of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
Prelacy this order is confounded The chief Officers of this Church are the Magistrats Commissioners to Church and State whereas Church Officers are given by Christ as Mediatour to his Church as a Church 1 Cor. 12 Ver. 28. 3. The actings of civil and Ecclesiastick authority are thus confounded Spiritual church Rulers Act onely in Spiritual matters by Gods appointment and civil Rulers there immediat proper Acts are only in matters Civil But here Church Officers are Parliament Commissioners and civil Rulers in the high commission do excommunicat Againe in the 2. place This Erastian Prelacy confounds these two powers in their causes which are wholly diverse 1. The efficient cause is diverse God as Creator is Author of Magistracy Rom. 13. But Christ as Mediatour appoints Church Government Matt. 28 18. But here the Magistrat qua talis is a suprem Church Ruler And thus is supposed to have his power from Christ as Mediator and Head of his Church Which is ane opinion fully confuted by those who havewritten against Erastus particularly Mr Gillespie in the Aarons Rod. 2. They differ in the material cause the matter on which the two powers do act are diverse Ecclesiastick power doth act in the exercise of the Keys the administration of the Word and Sacraments having this for its proper Object and matter The civil power consists in the civil and secular Sword the one reaches the inward the othere the outward man But in this Erastian Prelacye the Sword and Keys are made one promiscuously used and put into the same hands 3. The two powers differ in their formal cause the civil power is put forth in political punishments the Ecclesiastick in spiritual censures But here the same power is the first Radix and Fountaine of Spirituall Censures and Civil punishments and gives them their formal essence and being as such Finalie The proper immediat end of Civil power is the Temporal External political peace of the commonwealth Rom. 13. 1 2. 3. But the proper end ofEcclesiastick power Is the Churches Spiriual good and edification as such Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. But here the Magistrat quatalis being the Churches head these ends are Confounded These and several such like arguments are made use of by our writers against Erastus which doe fully evince the unlawfulnes of this Erastian prelacie Whosoever shal peruse Apollonius His jus Majest Circ Sacr the jus Div regim Eccles the Aarons rod wallaeus against Vtenbog and such like will find this abundantly clear To shâ—…t up all with One word more Ther are these 3. horride absurdities in relation to Church government which the premised mould of this Erastian prelacie will necessarly inferr 1. That a man may be borne not only a Church member but a Chief Church Ruler Nay that a Heathen and a man that never professed the true religion but lives and dies ane ingraind enemie to it and so hath neither mater nor forme of Church membership may be a Chieff Church officer For his Majesties present authoritie herine acknowledged by our prelats and which is the Fountaine of their power is the proper Croune dignitie of all that ever shall possesse and wear it and so here is a monstrous Church officer who 1. hath no qualifications of any Church officer whom ever Christ appointed 2. A Church officer who is not Set in the Church which is the essential marke of all Church officers 1. Cor. 12 28. for that supposes he must be a Church member A 2d absurditie is this That Children and women who may have a lawfull lineal right to the Croun may be Church officers Yea the Fountaine of our prelats authority and of all their Underâ—…ings and the chieff governoure of this Church and thus they who are forbidden so much as to speak in the Church shall be Chieff Church Rulers and likewayes such as have not the use of Reason 1. Tim. 3 5. 1. Cor. 14. 34 35. A 3d. absurditie is That the Church government upon earth may be Monarchical and that One man may be her Supream head legislator And architectonick Monarch and Ruler for aquatenus ad omne valet consequentia Upon the same ground that the Suprem Civil Ruler is Chieff head and Ruler over the Church in his dominions the Church in all other places being a body of the same nature Should the Christian Church be contracted within his dominions he were her Supreme universall head And it were so if his Civil dominion should be extended over all the Churches By this same reason of his headship over One he may be head over all and exercise ane arbitrary at least a legislative power over all her ordinances and officers And if this will not Clearly set the popes Treeple Croun upon his head and disowne all that ever the protestant Churches have writen and acted against his blasphemous Supremacie let common discretion judge Ambrose Epist 33. ad valentinianum imperatorem Saith noli gravare imperator ut putes in ea quae divina sunt aliquod imperiale jus habere opliticorum tibi munerum jus concessum est non Sacrorum Grieve not O Emperour so as to think that you have any Imperial authority over these things which are divine the right or authority of politicall offices is committed unto thee but not of Sacred CHAP. VII The Informers deceitfull shifting and obscuring the true State of the Question anent Episcopacie and flinching from the point debatable discovered Severall wayes He declines a direct pleading for prelats civil offices Yet offers some arguments defence therof Wherin his prevarication and Contradiction to himself is made appear TO come now to examine what this new Dialogist hath produced in defence of the present prelacie established amongst us And to examine his answers to our plea against it We shall not stand upon the trifling debate about the personal good qualities of some that have been prelats with which Hee prefaces this Dialogue it being altogether extrinsick to the Question anent the lawfulnes of the office it self And would be no argument in our case against him as this man cannot but acknowledge else Hee must give up the cause upon his concession of the Unquestionable eminent pietie and integritie of many burning and Shining lights who have been the Lords Constant witnesses against prelacie That which is here mainely considerable Is his prevarication in Stating the Question anent prelacie viz. Whither the ancient Bishopes had a Superioritie over other Ministers wherin he utterly â—…ches away from the pointe debeatable 1. In making this the State of the Question what Bishopes were in the primitive Church wheras the true State of our Question is whither the prelat now existent in this Church be a Scripture Bishop and consonant therunto Or ane officer appointed by Christ in his house Yea or not And not whither there have been Bishops or such as we now have in the ancient Church The Question is not of the mater of
