Indeed the engaging not to take up Arms against the Kings Person and Authority and any lawful Oath of Allegiance could not consist with such Arms as the Contrivers of this Band and Sanchar Declaration would be at for their Arms are designed to destroy the Magistrates person without mercy and their Authority and the established Civil Goverment which hath no parallel that I know of except that of the Boors in Germany under Thomas Munster and after under John of Leyden which Usurpation being not only of private persons but also being against the Magistrates person and Authority was justly condemned as a fury by all the Reformed Churches At length after this long Inditement they come to give sentence against these Ministers who have accepted of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry and all who voted for that acceptance all who have heard and pleaded for them trafficked for union with them all that do not testifie against them and deport themselves suitably to their testimony all who do not join publickly with the Brethren who testifie against them The sentence is in effect deposition as far as their power reaches they say indeed that they have not nor assume to themselves authoritative sentences of deposition and suspension against these Ministers there is some modesty here yet they specifie the censures which should be inflicted upon these Ministers no less will serve than deposition or suspension It 's somewhat strange that they who had the confidence to depose the Magistrate as formally as they could did not formally depose these Ministers also but though they do not formally depose them yet they do it materially and effectually in that they will neither hear them nor receive Sacraments from them And no wonder seeing they had before declared them to be the Ministers of men not of Christ the ground of this sentence is a Scripture 2 Thes 3.6 but misunderstood and so misapplied for the Apostle is not there directing to withdraw from the Lords Ordinances from the hearing of the Word or Administration of the Sacraments or from fellowship with the Church in the Worship of God but he forbids ordinary familiar private converse with disorderly persons it 's a metaphor taken from Soldiers who keep not their rank idle and yet busie-bodies busie about that which did not belong to them such as are spoken of 1 Tim. 5.13 who were idle wandering about from house to house tatlers busie-bodies speaking things which they ought not The authors of this Band have made such a breach upon all order both in speaking and engaging to do things which they ought not and which tend to all confusion that if they had understood this Scripture and their own way they would have seen their way condemned in this Scripture from which they would condemn others 2. Orthodox Interpreters think that the withdrawing which is enjoined in this Scripture is to be after the Church hath taken due notice of the disorder of such persons and they after admonition continue disobedient see the Dutch Annotations which cite Mat. 18.15 1 Cor. 5.11 as parallel places and Diodate Mr. Dickson and Mr. Ferguson upon the place If private persons were left to Excommunicate all whom they thought disorderly it would breed great confusion and if private persons be not to be thus withdrawn from till the Church hath noted them and proceeded by lesser censures to the censure of Excommunication How insolent an act is this for a few inconsiderable persons who as they confess themselves have no capacity to inflict any censure to declare that they will carry themselves towards so many ministers who have never been convened or heard much less censured by any Church-Judicatory and others who adhere to them and all who testifie not against them and do not publickly join with those who testifie against them as if they were deposed and Excommunicate and the insolency was the greater because they knew that the ministers who were not indulged did think these young men who had not come to this height of Schism censurable I am certainly informed that this spirit of Schism hath prevailed so far in some that they will not have private Christian fellowship with any who hear Indulged ministers though they be persons of so blameless and Christian conversation that they have nothing to cast at them for but this that they have clearness to hear Indulged ministers This joining in the Worship of God where these ministers preach they account a joining with the people of these abominations ignorantly perverting that place Ezra 9.14 as if joining in the commanded Worship of God were like the Israelites joyning in forbidden marriages with the cursed Nations But as the fool thinks the bell clinks The least that they require of these deposed and Excommunicate ministers is that they stand in judgment before these ministers and be judged by them who have followed the Lord and kept themselves free of these defections The least I perceive that they will accept of is no less than an acknowledging of Prelates and setting up Prelacy Pr. Sir ye seem now to be jesting and not in earnest Min. No Sir I am in good earnest and if ye will consider what Prelacy is I suppose ye will not deny what I say Ye know your self that these Ministers whom they mean and who fall not in one of the Classes mentioned were never for any thing known above four and some say they were but three and a little after this Band one of them was laid aside from Preaching And a Gentleman told me that he was credibly informed that he went hence to Ireland and joined with the Conformists there But suppose that they were four yea fourteen that would not make them the Plurality in a capacity to judg to suspend or depose the Indulged and not Indulged Ministers of the Church of Scotland and yet we see they have a jurisdiction over all the rest of the Ministers who must stand before them and be judged by them and stand and fall in judgment as these judges shall determine And as they engross the power of suspension and deposition so consequently the power of Ordination and in their last Article they talk of a Gospel-ministry rightly chosen and rightly Ordained and they promise to rectifie what was amiss in former Ordinations Now two or three or four persons engrossing the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Presbyterian Ministers of the Church of Scotland are Prelates Doctor Gauden defines the Office of a Bishop thus Episcopal presidency and authority is a Soveraign power and Spiritual jurisdiction in Ordination Confirmation Censures rebuking silencing Excommunication Absolution and other exercises of Ecclesiastick power without above and against Presbyters and people This description if ye will take Confirmation out of it seems to agree much better to these new Prelates than to the old They arrogate a Soveraign power a power above all Presbyterian Ministers who must stand before them when they set to judg
Minister so ill informed while he is inveighing against the supremacy should act as if he had a Papal Supremacy in stigmatizing deposing excommunicating his fellow-servant But I perceive the truth of that saying That man will much sooner see a Pope in another mans belly than when he is in his own That saithful Minister was seeing light in light when the Author of the Cup of cold Water did judge him no seer he was admitted to the fellowship of the Saints in Heaven before this Sentence of Excommunication was past on earth He was drinking of the pure river of the water of life when this foul and not cold but scalding hot water was cast at him out of this Cup of cold Water The Author hath verified what the Poet thought impossible Unda dabit flammas I wish the other part of the verse dabit ignis aquas may also be verified that such flashes of fire proceeding from the wrath of man might be turned into these waters that the Prophet Jeremiah wishes for and be resolved in tears of godly sorrow Having discovered the wrong which the Author of the Cup of cold Water and the Author of this History have done to that one indulged Minister I answer Secondly That which the Author of the History of the Indulgence subsumes That the indulged Ministers accepted of that which purely flowed from that Supremacy which they count an usurpation is false and a begging of the question as he refers to the 3d. head I refer to the answer to it before given His third That the entry is founded upon any sinful Supremacy is also false To his 4th concerning the Patrons we spoke before For his 5th after he hath repeated that the indulged Ministers did receive the Instructions which is a false alledgance as we have cleared from Mr. H's Speech and what was spoken by the indulged Ministers who were called before the Council for not keeping the 29th of May and from the Authors own confession who grants that they did not obey these injunctions and acknowledges that they gave an honest Testimony against them he draws a parallel whereby he thinks it may distinctly appear that their refusal of the benefit offered by the accommodation did condemn their accepting of the benefit offered by the Indulgence but he is here as far out in his Mathematicks as we have found him before out in his Morals and Logicks The acceptance of the relaxation of the civil restraint which impeded the peaceable exercise of their Ministry hath no proportion with or equality unto the acceptance of the Proposals made by Bishop Lighton for accommodation for the acceptance of these proposals had been the accepting of a wrong form and model of Church-government In that Model of Government offered in these Proposals there is an Officer set up a Diocesan Bishop who is not in the Rolls of Church-Officers recorded in the Scripture a President imposed upon not freely elected by the Synod not countable to nor censurable by the Synod claiming power to restrain not only single Presbyters but Presbyteries from the exercise of that Authority which they have received from Christ for the Edification of the Church Who can restrain a Presbytery from ordaining a Minister though the Church who hath elected him be most earnest to have him ordained the person elected be most fit for the charge and the Presbytery