would look to it that the censure of a grave Divine upon the spirits of our countrey-men praefervidum Scotorum ingenium do not too much touch them It is their duty to advert lest at this time too great animosity contribute to the laying of the foundation of a wofull division to be entailed to the generations to come the evil whereof will preponder all the good that any one form of Church-government can of it self produce viz. the dishonour of God the weakning of the cause of the true protestant Religion against the common adversaries thereof the destroying of true charity and love amongst the people of God the hinderance of their profiting under the several Ministries they live under and the creating continual confusions and distractions in the Common-wealth the ordinary fruit of schism in the Church as too lamentable experience whereof we carry the sad marks to this day hath taught us 1. That there may and ought to be a brotherly accommodation and concurrence in matters of practice which are undoubted duty albeit Brethren be of different judgments anent the constitution of Meetings or capacity of persons that act in these duties grave and learned men have put it out of question It is well known that in the Assembly of Divines at London accommodation was mainly laboured for and far carried on between Presbyterians and Independents that they might concur in common Actings for regulating the Church with a reserve of liberty of their own several principles The Independents thought the Presbyterians had no judicial Authority in these Meetings The Presbyterians though accounting this an errour yet were willing in common unquestionable duties to concur with them Also several of the most eminent Presbyterians in England as Mr. Viner Mr. Baxter and others accounting of un-preaching Elders as of an humane device as now the Office of a Bishop is accounted of by many Brethren Yet not being able to attain to the exercise of presbyterial Government without the intermixture of these yea of them double the number to preaching Presbyters in each Meeting which gave them an overswaying power in the Government notwithstanding they did concur with them in matters of unquestionable duty Is it not also well known that amongst our selves in this Church Brethren did ordinarily concur in Synods and Presbyteries in doing their duties with these whom they charged with a sinfull schisme a thing as much against the Covenant as that which is now pretended for withdrawing from the Meetings of Synods and Presbyteries And when Brethren thus charged did withdraw their concurrence in some duties by several passages in that Paper entituled A Representation of the rise progress and state of the Divisions in the Church of Scotland how that practice of theirs was constructed of pag. 21. it is affirmed that they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatisme denying the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawfull necessary duty because of the personal sin of fellow-actors in it And pag. 28. speaking of their refusing to own the Judicatories as lawfull because the men whom they judged to be in a course of defection the Commissioners of the Church they meant were admitted to sit there it is said by the Representer that it is a principle that draweth very deep for saith he by parity of reason they must not joyn with any inferiour Judicatories where they are nor in any lawful act of Religion or Worship more then in an Assembly May not much of this be applyed to the present Withdrawers from concurrence in necessary duties Mutato nomine de te c. It will be said there is a great disparity between those Commissioners and the Bishops who are looked on as new unwarranted Officers in the Church and therefore albeit there may be now reason for withdrawing from Meetings where they are there was no reason for withdrawing from Assemblies where these Commissioners sate But not to divert to a dispute here whether the Office of a Bishop be new or unwarrantable or lesse warrantable then the Office of these Commissioners which wise men looked upon as very like episcopal there is herein a parity that as these now are judged so the other were judged by the Excepters against them to be in a course of defection and unlawfully officiating as members of the Assembly And yet were these Quarrellers reproved for withdrawing from the general Assembly upon that account Should not that reproof be taken home in the present case by such as withdraw from Meetings of the Chruch why should there be divers weights and divers measures used in such parity of cases Again it is asserted pag. 37. to be a divisive principle that men will not concur in lawfull duties because these with whom they joyn will not come up to their judgment in all other things Ibid. They challenge them for refusing to joyn in an uncontroverted duty because the direction to it flowed from the authority of an Assembly which they could not own It
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
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