Hieronimus Primum quo Ecclesiae communi presbyterorum concilio gubernabantur Secundum quo studia in religione facta sunt ac dictum est in populis ac non corinthisolum c nam quum primum illa corinthi dicerentur adhuc communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur ut patet ex icor 5. 2. cor 1. tertium demum quo unus de presbyteris electus caeteris fuit superpositus Atque haec singula tempora suam ut cum vulgo loquar latitudinem habuerunt Ierom distinguishes Three periods of time 1. When the Church was governed by the Common Council of presbyters The 2d Wherin there were divisions in religion and it was said among the people not at Corinth onely I am of Paul c for when these things were said at Corinth the Church saith he was as yet governed with the Common Council of presbyters as it appears 1. Cor. 5. and 2 Cor. 1. The 3d. and last wherin one chosen out from among the presbyters was set over the rest And every one of these times saith he that I may speak with the vulgar hade their own latitud here in this one judicious account of this learned author our Informer might have seen his error and the violence which he offers to jerome words for jerom drawes his proofes for the first period from many texts of Scripture from Phil. 1. Act 20. c when Paul took his last farewell of that Church never to see their faces more Yea he drawes his proofes from John the Surviver of all the Apostles for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and in relation to the Churches being governed by their Common Councill And as to the choise of the constant president he addes quod autem postea unus electus that their was one afterward chosen to preside for the remedie of Schism c and to be Episcopus preses this period he fixes after Iohns time and so after all the Apostles 2. Wheras the Informâ—…r following Downam defens lib. 4. cap 3. Sect 10. alledges That the Presbyters in jeromes senc did in the beginning of the gospel govern the Churches Modo privato in a privat way in foro conscientiae feeding with the word and Sacrament the Apostles themselves by thâ—…r own presenc supplying the roume of Bishops and that thereafter Bishops were set up by them to prevent schism among Presbyters I answer He will assoone squize water from a flint as this meaneing out of jeroms words Fori jerom speaks of a frame of government yea a divine frame which postea and Paulatim afterward and by degrees came to be altered and changed but this privat government of Presbyters in foro interno was never changed 2. jerom in speaking of that government which was afterward changed and by degrees proves its divine right from many scriptures as a Dispâ—…sitio divina or a divine appointment Now I beseech him did the Apostles first practise a divine fâ—…ame of Government and then changed it into a human custome which is the Character that jerom puts upon the Episcopacy which afterward came in will any of common sense or discretion say so Far less so learned a man as Ierome was 3. If the Apostles themselves did supply the roum of Bishops before the change which Jerome speaks of then Ierome could not say of that period of time before the change that communi consilio Presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur the Churches were governed by the common Council of Presbyters but according to this gloss of his words before the change the Government was episcopall But so it is that jerom sayes idem episcopus Presbyter the Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same by divine right and that before the change which came in by a human custome which he distinguishes from that dispositio divinâ—… or divine frame which first took place the Presbyters Governed theChurches by common Counsel according to divine appoiniment 4. If the Apostles upon their with drawing or the increase of Churches set up Prelats let the Informer shew me why and how Ierom could draw his proof for the identy of Bishopes and Presbyters from Act. 20. Where Paul was taking his last farewell of the Churches was he to supply the roume of a Bishop by his presence with them when never to see their faces more how could Ierome plead for the divine right of Presbyters Episcopal Scriptural GospelGovernment from Paules calling them Bishops at his last farewell and committing the whollGovernment to them if this had been his meaning Besides were not the Churches increased aâ—… this time why then were noâ—… Bishops set up since this man holds the increase of Churches to have grounded such a necessity of Prelacy Nay since Jerom drawes his proofes against the Prelats divine right from the 1 Pet. 5 And from John could he suppose that this was but the beginning while the Apostles had the power still in their own hand Againe our Informer would doe well to resolve this doubt how Jerom could call a Government which he asserts to be brought in by the Apostles according to Gods appointment a human custome opposite to the Lords appointment Or how could this answer Jeroms scope to prove Presbyters to be one with Bishops to say that the Apostles first governend them episcopally themselves and then set up Bishops over them And how will he make this corresâ—…ond with what Jerom sayes as to the originall of this change viz. the studia in religione or factions in Religion Will the Informer say which is his own argument afterward that the Apostles immediat episcopall Government had influenc upon this Schism Was not likwayes the Schism at Corinth from which this man drawes the change in Jeroms sense long before severall of Jeroms proofes from 1 Pet. 5 Act. 20 And from John for the divine warrand