most desirous to ordain The Synod is mangled in its members wanting ruling Elders manacled is its power not being free to chuse its own Moderator nor to censure the imposed President though he were most culpable and unworthy of his place The proposals overturns the identity of Bishop and Presbyter for in them not only is Distinction made betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter but the Bishop is made Superior to the Presbytery they destroy the parity of Ministers and the subjection of the part to the whole what the Provincial Synod would have been who could tell but it 's like it would be less than the Dioceson and yet this behoved to be subject to that The accepting of these Proposals and entering into and concurring with Meetings thus corruptly constituted had been a real consenting to owning setling establishing promoving this corrupt constitution of Government and no verbal declaration of their dissatisfaction with the corruptions in the constitution could have salved the matter for their voluntary constituting themselves members of a Court so corruptly constitute and concurring with the Bishop while he was exercising his Prelatical Power for if he exercise it any where it is in the Diocesan Synods had been contrary to their verbal Declaration and whatever they said contrary to the Bishops usurpation or the corrupt constitution of the Court their deed would have effectively and most effectually established that corrupt form of Church-government and rendered their words ineffectual and ridiculous The most effectual way of establishing an Usurper is to concur with him in his Courts and act in a forinsick subordination to him Now the indulged Ministers in accepting the relaxation so often spoken of did neither verbally nor really acknowledge own or establish any usurpation of the Council The Author says That their deed was a manifest complyance with Erastianism but this is false as hath been before cleared and thus he goeth about to make their acceptance of the relaxation of the Civil restraint which is in it self a straight line crooked that it might run parallel to the crooked line of compliance with Prelacy but this was a fault in morality whatever it was in the Mathematicks His first six parallels and his second six parallels are nothing to his purpose except ye let him have his conclusion by begging in granting that the practice of the indulged Ministers was an establishment of or a compliance with Erastianism Mathematicians uses to demonstrate and not to beg the question The Author wanted not will to have made a Demonstration but the matter would not work for him He hath another parallel in the sixth where he compares the acceptance of the Indulgence with the taking of the Collation and first he tells us what the taker of Collation and the taker of the Indulgence may think and then he tells us what both of them really does The taker of the Collation acknowledgeth and preferreth the Prelate as a Minister of Christ So says he he who submitteth to the Indulgence acknowledgeth the Magistrate or the Council to be the proper subject of formal Church-power he should have proven that the acceptance of the relaxation c. imports any such acknowledgment but it was easier to take it for granted than to prove it In his third he tells us there is in the Indulgence a formal acceptance but he tells us not of what and says he a plain submission but he tells us not to what and a Recognizance but he tells not of what and a significant transaction but he tells not about what It appears by the Parenthesis that follows viz. if the
as was Aaron If they say That such a Sovereign Jurisdiction is hot discharged and therefore it 's lawful I answer 1. The Offices and Officers of the House of God which are in the Scripture are positively instituted and constituted of God 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set c. Ephes 4.11 God hath given c. Rom. 12.6 7 8. If God hath not set these new Sovereign Judges Ministers should not stand before them as Judges if God hath not given them for Sovereign Judges we should not receive them and if they be not given their Office is not a gift of Grace It 's a graceless thing and we have nothing to do with it 2. It 's not enough that an Office which is exercised in the name of another be not discharged or forbidden it must be charged and commanded if a man should claim to himself some new Office of Justice or should intrude himself into some Office which were setled by Law would that be a sufficient defence for him that such an Office was not discharged nor he forbidden to take such an Office it would be replyed He had no Law nor Command or Warrant for what he did it 's not enough to make a man an Ambassador that he is not discharged to go Ambassador he must have a positive Commission 3. The Lord in forbidding us to add to his word hath discharged to add any Spiritual Offices to those which he hath instituted in the Word and I see not how those who take on them to make new Spiritual Offices in the Church can hold out new Spiritual work for those new Officers and so we shall have new significant Symbols and Sacraments new worship when they made the Office of the Pope they out out new work for him to make new Articles of Faith to dispence with the Laws of God c. or if they do not this they take somewhat from the formerly established Officers and appropriate it to those new ones the Presbyters were first bereaved of the power of Ordination and then of the power of Jurisdiction ut aliquid faceret Episcopus quod non faceret Presbyter If they object That the rest of the Presbyters need not except they please subject themselves to these Ministers and if they consent to subject themselves to them and stand in Judgment before them and submit their ministry to their disposal then they get this Sovereign power by the Ministers voluntary consent and then volenti non fit injuria may not Ministers part with their power and put it in the hand of one or two or three for unity and order I answer 1. They do as much as they can to necessitate and force the Ministers to subject themselves to those new Sovereign Judges for as far as in them lyes they effectually despise them and in effect excommunicate them by withdrawing from them until they stand in Judgment before their new Lords and Sovereigns and come in their will 2. It 's a great and dangerous error to imagine that Ministers of the Gospel may dispose of their ministerial power as a man may dispose of his money and so may either quit all or give part and retain the rest retain the power of preaching and quit the power of governing in conjunction with others for a Minister hath not Dominion over his ministerial Function as a man hath over his money but he is obliged to retain all that Authority that the Lord hath given him for edification and to make full proof of his Ministry as he will be answerable to his Master who will require an account of the Talents he hath given him to occupy with and therefore suppose the Presbyterian Ministers were so demented as to renounce their ministerial Authority in favour of their new Judges this could not make their Sovereign Jurisdiction warrantable because this surrender made to them would be a non habente potestatem for Ministers cannot give away their Authority to another and therefore their new Judges would still be Usurpers both in usurping a Dominion which the Lord hath not given to Ministers and then taking it to themselves without any title The next thing in Dr. Gaudens Definition is the exercise of this Sovereign power and Spiritual Jurisdiction in the several Acts as Ordination Confirmation Censures Rebuking Silencing Excommunication Absolution c. If we may conclude from the practice of these new Prelates how Sovereign high and absolute they will be in their acts of power we have some ground to think they will out-do any Prelates that have been before them for they have really though not formally deposed and excommunicated the Ministers who differ from them before any Process Tryal or hearing granted to these Ministers and one of them hath very summerly excommunicated the King the Duke of York the Duke of Monmouth and several Peers and Officers of State This is pretty high flown at the first flight it 's but now and then that the Bishop of Rome the Pope himself plays such pranks as these Ordinary Bishops use to have formal processes and they allow Presbyters to have some share in the trial and leading of the process against persons to be Excommunicate and they do not use to Excommunicate Kings and Princes Ambrose the Bishop of Millain was somewhat singular in his censure of Theodosius the Emperour in keeping him seven months from entering within the Church-doors I grant saith Hornius in his Church-History this censure of Ambrose is not approved of all but there are none who can or ought to disapprove the humility and repentance of Theodosius who patiently endured the sharp reproofs of Ambrose and did give example to the whole Church But it 's rare to find great ones of Theodosius disposition there are considerable difficulties objected against the Excommunication of Supreme Magistrates And the fault of Theodosius was so singular for in his passion at a popular sedition in Thessalonica in which the President and some Noblemen were killed he sent in Soldiers who killed seven thousand persons of all ages and sexes both guilty and innocent And then the Emperour was a man so holy humble and tender and Ambrose a Bishop of so great authority and so venerable and beloved that if any ordinary Bishop would attempt to imitate Ambrose in this he would readily find that he had mistaken his measures and would not find that he had to do with a Theodosius or that he himself were an Ambrose But as this is certain that the Excommunication of Magistrates Masters and Parents does not make void their Magistratical Masterly and Paternal authority so this is granted that as it is Church-Judicatories and not single persons that should Excommunicate and * Rutherford's Peaceable Plea Pag. 5. saith The Church not one single man hath the power of Discipline if one Pastor himself alone should Excommunicate the Excommunication were null both in the Court of Christ his Church that these Judicatories must not only consider whether the fault