of this common Government of Presbyters And was this the change which Ierom speaks of as toto orbe decretum postea or a change afterward through the World Appage inneptias 3. As for what he adds That Ierom drawes the Alexandrian Episcopacy from Marke which he compleans that Mr. Durhame and Smectimmuus take no notice of Ans. Wee have showen already that it is not worth the noticeing in this matter and any notice can be taken of it makes rather against him then for him for if Marke was ane Evangelist in the strict sense as Ierom calls him he doeth as chamier answers Bellarmin in this point cut him of from the Series of Bishops properly so called The Informer must grant this or contradict what he said before of the inconsistency of these offices in a strict senc in on and the same person for he said nothing against this consequenc Timothie is called ane Evangilist in astrict sense ergo He could not be a Bishop Now I say Ierom calls Marke ane Evangilist for he tells us that a Marco evangelista from Marks the Evangilist the Presbyters at Alexandria set up one
about his ministry and the duty intrusted to him c. Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon and summes it up thus Decernit itaque praesens Canon ut si quis Episcopus vel Presbyter ad docendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit suum munus non implea segregetur The present Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath received imposition of hands relating to teaching and fulfilles not his office that he be set aside c. Where its evident that he makes the Bishops ordination or imposition of hands relative unto the great duety and office of preaching the gospel aswel as that of the Presbyter and accordingly expoundes the Canon The XXXIX canon intrusts the Bishop with the Charg of the peoples soules in correspondence with the preceeding In the forecited cap XII Photii we are referred to the Syn. Carthag can CXXIII Syn. VI. can XIX LXIIII. See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can XIX quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis in omnibus quidem diebus sed praecipue dominicis docere pietatis rectae rationis eloquia ex divina scriptura colligentes intelligentias c That all such as are set over Churches on all dayes but especialy on the Lords dayes most teach the oracles of piety and pure religion drawing instructions from the divine scriptures c Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituuntur propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse eum cui praesunt populam semper docere multo magis in diebus dominicis c That is The Bishops are constitut teachers of the Churches and therefor the canon sayes unto them that its absolutely necessary alwayes to teach that people over whom they are set and much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from ther work c. So that our non-preaching or seldom preaching prelates who by a new consecration forsooth superadded unto their Presbyterial ordination to preach the gospel get a bill of ease from this great duety to act state games except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit to supererogat stands arraighned stigmatized and deposed by the ancient Canones as unworthy of any office in the house of god Vide can Apost conc general partic Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan cum Balsam comment pag. mihi 39 116 117 121 207. Unto this account and censure of antiquity and of the ancient canons past upon our non-preaching prelates I wil here subjoyn a remarkable passage of a learled divine whose praise is in all the Churches Whittaker de Eccles. contr 2. cap. 3. being about to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument Pontifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia Nam Ecclesia non potestesse sine episcopo The Pope of Rome is no true Bishop therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church because the Church cannot be without a Bishop But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fellowes he addes disputo ex eorum placitis That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop propter praecipuum munus episcopi saith he quod in illo desideratur because of the Chief office of a Bishop whcih is wanting in him And what is that olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesiam nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fideles erant Olim hoc ad se pertinere praecipuum suum munus esse putabant ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent adeo ut monstri simile esset per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentos episcopum aliquem in ecclesia esse qui aut nollet aut non posset populum docere that is of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church and none were made Bishopes who were not faithfull in this office of old they lookt upon this as the Chief duety incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them so that fore more then six hundred Yeares after Christ it would have been lookt upon as a monster if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people He addes That all the Apostolick Bishopes were such And that the Apostle requires it in a Bishop that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach 1 Tim. 3 2. hoc est saith he non ejusmodi qui curet â—…antum det operam ut alii doceant hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere Not such a one who is diligent onely to provid others to teach and gives this authority to others But who is himself sufficient to teach others This he proves because the Apostle is in that place shewing how the Bishop most be indued and gifted befor he be chosen and that therfore by being apt to teach we most understand a personal care and ability and not a deputed care quis enim hoc praestare non posset saith he who is he who may not perform this This he further cleares from 2. tim 2. 2. where the Apostle injoyns Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men qui essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves able to teach others Reprehending Turrian and with him our Episcopal men in interpreting that first passadge of a deputed care as to teaching And shewes that the old interpreter translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doctor or teacher And a doctor saith he is such a one as can teach himself Thereafter he cites Oecumenius and Chrysostom thus expounding the premised scripture and even soom of the popish scoolmen as Aquinas upon this text who cals this the proper work and duety of a Prelat And shewes us that Aquinas pertinently applyes to this purpose that passage Jer. 3. 15. I wil give Pastors according to my own heart who shal feed yow with knowledge and understanding And that Cajetan and Catharinus do thus expound this text In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head is fortified and confirmed 12. As in other points of difference so the ancient Bishopes were as farr from our Prelats fastuus pompe and sumptuus grandeur which they assume Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum tells us of their tenuitas edendi potandique parcissime indumentorum vilitas c. Their spare eating and drinking their meanenes of apparrel their lovely countenance as that which commendes them to God and his true worshippers Paulus Samosatenus his fastuus pompe
abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto are examined CHAP. I. Atwofold state of the Question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacie in either or both these Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it That Prelacie is abjured in the National and Solemne League and Covenant proved at large And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon the present and succeeding generations THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold 1. Whither the Prelacie now established by Law in this Church be abjured in the national and solemne league and Covenant 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it yea or not Wee shall a litle touch For the 1. Our National Covenant sworne by King Iames in the the year 1580 and by the Estates of this land and many times thereafter solemnlie and universally renewed both by our Church and State doth clearly exclude Prelacie The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacie and wherein our obligation lyes are these 1. In General wee professe to believe the word of God to be the onlie rule the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth as then received in this Land maintained by sundrie reformed Kirks States chiefly by our own Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine and especially all kind of Papistrie in generall particular heads as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie disowned upon this ground and vowed against as contrary unto the word of God and the gospel of Salvation contained therein Wee renounce the Popes worldly monarchie and wicked Hierarchie and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against the word of God 3. Wee vow to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine faith religion Discipline Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine and Discipline of this Kirke and upon our Eternall perill to maintaine and defend the same according to our vocation and power all the dayes of our life Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacie is evident these wayes 1. All doctrines contrary unto or beside the word of God are here rejected and disowned All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel recived and believed by the Church of Scotland and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against Gods Word But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God both in its Diocesiâ—… and Erastian mould as hath been proved at large And we heard that this Church of Scotland since it received Christianity did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine never knew a Prelat Ergo Prelacie in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie whereby the Prelatick Government is most clearly pointed at which is evident thus 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall this man will not deny it is by Arch-Bishops Bishops Primats Deans c and it being distinct from his Monarchie for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough and moreover it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it that assemblies and the body of this Protestant Church entertained assemblies declaring that the Word Bishop was not to be taken as in time of Papistrie And Iohn Knox whose sense and Judgement herein was certanlie retained and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers accounting Prelacie to have quid commune cum Antichristo Ergo Prelacie is here vowed against simpliciter and in it self considered 2. If he grant a hierarchie to be here abjured sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke ergo So must a prelacie or hierarchie be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio as thus brought in whither by the Pope or any other 3. This hierarchie is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrarie to her pure Doctrine Now as we shall shew the Discipline which this Church then owned was Presbyterian So that that Discipline or Hierarchie which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government is here abjured but so it is that prelacie ex se sua natura stands thus opposit unto it ergo by the hierarchie all prelacy is abjured 3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we professe to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline as well as her Doctrine and vow and sweare adherence unto both Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church was Presbyterian Government or discipline Is evident these wayes 1. Discipline by generall assemblies and Synods having compleat parity of all Ministers with a joynt decisive suffrage is Presbyterian Discipline but this was that Discipline owned by our Church For her first Nationall Assembly compleatly Presbyterial in its mould was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 1580 When this Covenant was sworne there were many assemblies exercising their power 2 That is presbyterian Discipline which did judicially condemne prelacie as having no warrand in the Word and ownes no Church officers as lawfull but pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons But so it is that this was the judiciall decision of our generall assemblies long before this Covenant for the first book of discipline containing the Basis of presbyterian Government was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie layes down a mould of Presbyterian government And therafter in the assembly at Dundie Anno. 