prescriptions and that they could receive no other prescriptions besides Christs prescriptions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry 4. They declare how desirable and refreshing the exercise of this their Ministry was to them 5. They declare what power they acknowledged in the Magistrate it 's not a lawless but lawfuâ— Authority which they acknowledge they acknowledge no other power in the Magistrate but what is the Ordinance of God for so they describe lawful Authority the excellent Ordinance of God They declare it 's the work of Magistrates to protect the Ministers of Christ in the exercise of their Ministry 6. That they purposed and resolved to behave themselves in the discharge of their Ministry with that wisdom and prudence which became faithful Ministers of Jesus Christ 7. They declare that they continued in their known judgment in Church-affairs they did let the Magistrates know that they had not altered their Judgement in Church-affairs that they were still Presbyterians Their judgment is known from the Confession of faith chap. 23. Art 3. ch 25. Art 6. ch 30. Art 1. ch 31. Art 3. and all who have any knowledge of the Judgment of Presbyterians know that they own Christ for the alone head of the Church and fountain of Church-authority and that they are as opposite to Erastianism as they are to Prelacy That they are so far from ascribing a Supremacy of spiritual power to the Magistrate that they profess that the Magistrate hath not any power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to him and that it doth not belong to the Magistrate to ordain or depose suspend excommunicate or to exercise any Church-censures and that it doth not belong to him to form Church-Canons or to prescribe Instructions for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and that they are of that Judgment that no Magistrate nay nor all the powers on earth though they were united can dispose of Ecclesiastical matters according to their Wisdom or pleasure seeing the things of the house of the God of Heaven must be done according to the wisdom and pleasure of the Lord and not according to the wisdom and pleasure of Creatures These and many other Tenets are known by all who know what Presbyterians are to be their known and professed Judgement Now seeing they declared their continuance in their known Judgement and adherence to their former principles and that to the Magistrate and had declared before their resolutions to behave as faithful Ministers of Christ and that they believed the account they were to give of their Ministry to Jesus Christ They did shew to the Magistrate that they did not nor could not approve of power or acts of the Magistrate which were contrary to their Judgements for that had been so far from becoming the faithfulness of the Ministers of Jesus Christ that it could not consist with common Ingenuity 8. And they clearly enough insinuate that there was an opposition betwixt their known Judgements and the actings of the Magistrate in subverting Presbyterial Government and setting up of Prelacy and other actings contrary to Presbyterial Principles some whereof I mentioned before This opposition is clearly insinuated and imported while they say And to demain our selves towards lawful Authority notwithstanding of our known Judgment in Church-affairs as well becometh Loyal Subjects for if the Affairs of the Church had been then according to their known Judgment that notwithstanding had been impertinent and could have had no sufferable sence But Church-affairs being setled by the Magistrate contrary to the known Judgment of Presbyterians some might have alledged that Presbyterian Ministers would not be Loyal towards lawful Authority to obviate this they say That notwithstanding their known Judgements they would behave as Loyal Subjects 9. And hence they declare to the Magistrate that there was no disloyalty in their Principles or practice of their Principles that their known judgement in Church-affairs and the faithful discharge of their Ministry according to their known Judgement did well consist with loyalty and with that respect which from a principle of Conscience they did owe to lawful Authority though it did not consist with some of the actings of those who were in Authority 10. They modestly declare the low esteem they they had of themselves in saying they were the unworthiest of many of their Brethren and they so far from selfishness in desiring to partake of this liberty alone that they express their desire that others of their Brethren may be sharers of the liberty which they enjoyed It appears from what is said that these Brethren witnessed a good Confession before the Council and the Author of the History of the-Indulgence hath in this respect done right to these Brethren and good service to the Church in Printing the Speech which Mr. Hutcheson spoke in their name before the Council If any object that their Testimony is not good because they do not expresly and in terminis testifie against the Invasions made upon the Church I would desire these to consider that in saying so they condemn the Testimonies of many Martyrs who in their Confessions only expressed the truths which they did believe and some of them only in the general asserted that they were Christians They condemn also our Confession of Faith which doth not so expresly and in so many words refute and reject many dangerous and damnable errors but doth only assert the truths opposite to these errors yea they condemn the Testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures which is good and perfect and yet doth not in terminis and expresly mention every error which is contrary to the truth but leaves the refutation of many of these errors to be gathered by good consequence from what is said in the Holy Scriptures and they condemn also that good Confession which Christ witnessed before Pontius Pilate in asserting himself to be a King for he doth not expresly mention and reject all the errors which are contrary to his Spiritual Kingdom And seeing I am speaking of Testimonies I shall mention what the Indulged Ministers who were called before the Council for not keeping the 29. of May declared in the face of the Council As they had agreed that Mr. Hutcheson should declare that the Magistrate had not a power formally Ecclesiastical and that they could not receive Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical from the Magistrate So Mr. Hutcheson to prevent the Councils giving them any such instructions desired that their Lordships would be pleased not to burden them with impositions in the matter of their Ministry wherein they were the Servants of Christ And after Mr. Alexander Blare who was called before Mr. Hutcheson had shewed that he could not receive such instructions to regulate him in his Ministry Mr. Hutcheson before he was called spoke against their L. L. imposing Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry who were the Servants of Christ in these matters
57. taxeth the Socinians for confounding Christs Kingly Office with his Priestly and in his Annotations subjoyned to his last Edition of that System he says As these two Offices must not be divided or drawn assunder or separate so they should not be confounded for Christs Priestly Intercession in Heaven is only for the Elect but his Royal Power is exercised as in calling and protecting the Elect so also in restraining compescing and punishing the enemies of his Church and in that same 10th Chap. Thes 55. Annot. A. In which respect the blood of the New Covenant is said to cry for better things than the blood of Abel Heb. 12.24 for the blood of Abel requireth vengeneance but the blood of Christ seeks and obtains Grace and Peace And the excellent Doctor Owen in his Exercitations prefixed to the Continuation of the Exposition on the 3 4 5. Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews Exercitat 8. pag. 117. saith For neither did Christ as King expiate and purge our sins which could be done only by a bloody Sacrifice nor doth he as Priest subdue his enemies and ours which is the work and whereunto the power of a King is required in brief as a Priest he interposeth with God for us as a King he acts from God towards us Pag. 119. For the Kingly power of Christ is intended unto his enemies the stubbornest of them and those who are finally so but Christ is a Priest offered and intended only for the Elect. Pag. 122. speaking of the Offices of a King and Priest considered absolutely he says That the Office of a King is founded in nature the Office of a Priest in Grace the one belongs to men as Creatures capable of Political Society the other with respect unto the supernatural end only Pag. 123. For that the Office of Priesthood is that faculty and power whereby some persons do Officiate with God in the name and on the behalf of others by offering Sacrifices all men in general are agreed And thereon it is consented also that it is in it's entire nature distinct from the Kingly Power and Office Pag. 124. For every Priest as we have shewed acts in the name and on the hehalf of men with God but a King in the name and on the behalf of God with and towards men as to the ends of that rule which God hath ordained The Priest represents men to God pleading their cause the King represents God to men acting his Power for all the acts of the Priestly Office belongs to oblation and intercession and these effects consists either in 1. Averruncatione mali or procuratione boni these they affect morally only by procuring and obtaining of them The Acts of the Kingly Office are Legislation destruction of enemies and the like Pag. 129. The special nature of his Sacerdotal Intercession which consists in the moral efficacy of his Mediation in procuring Mercy and Grace And in his Exposition on the 5th Chap. v. 1 2. where the Priestly Office is described For every High-Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God for men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes vice or loco in the stead Joh. 10.11 15. Chap. 13.38 Sometimes pro only as it denotes the final cause as to do a thing for the good of men 2 Tim. 2.10 And both these senses may have place here for where the first intention is the latter is always included he that doth any thing instead of another doth it always for his good and the High-Priest might be so far said to stand and act in the stead of other men as he appears in their behalf represented their persons and pleaded their cause and confessed their sins Levit. 