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Prelat was particularly condemned by a solemne act and abolished as unlawfull and void of Scripture warrand ordaining under paine of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside as ane office to which they are not called of God and cease from preaching and administring Sacraments under hazard of the same Censure or using the office of a Pastour till they receive admission de novo from the generall assemblie Now in the nationall covenant this existent discipline being sworne to be maintained who can say but that Prelacie is most formallie abjured therein Especially if it be considered that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn at which timethese
things were so fresh recent 3. That discipline which the takers and framers of this covâ—…nant at the taking of it and in pursuance of its ends did carry on and establish that discipline it must needs include and engadge unto in their sense but that was Presbyterian-government For to omit many preceeding discoveries heirof mentioned in the Apology in the year 1580. The assemblie after their judiciall declarator that Prelacie is contrary to the word of God sent Commissioners to the King to desire the establishment of the book of policie by ane Act of Council untill a parliament were conveened and what this book of policie contained we did already hint Then in this same year the national covenant and confession is sworn by the King and Council In the assemblie 1581. it is subscribed by all the members and the Act of the Assemblie at Dundie explained And it was again judicially declared that the Church did thereby wholly Condemne the estate of Bishops as they were in Scotland At which very Nick of time the Confession of faith Sworn before in the year 1580. is presented to the assemblie by the King and Council Together with his Letter to Noblemen and Gentlemen for erecting Presbyteries Compleatly through the nation and dissolving Prelacies all the three viz both the King the Estates and the assemblie fully agreeing in this judgement as to Church government and this oath for its maintenance And according to this joynt authoritative determination of Church and State Presbyteries were erected Likwise in this assemblie according to the forsaid joynt conclusion the Second book of discipline containing the mould of Presbyterial Government and likewise this National Covenant and oath for its perservation are as the two great Charters of our Churches government and liberties insert into the Churches records ad futuram rei memoriam And that posterity might not be ignorant of the discipline sworn in that covenant Upon which and many such like grounds the Assemblie 1638 did again judicially declare this sense of this National Oath which accordingly was received with ane expresse application to prelacy and the other Corruptions attending it and taken by the whole land with a full concurrence of the civil Sanction and authoritie Anno. 1640. The 2d Great engadgement pleaded against prelacie is that of the Solemne League and covenant Wherin we vow the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches In the Second Article Wee sweare the extirpation of poprie and prelacie Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries c. And all Ecclesiasticall officers depending on that Hierarchie of whatever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness Which engadgement hath been likwise taken by all rancks by Parliaments Assemblies and the body of the people Now that the Prelacie at this time established is abjured in this engadgement is these wayes Evident 1. Prelacie being razed in Anno. 1638. according to our national covenant and ane engadgement being framed of adherence to the Religion established in Doctrine worship discipline and Government in opposition unto all innovations formerly introduced and upon both grounds Presbyterian government in its exact paritie being sett up and judicially enacted both by Assemblie and parliament that the Solemne league must needs strike against Prelacie is in this apparent because this league is clearlie referable to the great ends of the national covenant as it stood then established explained and Sworne by this whole nation and therfor is ane accessorie engadgement commensurat unto and to be explained by the preceeding and consequently none can doubt that it strikes against prelacie and engadgeth to Presbyterian government who knowes how former engadgements stood 2. The preservation of the Doctrine worship Discipline and goverment then existent in Scotland referring to the then establishment therof in opposition to the former prelacie and all its corruptions It s evident that all sort of prelacie whatever corruption in Government is inconsistent with Presbyterian simplicity and parity is here abjured and covenanted against As we engadge the preservation of the Doctrine and worship as then reformed from Prelatick innovations so likewise we sweare to preserve our Churches ancient and pure discipline as it stood then recovered from prelatick encroachments That discipline government is here sworne unto as the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland which the Church and State of Scotland at this time established and owned But so it is that that was Presbyterian government then fully ratified both by Church and State Ergo the preservation of Presbyterian government is sworne and by further consequence that government which was by Church and state extirpate as abjured in the nationall covenant and contrary unto this Presbyterian frame was likwise abjured and covenanted against in this league But such was prelacie Bishops Arch-Bishops c ergo Again 3. The great ground upon which our adversaries deny the national Covenant to strike against prelacie is that they hold that the then existent discipline to which in that Oath we vow adherence as the discipline of this Church was not Presbyterian government that King Iames did not own it Ergo by ane argument a contrariis and ad hominem since its undenyable with them that de facto Presbyterian government was now enacted ratified established and sett up both by Assemblies and King and Parliament that goverment we must stand oblidged unto by the solemn league as the reformed discipline and government of this Church and contrarily that government which was then de facto by assemblies King and Parliament razed as inconsistent with Presbyterian government and as abjured in the nationall Covenant that government wee cannot deny but the solemne league stricks against But so it is that prelacie was at this time razed by Assemblies King and Parliament as inconsistent with the nationall covenant and Presbyterian government then established ergo this solemne league stricks against Prelacie 4. The word preserve here used and the expression of common enemies cleares this further preserving â—…relates to that which one is in possession of the common enemies of this possession in the sense of all both Imposers and engadgers are the Prelats and their Malignant Agents so that the holding fast of what was attained in point of reformation c Presbyterian government in all its established priviledges against Prelats Prelacie and all the incroachements thereof is here most evidently engadged unto 5. That engadgement and oath which they who have set up prelacie in our Church did Cassat and remove as inconsistent therewith that must needs by their own confession strike against it but so it is that our Parliament and Rulers did wholly Cassat this solemne league in order to the establishing of Prelacie Ergo by their own confession it strikes against it They cassat the nationall covenant
him if we could clearly demonstrat from the words of this oath and from this expression that episcopacy is therein abjured must he not grant that this argument taken from their after practice who took it will signifie nothing since it cannot stand good against the sense of the words and the obligation natively resulting therefrom Sure he cannot deny this else he will swallow monstrous absurdities And therefor unlesse he can disprove our arguments which do prove prelacie to be abjured in that oath and by the words in their genuine sense he must grant that this practicall argument will signifie nothing 2. He might have found that the Apologist outshoots the Surveyer and him as also the Seasonable case in their own bow and breaks this argument with a wedge of their own setting for whereas they alledge that about a year or lesse after this Covenant was imposed and taken King James ratified that aggreement at Leith He retorts that at the assembly 1581. which had declared prelacie utterly Unlawfull and without warrand in the word the Kings Commissioner presented to them together with the Covenant subscribed by the King a plot of presbyterys to be erected by him through the Kingdom together with his letter to noblemen and gentlemen to be assistant therein and for dissolving prelacies to make way for these judicatories made up of Ministers and Elders Hence Saith he how could King James intend prelacy by this confession since the self same day a shorter time then half a year wherein this confession subscribed by him and his houshold was presented to be subscribed by the assembly he presented a plot of presbyteries to be erected through the Kingdom Now let our Absolvers Medium come in here would King and counsell have acted so much for presbytery and in opposition to Prelacie in that very day wherein this nationall Covenant was presented by him If he had not judged prelacie to be therein abjured and presbyterie engaged unto And if this assemblies carriage will have any weight in this argument would they have recorded this oath as the Test and badge of this their nationall engagement after they had immediatly before judicially declared against prelacie if they had not looked upon it as abjured therin and understood this oath in a sense opposit thereunto The Informers next reason is that in their strivings with the King to get prelacie away they never used this argument that it was abjured in the nationall Covenanâ—… which they would have done had they thought it to be included in that expression of the Popes Hierarchie This our Informer hath very justly copied out of the Seasonable case What had the Surveyer in all these pages which he cites no new notions to furnish him with that this proctor is still feeding on the old store But to the matter first how I pray runs this argument Ministers pleaded not this obligation at that time with King James Ergo There was no such meaning in the nationall Covenant surely this is a wide consequence 2. this is yet wider we know not of any such pleading at that time ergo there was none besides he might have found that the Apollogist tells him out of Petries hist pag. 448. That Mr. Melvin in anno 1584. writing to divines abroad anent our Church shews them that three years since the discipline of this Church was approved sealed and confirmed with profession of faith subscription of hand and religion of oath by the King and every subject of every state particularly And that pag 570. he shews that when some Ministers anno 1604 were accused by the Synod of Lothian as to a designe of overturning the government the synod presented the confession of faith to them as containing ane abjuration of prelacie and a vow for presbyterian government And that Mr. Forbes one of the impannelled Ministers for holding that meeting at Aberdeen in anno 1605. in his discourse to the gentlemen of the assize shewed that they were bound by the nationall Covenant to mantaine the discipline of the Church and having read it to them he told them that they would be guilty of perjury if for feare or flattery they discernd that to be treason which themselves had sworne and subscribed Who also desired the Earle of Dunbar to shew the King what followed upon the breach of the oath to the Gibeonites and that they feared the like should fall on him and his posterity The Seasonable case pag 13. acknow ledges that Ministers at that time lookt upon themselves as obliged against prelacy by the national Covenant as well as we by the League in plaine contradiction to this Informer As for that which he adds of Beza's intention in writing against prelacie we spoke to it already upon the first dialogue And seeing this man objects to us Beza here again we will offer to his consideration Beza his 79. epistle written to John Knox and dated at Geneva Aprile 12. 