16.21 But in their behalf and for their good and advantage to perform what on their part is with God to be performed is evidently intended in this place and pag. 130. he expounds the things pertaining to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Expression is eliptical and sacred hut what is intended in it is sufficiently manifest the things which were to be done with God or towards God in his worship to answer the duties and ends of the Office of the Priesthood that is to do the things whereby God might be appeased atoned reconciled pacâ—fied and his anger turned away see Chap. 2.17 and pag. 136. He sheweth from the Text That Compassion is a qualification of an High-Priest for their relief who are sensible of their ignorance and wandrings and therefore are apt to be cast down and discouraged and that it is a qualification required in the Priest and necessary unto him for the aforesaid end So it is said of our Saviour the great High-Priest that he made reconciliation for the sins of the people and Intercession for Transgressors I shall only add one other and that is Thomas Goodwin B. D. in his Treatise entituled The heart of Christ in Heaven to sinners on earth Part. 2. 188. First saith he this Office of High-Priesthood is an Office erected wholly for the shewing of Grace and Mercy the Office of the High-Priesthood is altogether an Office of Grace and I may call it the Pardon-Office set up and erected by God in Heaven and Christ he is appointed the Lord and Minister of it and as his Kingly Office is an Office of Power and Dominion and his Prophetical Office an Office of Knowledge and Wisdom so his Priestly Office is an Office of Grace and Mercy the High-Priests Office did properly deal in nothing else if there had not been a Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies the High-Priest had not been at all appointed to go into it it was mercy reconciliation and atonement for sinners that he was to treat about and so to Officiate for at the Mercy-seat he had otherways no work nor any thing to do when he should come into the most Holy place Now this was but a typical allusion to this Office of Christ in Heaven and therefore the Apostle in the Text when he speaks of this our High Priests being entered into Heaven he makes mention of a Throne of Grace and this is the very next words to my Text Chap. 5.1 2 3. verses in which he gives a full description of an High-Priest and all the properties and requisites that were to be in him Pag. 189. the great and essential qualifications there specified that were to be in an High-Priest are Mercy and Grace It 's said he was ordained for men that is for mens cause and for their good pag. 190. thus you see the ends which he is ordained for are all matter of Grace and Mercy the qualification that was required in an High-Priest was That he should be one that could have Compassion Mercy and Compassion is that which is here made the special and therefore the only mentioned property of the High-Priest as such and the specifical essential qualification that was inwardly and internally to constitute him The Reader will find much more
asserted that they had received their Ministry from Christ he excluded the Magistrate from Christs Throne 3. The receiving or deriving the Ministry from the Magistrate is an Erastian conceit and none of the full Prescriptions of Christ but contrary thereunto and therefore was excluded by Mr. Hutchesons Speech which asserts the fulness of Christs Prescriptions for regulating the Ministry 4. Whereas they declare their Resolution in the discharge of their Ministry to behave themselves as became faithful Ministers of Christ They shew that they were not the Magistrates Ministers but Christs and it had been inconsistent with faithfulness to have derived their Ministry from the Magistrate or to have submitted their Ministry which they had from Christ and which they were to exercise according to the Prescriptions as accountable to him to the will and pleasure of men this had been a sinful way of pleasing men inconsistent with faithfulness in the service of Christ Gal. 1.10 5. Their declaring of their continuance in their known Judgments shews that they designed to let the Magistrate know that they were not Erastians and that they minded not to put the Magistrate either in Christs Throne or in the room of the Presbytery for all who know Presbyterians know that this is their Judgment That it's Christ and not the Magistrate that is the Fountain of the Spiritual Power of the Church and that it is not by the Magistrate but by the Presbytery that Christ doth convey the Ministerial Function to those who are ordained Now is not this strange dealing to alledge that Mr. Hutchesons Speech gives the power of Christ or the Presbytery to the Magistrate when there is not only no ground from Mr. Hutchesons Speech for any such alledgance but many solid grounds demonstrating the contrary but this lets us see the imperious force of prejudice which will have things to be as it will without yea contrary to all Reason After the writing of this I was informed that this alledgance of the Author concerning the word only is utterly false as all the Ministers alive who were first Indulged will witness In his 2 3 4. Sections pag. 86 and 87. he answers an alledgance That the Indulged Ministers accepted of the exercise of their Ministry from the Magistrate Ans The Indulged Ministers assert That they have not only their Office or Authority but also the exercise of it from Christ and not from the Magistrate and if he had but considered the Scripture which Mr. H. made use of he might have clearly seen that the Ministry Paul speaks of comprehends the whole exercise of it for he speaks of finishing the Ministry which he had received from the Lord Jesus For any thing I know the Author in these Sections is fighting with his own shadow In pag. 87. Sect. 5. he saith The accepting of this Indulgence containeth another wrong done to Christ in that thereby there is an acknowledgment made of the sufficiency of all the Rules Prescriptions and Instructions granted by him for the ordering of the exercise of the Ministry for in the Indulgence Instructions were given and when the Indulgence was imbraced as accompanyed with these Instructions the power granting these Instructions was acknowledged and a granting of a Magisterial Power to Magistrates to make such Rules c. is a robbing of Christ of that sole Supream Power which is due to him Ans If the Author had not Printed Mr. Hutchesons Speech and what the Ministers who were called before the Council for not keeping the 29th of May spoke it might have been thought he had never seen their Speeches M. Hutcheson declares the fulness of these Prescriptions and yet this Author would have folk believe that the contrary was acknowledged that these Rules were not full but insufficient he supposes these Rules were received the contrary whereof was before cleared It 's a miserable task to dispute against a man who begs the Question His 6th Section goes upon the same supposition that they have taken their Ministry and Instructions from the Magistrate Ans The falshood of both is cleared before He refers us to what he said in the Vindication of Mr. Blairs assertion Ans If the Author had been as well disposed towards the rest of the Indulged Ministers as he was to Mr. Blair he would have vindicated them also and not have been their accuser yea so great is the force of truth that it hath extorted a Vindication of them also from him for he acknowledges that what Mr. Hutcheson spoke was the same upon the matter with what Mr. Blair spoke for speaking of Mr. Hutchesons desire to the Council viz. That their L. L. would be pleased not to burthen them with impositions in the matter of their Ministry wherein they were the servants of Christ He says he is apt to think that this desire did import that he and the rest were unclear to submit unto impositions in the matter of their Ministry because of their being the Servants of Christ and then he subjoyns that Question Why were the Brethren so offended with what Mr. Blair said which shews that Mr. Hutchesons and Mr. Blairs words were to the same purpose As for another sense of these words of Mr. Hutchesons which in that 69. page he mentions As he does not think it to be the sense of Mr. Hutchesons words so it is so void of sense and inconsistent with what he acknowledges Mr. Hutcheson was ordered to speak in all the names that I wonder how he could imaginâ— any such sense of Mr. Hutchesons words Anâ— pag. 70. the Author saith And what differenâ— I pray was there upon the matter betwixt Mr Hutchesons requesting that they might not be bâ—thened with impositiâ—ns in the matter of their Ministry and Mr. Blairs saying he would not receive Instructions from them for regulating him in the exeâ—cise of his Ministry and the Author cleareth this in the words following in that page He repeats the same pag. 73. That Mr. Hutchesons assertioâ— was the same upon the matter with what Mr. Blaiâ— said Thus I hope he will not alledge there waâ— not an honest Teâ—â—â—mony given against the Instructions seeing he acknowledges that Mr. Blair gave an honest Testimony and that Mr. Hutchesâ—â— spoke the same upon the matter which Mr. Blair said Pag. 88. Sect. 7. He will have the indulged Ministers guilty because the Magistrate determined and appointed the qualifications of Ministers and the Accepters says he acknowledged that they were so and so qualified and did sweetly acquiesce in the Magistrates Aristocratorical determining of these qualifications He refers us to his 3d. remark upon the Kings Letter which is pag. 7. and 8. The qualifications are living peaceably and orderly in the places where they resided I shall be far saith he from saying that Ministers should not live peacâ—â—bly and orderly But he would have it considered what was the sense of this qualification by such as did propose it which he says is a negative compliance