1562. Wherein he sayes This is the blessing of God that ye brought into Scotland together with the sownd doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good discipline he obrests him to keep these two since if the one be lost the other cannot long continue thereafter he imputes it to this cause viz the want of this pure discipline that the gospell is preached to many in judgement not in Mercy Then he adds I would have thee my Knox and the rest of the brethren remember which is now as befor our eyes that as the Bishops brought in the papacie so these false Bishops the relicts of papacie will bring Epicurisme into the Church Let them beware of this whoever wish the safety of the Church and seeing ye have once banished is out of Scotland receive it never again albeit it doth flatter with the shew of retaining unity whereby many of the best ancients were deceived See Petries hist. part 3. pag. 376. The Doubter next enquiring what is meant by the Popes hierarchie He answers not all Bishops but these who actually depended upon the Pope and that all Bishops can no more be understood then reformed Presbyters who renounce their dependance upon him Presbyters and Deacons being a part of his hierarchie as the Council of Trent determines Ans. This is already removed when we did shew that prelacy is here abjured simpliciter and absoluty abstracting from this dependance it being here abjured as other corruptions are abjured not mainly or only because the Pope brought them in as the assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638 clears it in their explanatory act and likewise the Apollogist pag. 396. but as a corruption â—…ex se sua natura of its own nature contrary to the word of God and the pure received doctrine of this Church It is His wicked hierarchie as the rest of the corruptious therein enumerat are called his such as invocation of Saints dedications of altars c. Because introduced by him not to distinguish these corruptions from a lawfull dedication of altars
declare their own sense saith he which possibly was not right but how could they oblidge others to their sense who had taken it before the first imposers having given them no such power The Apollogist here told him that this assembly put no sense of their own upon any who took it either before or after but as the representatives of this Church gave a judiciall interpretation of it and by authentick evidences made it appear that this was the sense of the imposers and of the Church of Scotland when it was taken and that such as sware it before with an explicatory addition to forbear the approbation of prelacie untill the assembly should try whither it was abjured in that oath did consequently commit this unto and were accordingly depending upon the assembly to declare the meaning therof besides that the judicial interpretation of this nationall Church her oath did of right belong unto this her supreme judicatory as is said Here the Doubter objects that those who took the Covenant after it was thus sensed by the assembly have abjured Episcopacy To this he answeres that the assembly did intend to put no other sense upon it then the sense of the words and of the first imposers Very true but what then the first imposers having no such meaning sayth he as to abjure Episcopacie the assemblies ground failes and their posterior meaning could not bind against the first meaning This last is easily granted but the great pinch lyes in this how proves he that the first Imposers never meaned it against Episcopacie This he sayes is already shewed but where we must waite it seems for a new pamphlet to get an account of this great proofe The Doubter next alleadeth to purpose that we engadge our selves in that Covenant to adhere to this Church in doctrine faith religion and discipline and to continue in the doctrine and disciplin thereof which is Presbyterian discipline To this he answers That by discipline cannot he meant Presbyterian government Why so because saith he at the first imposing of the Covenant there was no such government in Scotland nor for a confiderable time after Ans. we have made it appear that Episcopacie was judicially declared unlawfull and that both the books of discipline were received which overthrow prelacie and asserts Presbyterian discipline before ever that Covenant was taken and that at the very time of taking it the old mould of prelacies were dissolved and Presbyteries erected both by the King and assembly But how proves our Informer that there was no such government in Scotland at that time because saith he the King for all Ministers essayes to introduce Presbytery yet owned Episcopacy But how proves he this that at the imposing of the Covenant he owned episcopacy did he not owne the assemblies power and the power of Synods presented he not to that assembly 1581 a plot of Presbytries and his letter enjoyning their erection to dissolve prelacies together with the subscribed Covenant how did this own episcopacy let Royalists take notice what an ingrained dissembler this man makes King James in saying that he still owned episcopacy when so palpably disowning it to the sense of all reasonable men And if king James came all this length as to the introducing of Presbytrie surely Ministers essayes with him for this end were very effectuall Besides it s a poor argument to prove that this protestant organick Church was not at that time owning Presbyterian government or exercising it and by consequence that the Discipline as then existent sworne to be mantained in that oath is not Presbyterian to say that king James owned episcopacie Nay in granting these essayes of Ministers for Presbytry he grants that Presbyterian government was owned For sute I am what was their sense and endeavours as to Presbyterian government from the beginning the same were the sense and endeavours of the body of this protestant Church But