Commands or Directions given to others into Pactions without the consent of those to whom such Commands or Directions were given it would make a strange reel in the World and men should thus be involved by Paction to perform Conditions though they never consented yea though they declared they did not nor could not consent 2. Although the Council had shewed by their imprisoning of Mr. Blair that they meant those Injunctions for Conditions that being so long after the Indulgence it could no way constitute the nature of the Indulgence which had its being and existence long before 3. The meaning of one Party though shewed will not make a Paction except the other party consent 4. The Author grants That Mr. H. spoke the same upon the matter that Mr. Blair did and so did several others who were before the Council at that time and the Magistrate as I am readily informed said That it was some circumstances of what was done by Mr. Blair that occasioned his imprisonment But 5ly Suppose he had been only imprisoned upon that account because he would not receive those Injunctions that will not prove that the Magistrate did mean them for Conditions for the Magistrate often imprisoneth men for disobeying Acts of Council though the persons imprisoned have made no promise to obey those Acts and though the Injunctions which they obey not were never meant by the Council for Conditions 6. Suppose the Magistrate had in the very Acts of Indulgence signified that they had meant those Injunctions for Conditions and had put in those Injunctions as Conditions in the Acts of Indulgence I do not see how this would have rendred their ministerial actings in the Parishes to which they were indulged unlawful nor rendred those Ministers any ways guilty providing that they had no ways consented unto those Injunctions Suppose Pharaoh had granted liberty to the Midwives to do their Office to the travelling Hebrew Women upon condition that they should kill the Male-Children this should not have barred the Midwives from that work of mercy towards the Hebrew-Women in Child-birth and if the Midwives had no way consented to this Condition they would have no ways been guilty of any sin though necessary Duties be clogged with sinful Injunctions imposed by men they should not be omitted but the Duties should be done and the sinful Injunctions disobeyed And suppose the Midwives knew that Pharaoh would have restrained them from doing that Labour of Love that work of necessity and mercy to the Labouring Women if they had foretold that they would not kill the Male-Children I think they did better to hold their Tongue than to put themselves out of a capacity to do so needful a Duty to the Travailing-Women but there is no need of this for vindicating the practice of the indulged Ministers because they declared to the Magistrate That they had received full Prescriptions from Christ which they behoved to observe and that they could not receive such Prescriptions as the Magistrate gave What he says in his 3d. about accepting a favour with a burden and the similitude of a Father granting a Portion of Land and enjoying the payment of Debts is before answered The impertinency of that Similitude is very palpable if a Father should command his Son to worship God in secret Prayer and withal give him some superstitious Directions the Son were not to neglect secret Prayer because of those supeardded superstitious Injunctions But it 's time for me to weary of Repetitions In Object 15. he supposes That the acceptance of the favour had need of a Purgation by a Protestation but the granting of the safe and peaceable exercise of the Ministry ought not to have been protested against The many accounts upon which he says the accepting of the Indulgence was so foul that no Protestation could have salved the matter we have found upon examination to come to no account To the 16. Object which rationally concludes That the Magistrates allowance being directed to none but to Ministers antecedently ordained cannot be a just ground of Scruple He answers That this allowance being more than a Permission did flow from the Supremacy and import the deriving of a Power to exercise the Function in such a place from the Magistrate I reply the allowing of Ministers to preach the Gospel is the Magistrates Duty and flows from no other Supremacy than that which every Magistrate hath as supream Magistrate in his own Dominions If Magistrates should maintain defend protect Ministers in the exercise of their ministry they should allow them to preach otherways they should be obliged to maintain c. what they do not allow He granted before That the Magistrate may command Ministers to preach the Gospel and command imports allowance and something more and where there is no setled Judicatories in the Kirk which outed Ministers own to settle Ministers in particular Charges if the Magistrate may not in that case settle Ministers in particular Charges but only command them to preach where they please some places where there were most need of preaching might be left utterly destitute and the Magistrate could do nothing to remedy that evil We heard that the second Book of Discipline is for the Magistrates placing Ministers in some cases and therefore to offend at the word Allowance is not the kindly work of a well-informed tender Conscience but an effect of Ignorance Altho' we should be displeased at sin yet we should never offend or stumble for offending properly imports stumbling at sin much less at what is lawful all stumbling is sin and flows from sin and not from due Tenderness His answers to the 17 Obj. are his own false imaginations for what the indulged Ministers did was no virtual invalidating of their prior Ordination Nor 2. did it say That as to the Ministry they depend upon any power in the Magistrate as the fountain of their Ministry It 's true the peaceable and safe exercise of their Ministry is from the Magistrate under God who hath appointed Magistrates to be the shields of the earth and nursing fathers to his Church Nor is the acceptance of this favour a subjection unto any incroachment Nor is this the Question whether the restraints formerly laid on were vincible or not but whether the relaxation of these restraints was to be accepted or rejected He cannot but acknowledge that the Magistrates enjoyning and warranting as he words it includes a permission to Preach and is a real relaxation of former restraints and in so far might be made use of but if the Author would have dealt fairly he should have retained the words which the Magistrate made use of in the Acts of Indulgence and not foisted in his own words The refusal of this relaxation when the Magistrate offered it would have been an offence and scandal to many persons and it would have been so far from defeating Erastianism that it could onely have evidenced the refusers to be ignorant of the Erastian Controversie and
their strength and equity from it By that Law Fornication in the Priests Daughter was Capital and so was the gathering of sticks upon the Sabbath-day and this seems to be a lesser breach of the Sabbath than the mispending of a great part of the Lords day in drawing up Men and Horse and learning them how to handle their Arms as if the Lords day had been a day of Rendevouz or Weapon-shewing The restoring of four or five-fold would not sufficiently restrain Theft in this Nation The Judicial Law was not given to other Nations See Confes of Faith Chap. 19. Art 4. To them also as a Body Politick he gave sundry Judicial Laws which expired together with the Estate of that People nor obliging any other now further than the general equity thereof may require Our Saviour and the Apostles never offered to impose the Judicial Law upon the Gentiles The Apostle Paul submitted to be Judged by the Roman Law at Caesar's Judgment-Seat and exhorts Christians of all Nations to submit themselves to the Government and wholesom Laws of the Nations in which they lived There have been Hereticks who were for restoring of the Judicial and Ceremonial Law and some wild Persons in the Netherlands have of late written for this Error and there is the more need to take heed of restoring the Judicial Law because of its connexion with the Ceremonial Law This is a strange Age some are seeking to draw the World by Pelagianism and Quakerism to old Paganism and some seeking to draw men under the shadow and vail of Judaism They are not very much concerned though they be called Fifth-Monarchy-men But this contrivance of theirs is so strange that it is hard to find a name for it it 's rather an Anarchy and Confusion than a Government And it 's hoped that it will never have any such proportion to the four Monarchies as to get the name of a Fifth-Monarchy And it is fit that such a Monstrous thing die ere it get a Name I know nothing so like to it as the Insurrection of the Boors in Germany who believed Thomas Munster and Nicholas Stork that God was setting up a new Kingdom in which the Saints should Reign and that the present wicked Magistrates were to be killed and Godly Magistrates set up in their stead These Teachers pretended Revelations and Christian Liberty The poor People believed these delusions and rejected the wholesom Instructions of Luther and Melancthon and in their Fury which they imagined to be true Zeal they would needs fight but when it came to fighting they could neither fight nor flee and in one Summer fifty thousand of them were killed Munster at his Death confessed his Error and exhorted the Princes to use more clemency towards poor Men and so they needed not fear any such hazard and withal exhorted them to read diligently the Book of the Kings If they who contrived this Bond of Confusion had considered the Confession of Faith and the Questions in the larger Catechism which explain the fifth Commandment and the Scriptures confirming the Articles of the 23d Chapter of the Confession and the Answers of the fore-said Questions it might have prevented this furious and mad design Confes Chap. 23. Art 1. God the Supream Lord and King of all the World hath ordained Civil Magistrates c. Rom. 13.1 2 3. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation c. 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream c. And Art 4. It 's the Duty of People to pray for Magistrates to Honour their Persons to pay them Tribute and other dues to Obey their Lawful Commands and to be Subject to their Authority for Conscience sake Infidelity or difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates Just and Legal Authority nor free the People from their due Obedience to him from which Ecclesiastical Persons are not exempted much less hath the Pope any Power or Jurisdiction over them in their Dominions or over any of their People and least of all to deprive them of their Dominions or Lives if he shall judge them to be Hereticks or upon any other pretence whatsoever 1 Tim. 2.1 2. I exhort therefore that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of Thanks be made for all Men for Kings and for all that are in Authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty 1 Pet. 2.17 Rom. 13.6 7. For this cause pay you Tribute also c. Titus 3.1 Put them in mind to be Subject to Principalities and Powers to Obey Magistrates 1 Pet. 2.13 14. 16. As free and not using your Liberty as a Cloak of maliciousness but as the Servants of God 1 Kings 2.35 Acts 25.9 10. Then said Paul I stand at Caesar's Judgment-seat where I ought to be judged I Appeal unto Caesar 2 Pet. 2.1.10 11. But there were false Prophets also among the People even as there shall be false Teachers among you But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the dust of Uncleanness and despise Government presumptuous are they self-willed they are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities whereas Angels who are greater in Power and might bring no railing accusation against them before God Jude 8 9 10 11. Likewise also these filthy Dreamers defile the Flesh despise Dominion and speak evil of Dignities Yet Michael the Arch-Angel when contending with the Devil about the Body of Moses durst not bring against him a railing accusation but said the Lord rebuke thee But these speak evil of these things which they know not but what they know naturally as brute Beasts in these things they corrupt themselves Woe unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain and run greedily after the Error of Balaam and perished in the gain-saying of Coâ—e 2 Thes 2.4 Rev. 13.15 16 17. In the larger Catechism Quest Who are meant by Father and Mother in the fifth Commandment Answ By Father and Mother in the fifth Commandment are meant not only Natural Parents but all Superiours in Age and Gifts and especially such as by Gods Ordinance are over us in place of Authority whether in Family Church or Common-wealth and they cite Isa 49.23 And Kings shall be thy Nursing-Fathers and Queens thy Nursing-Mothers Quest Why are Superiours stiled Father and Mother Answ Superiours are stiled Father and Mother both to teach them in all Duties towards their Inferiours like Natural Parents to express love and tenderness to them according to their several Relations and to work Inferiours to a greater willingness and chearfulness in performing their Duties towards their Superiours Quest What is the Honour that Inferiours owe to Superiours Answ The
it if such youths blown up with the wind of popular applause fall into many snares and take courses that tend to bring all things sacred and civil into confusion They add For which together with other causes c. we may say God hath left them to do worse things This is among their rash sayings it was the duty of Presbyterians to censure such unruly youths They add But also have voted in that meeting which they are pleased to call an Assembly of Ministers but how justly let men judg an acceptation of that liberty founded upon and given by virtue of that blasphemously arrogated and usurped power Their alledgance that that meeting is not to be called an Assembly of Ministers will beget no prejudice against it in the minds of men who have any sound judgment in matters of that nature And sober and judicious men would have suspected that meeting if it had pleased their banders or any of such principles as they maintain And none except ignorants or persons blinded with prejudice will say that the liberty of the peaceable exercise of the Ministry granted by the Magistrate is founded upon any unlawful powor or supremacy The Magistrates granting liberty of the peaceable exercise of the Ministry is the exercise of that power which the Magistrate hath from God That which the Magistrate ought to do doth not flow from any unlawful power but the Magistrate ought to grant to the Ministers of the Gospel liberty to exercise their Ministry peaceably and therefore such a grant of liberty c. or such liberty granted doth not flow from nor is founded upon any unlawful or usurped power or supremacy They add And hath appeared before their Courts to accept of that liberty and to be Enacted and authorized there as Ministers and so hath willingly for this is an elicite act of the will and not an act of force and constraint translated the power of sending out ordering censuring for as they accept of their liberty from them so they submit to their censures and restraints at least all of them who were yet tried with it and others of them appeared and acknowledged before their Courts that they would not have done these things that they were charged with if they had thought it would have offended them Ministers departing from the Court of Christ and subjection to the Ministry to the Courts of men and subjection to the Magistrate which had been impious and injurious to Christ and his Church though they had been righteous and lawful rulers and by their changing of Courts according to common Law hath changed their masters and of the Ministers of Christ are become the Ministers of men and bound to answer to them as oft as they will and as by the acceptation of this liberty in such manner they have translated the power so they have given up and utterly quit the Government and a succession of a Presbyterian Ministry for as these were not granted them of their masters so they exercise their Ministry without them and so by this as the Ecclesiastical Government is swallowed up in the Civil if the rest had followed them the Ministry should have also been extinct with themselves and the whole work of Reformation had been buried in oblivion not so much as the remembrance of it kept up Ans If the Magistrates will see these Ministers for whom the people supplicate why should they refuse to appear what solid reason can be given for such a refusal and what ill is there in the Councils recording in their Act that upon such a day such a Minister for whom such a Parish had supplicated was allowed to Preach in such a Parish That they appeared to be authorized as Ministers if they mean as it seems they do that they appeared to receive their Ministerial authority from the Council or that they appeared to be made Ministers of the Gospel it is a manifest slander for as they had their Ministerial authority before their appearance before the Council so the Council did not pretend to make them Ministers but presupposed that they were Ministers by enquiring where they were Ordained Ministers and the Council cannot well be blamed to inform themselves concerning the persons whom they permit to Preach that they may not allow they know not whom but may be assured that they are Ministers and that they are not seditious turbulent persons But if by authorizing they mean the Magistrates Civil allowance maintetenance protection it 's the Magistrates duty thus to authorize those who are Ordained Ministers of the Gospel in the publick exercise of the Spiritual power and authority of their Office as all Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant And because the Authors of this Band seem to have been unacquainted with the judgment of Presbyterian Divines in these matters I shall for their information and the information of others who are bold to speak of things which they do not understand set down the judgment of Presbyterian Divines in this matter as it is holden forth in that famous Book The Divine right of Church-Government Chap. 6. Pag. 55. 2. The power or authority of Church-Government is a derived power for clearing of this note there is a Magisterial primitive supreme power which is peculiar to Jesus Christ our Mediator as hath been proved Chap. 3. 5 and there is a Ministerial derivative subordinate power which the Scripture declares to be in Church-guides Mat. 16.19 18.18 Joh. 20 21 23. Mat. 28.19 20. 2 Cor. 10.8 13.10 and often elsewhere this is abundantly testified but whence is this power originally derived to them here we are carefully to consider and distinguish three things touching this power and authority from one another viz. 1. The Donation of the authority it self and of the Offices whereunto this power doth properly belong 2. The designation of particular persons unto such Offices as are vested with such power 3. The publick protection countenancing authorizing defending maintaining of such Officers in the publick exercise of such power within such and such Realms and Dominions this being premised we may clearly thus resolve according to Scripture-warrant viz. the designation or setting apart of particular individual persons to those Offices in the Church that have power and authority engraven upon them is from the Church nominating electing and ordaining of such persons thereunto See Act. 13.1 2 3. 1 Tim. 4.4 5.22 Tit. 1.5 Act. 4.22 The publick defence maintenance c. of such Officers in the publick exercise of the power and authority of their Office in such and such Dominions is from the Civil Magistrate as the nursing Father of the Church Isa 49.23 For it is by his authority and sanction that such publick places shall be set apart for publick Ministry that such maintenance and reward shall be legally performed for such Ministry that all such persons of such and such Congregations shall be in case they neglect their duty to such Ministry punished with such Political penalties
c. But the donation of the Office and spiritual authority annexed thereunto is only derived from Jesus Christ our Mediator he alone gives all Church-Officers and therefore none may devise or superadd any new Officers Ephes 4.7 8 10 11. 1 Cor. 12.28 And he alone derives all authority and power Spiritual to these Officers for dispensing the Word Sacraments Censures and all Ordinances Mat. 16.19 28.18 19 20. Joh. 20.21 22 23. 2 Cor. 10.8 13.10 and therefore it is not safe for any creature to intrude upon this Prerogative Royal of Christ to give any power to any Officer of the Church And thus we see that these Learned and Godly Ministers who solidly in that same Book refute Erastianism yet assert that it belongs to the Magistrate to protect countenance authorize defend maintain Ministers in the publick exercise of their Ministry which they have received from the Lord Jesus But it 's the ignorance of the solid writings of Presbyterians which makes some folks so confident that they are true Presbyterians and adhering to Presbyterian Principles when in the mean time they are publishing to the world that they are strangers to the solid writings of sound Presbyterians And there is no Orthodox Divine who would find fault with these Ministers who when they appeared before the Council did give humble thanks to the Kings Majesty and the Lords of his Majesties Council for the peaceable exercise of the Ministry which they had received from the Lord Jesus The elicite act of the Will is too Philosophical for common people to subscribe or swear to for they can hardly be made to understand it And what they say concerning it is not Philosophical enough to be approven by those who understand what an elicite act is for elicite acts of the Will are such as immediately flow from the Will as love or hatred volition or nolition Now translation of power from Ministers to Magistrates is not made by these inward acts of the Will but by some external imperate acts as speaking writing c. Politick acts of surrender or translation of power are not effectuate by meer elicite internal acts of the Will But their ignorance of the nature of an elicite act of the Will and their opposing acts of force and constraint to elicite acts whereas elicite acts use to be contra-distinguished from imperate acts and their insinuating That if an act be not an elicite act of the Will it is an act of force and constraint whereas the imperate acts of the Will are not elicite acts and yet being commanded by the Will they are not acts of force and constraint these are more harmless mistakes But it is a very injurious calumny that those Ministers who appeared before the Council translated the power of sending out ordering and censuring Ministers to the Magistrate It 's a ridiculous ignorant conceit to imagine that what these Ministers did in appearing before the Council was a translation of the power of order of Potestative mission or else such censuring to the Magistrate or changing their Master and making themselves the Ministers of men and a quitting of the Government and succession of a Presbyterian Ministry These are meer calumnies and ridiculous fopperies that none who understand any thing in these matters will think worthy of any answer They were very injurious to the poor people many of whom are simple and ready through prejudice to believe any ill word spoken against indulged Ministers who in their Papers and Pamphlets abused them with such slanders But they are more injurious to them who would have them to subscribe and swear such injurious calumnies and ridiculous fopperies which are not only far from truth but from any appearance of truth And so much hath been said in several Papers written in vindication of the practice of the Indulged Ministers that it were to waste time and paper to answer any more to these Calumniators and the best answer to them is to pray that the Lord would give them repentance for these abominable reproaches whereby they have very actively driven on the design of Satan and his instruments the Papists and Quakers c. which is to render the Ministry contemptible And it was seen and told long ago that they would not rest satisfied with the reproachieg of a few Ministers but would proceed to render all contemptible The contrivers of this Bond have made a great progress in this Devilish work of rendering Ministers contemptible and useless for they have casten all except some few who for any thing known did not exceed the number of four and some think that they were but three at most and one of them was casten by the other two It is strange that any person who had the use of reason could be so far blinded with prejudice as to think that these Ministers did translate the power of sending out Ministers or the power of Potestative mission to the Magistrate for as was said the Magistrate supposed them to be Ordained ministers and so to have a Potestative mission to Preach the Gospel already for ministers are potestatively sent to preach the Gospel when they are Ordained ministers this clearly appeared by the Councils inquiring if they were and where or by whom they were Ordained ministers if the Council had called some persons who were not Ordained and sent them to Preach and Baptize c. then they might have alledged that the Magistrate did assume the power of sending out ministers or of a Potestative mission but they never pretended to any thing like that Preacher But Sir did not the Council send these ministers to these Congregations Minist 1. The Council did not so much as use the word of sending 2. Suppose they had used the word of sending that would not have imported a Potestative mission because the Magistrate did suppose that they were already Ordained Ye heard also that Mr. Welsh in his Preface to King James desires the King to send ministers throughout the Land it were great ignorance and perverseness to gather from that word that he translated to the King the power of a Potestative mission 3. Suppose the Magistrate had said nothing concerning their being Ordained Ministers before it had been great perverseness to have concluded from the Magistrates sending of them that they ceased to be the Ministers of Christ and became the Ministers of men Will any be so perverse as to conclude because Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 17.8 9. sent Priests and Levites through all the Cities of Judah to teach the people that therefore these Priests and Levites ceased to be the Lords Ministers and became the ministers of the King Preach But Jehoshaphet was a godly reforming King Minist That is nothing to the purpose in hand Ye might have remembred that Mr. Rutherford shews that the magistratical power in reference to the Church is the same in Nero and in a Christian magistrate and if a godly King 's sending ministers does not annul their ministry then
them and they must stand and fall as they are pleased to determine Their Soveraignty is the more absolute that their Dignity proceeds of themselves and men use not to limit their own power when they have it at their own making or taking the old Prelates depend upon the King and they are sent from Court It 's true Athanasius * Epist ad Solitariam vitam Agentes finds fault with that ubi ille Canon ut è palatio mittaturis qui futurus est Episcopus Yet any thing that is in its nature excessive and inclined to pass bounds is less dangerous when it is limited by some other thing on which it depends than when it is left to its own indefinite appetite or inclination Their new Prelates depend neither upon King nor Kesar but are independent their Prelacy proceeds of themselves this makes it very dreadful like the Dominion of the Chaldeans Hab. 1.7 They are terrible and dreadful their judgment and dignity shall proceed of themselves They were terrible because as Mr. Hutcheson upon the place saith They would be their own carvers in all matters of advantage and honour standing to no law either of Nature or Nations in dealing with a terrified and subdued people but meerly following their own will armed with power If ye say they are not designed Lords nor a Soveraign power ascribed to them in the Bond but they are designed Ministers that is Servants I answer if folk will be beguiled with names the Pope will call himself Servus servorum a Servant of Servants but there is a real Soveraignty given to them when a Jurisdiction over all Presbyterian Ministers to suspend depose and dispose of their Ministry as they please is ascribed to them And the other Prelates deal more candidly in taking the name of Soveraignty and Lordship seeing they have the thing Is it not a strange arrogance that a Presbyter or two or three Presbyters shall claim a stated Jurisdiction over a great multitude of Presbyters who have the same office with themselves they either have that power over their Brethren by vertue of their Ministerial Office as they are Presbyters or by vertue of some other Office not by vertue of the Office of a Presbyter or Minister for then one and the same Office should make one Presbyter a Soveraign and Lord and another Presbyter his subject a Presbyter as a Presbyter cannot have dominion over a Presbyter for one and the same Office cannot make a man Soveraign over another who hath the same Office that he hath If they have this Soveraign power over their Brethren by vertue of some other Office than the Office of a Minister or Presbyter then let them tell us what Office this is if it be not the Office of a Prelate 2. It hath not yet been proven that the Lord gave a Soveraign power and Spiritual jurisdiction to any one of his Ministers no not to the Apostles over the rest Paul Bains in his Diocesan Trial Pag. 73 77. shews that a majority of directive and corrective power such a power as Bishops claim is more than Ministerial And Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government saith Nor do we find that the Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiastick Records but where Papacy was working See Pag. 21. There is but one Lord in the Church Ephes 4. and Christ hath forbidden Lordship and enjoined ministry and serving Luk. 22.24 1 Pet. 5.3 Non requiritur in dominatione humilitas sed ipsa Dominatio prohibetur saith Whitaker Christus de re dominantur non autem de modo dominandi hoc vel illo modo dominantur saith Junius The work of all Church-Officers is a Ministerial work not only Doctors and Pastors but Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the work of the Ministry Ephes 4.12 2 Cor. 4.5 Paul calls himself a fellow-servant with Epaphras Col. 1.7 with Tychicus Col. 4.7 Paul's dignity consisted not in Lording over other Ministers but in labouring more abundantly than others the Apostles claimed no Mastery or stated jurisdiction over other Ministers but they did draw with them as yoke-fellows and fought with them in their Spiritual warfare as fellow Soldiers and wrought with them as fellow-labourers Phil. 4.3 Phil. 2.25 Phil. 2. Rom. 16.3 they engrossed not the power of Jurisdiction in the Synod of Jerusalem to themselves for the Presbyters judged with them the Decrees of the Council Act. 16.4 were Ordained by the Apostles and Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church at Antioch sends Paul to Jerusalem Act. 15. the Officers of the Church at Antioch lay hands on Paul and Barnabas Act. 13.1 2 3. Paul and Barnabas are sent with a Collection Act. 11.29 30. the Apostles claimed no negative in Presbyteries or Synods in Ordination Excommunication c. The Apostles were extraordinary Ambassadors had infallible instructions by their Doctrine and practice did shew the Platform of the Church were not limited to any fixed charge and so might exercise their Ministerial authority in all places where they came they were to lay the foundations of Churches But that they had any such stated Jurisdiction over other Ministers as Prelates claim over Presbyters is yet to be proven for any thing I know their instructing Ministers and Churches in their duty and reproving their sins will not prove it for the Prophets did so and yet they had no stated Jurisdiction over the Priests Paul reproved Peter but had not jurisdiction over him That Timothy or Titus had such a stated Jurisdiction over the Ministers of Ephesus and Creet is yet to be proven that they had the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that the Ministers of Ephesus and Creet had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is not yet proven The Apostle directs them to Ordain but that they are directed to do it alone and not in conjunction with other Ministers is yet to be proven Lay hands suddenly on no man is a Direction applicable to every Minister there are multitudes of Directions given them that cannot be denied to be given to all Ministers and that some Directions are given to them as Prelates and some as Presbyters is as easily denied as affirmed But though it were granted that those extraordinary Officers in founding Churches at first might do some things which ordinary Ministers might not do this would be no warrant for these two or three who were but very ordinary persons to claim a Jurisdicton over the rest Whence have they their power No man can receive any thing of this nature except it be given him from Heaven Joh. 3.27 Let us see their Patent that we may know if it be leill come They must first shew a Warrant from the word for such a Prelatical Sovereignty and then let ut see how they came by it no man should take any Honour in the Church to himself at his own hand he must be called of God
this argument was forced to alledg That all the Presbyters mentioned in the Scripture were Bishops and not Ministers for he saw that he behoved either to lose the Bishop or the Presbyter in the Bible for not only are Presbyters called Bishops but they are made Bishops by the Holy Ghost now to say that the Holy Ghost made them nominally Bishops but not really Bishops is very injurious to the work of the Spirit as if it were productive only of an empty name And it takes away the force of the argument Feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops If they had only the name of Bishops and not the Office the argument would not be cogent for a meer empty name and title doth not oblige a man who gets it to any work And as Paul says That the Holy Ghost made the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Bishops So the Apostle Peter exhorts Elders to take inspection to do the work of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither doth the name of Bishop import any primacy of one Minister over others for the Apostle John taketh the love of pre-eminence or primacy in Diotrephes but Paul commends the desire of the Office of a Bishop which shews that the Office of a Bishop doth not import a primacy But though Bishop and Presbyter be one in the Scripture yet it cannot be denied that afterward the name of Bishop began to be appropriate to some Ministers in eminent Cities and afterward Ordination and then Jurisdiction was by degrees taken from the Presbyters It 's true Presbyterians when they are urged with these humane stories and with the holiness of the Ancients who were Bishops they do not deny but praise the holiness and zeal of these Ancients who were Bishops but neither the holiness of the men nor the Ecclesiastick custom will prove the Divine right of the Episcopacy pleaded for If any would plead for Polygamy from the holiness of Abraham the Father of the Faithful and of Jacob who as a Prince did prevail with God in weeping and making supplication Or from the long continuance of that Polygamy the answer were easie From the beginning it was not so God made male and female So when they plead that Bishop and Presbyter were distinguished in after-times it 's answered From the beginning it was not so God made Bishop and Presbyter one man should not have made them two nor made the one less to make the other greater than he was by Divine constitution Yet it cannot be denied that this is a very plausible pretext for setting up Bishops above Presbyters But their new Prelates have no pretext nor colour imaginable for their Jurisdiction over Presbyters for they pretend to no other name but Ministers and yet they will Lord it over their fellow Ministers and thus their Soveraignty is more intollerable because it hath no kind of colour or pretext for it The last clause in the Doctors Definition against Presbyters is pretty ingenious for Prelates engross the power that Presbyters should have Prelacy rises upon the ruines of Presbyters yet I suppose the generality of those who are for Episcopacy will give the Doctor no thanks for that clause of the Definition but it agrees very well with their new Prelates for at their first appearance in the world they stand in a posture of opposition against the Presbyters of the Church of Scotland they libel them they effectually depose them if not excommunicate them nor can they expect to be absolved till they make these their Accusers their Judges and stand in Judgment to be judged by them and if we may guess by the Libel which the Judges themselves formed the sentence would not be very comfortable There is yet another thing which would make them a very dangerous sort of Prelates and that is That they not only engross this Sovereign and Peerless power over Presbyters but also which other Prelates use not to do they engross a singularity in Holiness as if they and they alone had followed God and were free of Defections which other Ministers are involved in and it 's like this is one of the Foundations of their new Sovereignty that they think themselves though the lesser yet the sounder part of the ministry It puts me in mind of a Countryman who understood not Latine who heard some talking great things that the senior pars Ecclesiae could do he enquired what is he that Sanior he sems to be some great man but except they be Judges themselves they will not be accounted by men of sound minds to be the sounder part of the Church Nay Orestes himself would say it and swear it That the contrivance of this Bond was not the work of a man sound in his mind Non sani esse homines non sanus juret Orestes Any may see with half an eye that this is not a Presbyterial form of Government for in Presbytery the Plurality carries matters and the part is ruled by the whole but here the part and a very little considerable part and a part not in conjunction with the whole but that hath disjoyned it self from the whole takes upon it to govern the whole even as if a little Toe should disjoyn it self from the Body and then take upon it to judge the whole Body and dispose of it at its pleasure It is a wonder that so few men so inconsiderable for number and parts were not ashamed to think of their sitting and judging so many Ministers let be to publish it to the world As their high Court of Justice would have made strange havock of Magistrates and readily dispatched some Presbyterian Minister for Loyalty as Mr. Love was dispatched in England to be a terrour to others so this Ecclesiastick Judicatory in all appearance if Ministers had been such fools as to have owned them would have made great havock of Ministers for a few weak men not sound in their Principles and transported with Passion and Impatience and possest with a Conceit of their singular Purity and Zeal and usurping a pre-eminency over the generality of Ministers and taking on them to be their Judges and talking of no less than deposition before they were in any capacity to depose would have made a very Kittle-Court It 's a sad spectacle to behold many through ignorance and blinding humours running into the same evils which they in words disclaim They in words disclaim Independency and yet really make the people and not Church-Officers to be Rulers and guides to direct Ministers what to preach and do and to depose them if they obey not these directions They who called themselves the Council of the Army which was broken at Bothwel-Bridge were highly displeased with the indulged Ministers because the secret Council had sent instructions to them though the indulged Ministers did not accept of them and yet these same persons took upon them to prescribe to those Ministers and Preachers that were with them