his 2d answer to the premised objection of his Doubter is ushered in with a thereforâ—… what next therefor the government meant in it must be Episcopacie if any particular mode of government be understood This is well stept out a piece beyond his Master the Seasonable case who hardly comes this length The man that will let us Episcopacie in this Church at that time as the Government imbracd by her must have odd prospectives and of a like quality with these of our Informer which have descryed Diocesian Bishops in Scripture We heard that the Seasonable case grants that Ministers then lookt on themselves as oblidged against episcopacie both by the nationall Covenant and by the word of God pray Sir be tender of these Ministers reputation were they so principled and still owning episcopacie too this is strange yea and owning it and promising to defend it in this Covenant Besides how will he reconcil our Churches labouring now against Bishops acknowledged by him pag. 118. with her practising Episcopacy which he asserts pag. 118. But his answer hath a proviso if any particular mode of government was understood But why will this latetudinarian Informer cast the mist of a hesitating if upon a clear and plaine truth strange Speaks not the Covenant of an existent frame of Government embraced by this Church What! Were they embracing a Proteus was it an existent individuum vagum or materia prima some Embryon that had received yet no forme But how proves he that Prelacie was sworne unto in that Oath Because saith he the Year after the King ratified the agreement at Leith in favours of Episcopacie This we heard before and did shew what an insignificant reason it is from King James practice a year after to inferre what is the sense and intendment of this Oath and the takers of it A topick and reason which none who are solid and rational will admitt Yet the Informer still beats upon this Anvill Besides the Apollogist tells him pag. 15. that this treaty at Leith anno 1571 was opposed and censured by the Nationall Assembly the very next year So that this national Church in her suprem judicatory gave no consent unto but opposed that treaty and whatever recesses from her Presbyterial Government were therin begun But this mans sqeemish eyes stil overlooks what he cannot answer Now remark our Informers profound and subtill reasoning in this point King James did not abjure episcopacy in the Nationall Covenant why so Because the next Year he acted for Episcopacie And when we allege that the Government to which that Covenant oblidgeth was Presbyterian Government which was then existent he tells us that the Government then existent was episcopall And when he is put to the proofe of this paradox against such clear evidences he just recurrs again and tells us for his proof that King James then acted for episcopacie fine circular reasoning this is and the Informer shall thus never want a Medium knows exactly to answer the solidest argument against-him with turning according to the Souldiers dialect asye
thus as our late consession is disownd in relation to several doctrinal points of Christian libertie moralitie of the Sabath free election c so likewise in relation to its principles as to Church Gobernment and Christs appointing Officers lawes and censures as head of his Church his not giving the keys to the civill Magistrat c. Wherein our prelatick party are come so great a length that the late theses from St Andrews an 81 daines that Assembly of Divines whose confession is authorirized by the generall Assembly of this Church with no other name then that of a conventicle 8ly Our Churches case is now worse then when prelacy was introduced by King James The Limitations of Erastianism by the Act of Parliament An. 1592. in relation to her priviledges concerning heads of religion heresy excommunication and censures clear this Next Church-Judicatories were not discontinued but sat upon their old ground and Prelats were restored by Parliament to their civil dignities only Hence 9ly It s clear that this pure Presbyterian Church hath been meerly passive as to all these innovations lately introduced her true representatives or lawfull Assemblies never having consented to this course of conformity as appears by the Assembly 38. Their act anent these meetings at Linlithgow 1606 at Glasgow 1610. at Aberdeen 1616. At St Andrews 1617. at Perth 1618. Which consented to Prelacie All which meetings they demonstrat to be contrary in their frame and constitution to the priviledges of this Church And at prelacies late erection Presbyterian Judicatories and Synods were preparing a Iudicial Testimonie before they were raisd So that the voice of our lawful Assemblies is still heard in opposition to this course since Prelacies erection we have never had so much as a shadow of ane Assembly c. For the 3d point viz. the different grounds which the Presbyterian and prelatick party and this man particularly do plead upon for the peoples adherence take it shortly thus the prelatists do plead first that they are Ministers and in that relation to this Church 2lv That corruptions in administrators will not according to our own principles warrand separation from ordinances 3ly they plead order and union which they allege is broken by peoples withdrawing These are the cheif topicks they insist on On the other hand Presbyterian Ministers plead for disowning them according to the forementioned state of the question first from this that the body of Presbyterian Ministers professours adhering to our Churches reformation principles and priviledges are the pure genuine Church of Scotland tho now fled into a wilderness whose voice we are called to hear as her true Chiidren 2ly that this course of conformity is a meer intrusion on this Church and invasion of Christs Kingdome prerogatives and ordinances subjecting the lawes officers and censures of his Church unto men exauctorating putting in officers without his warrand that Prelats and their deputes consequently have no right to officiat as Ministers in this Chuich Since both the one and the other are arrand intruders upon the same and promoters of this Schismatick destroying course of defection 3ly that our Churches divine right and claim to her priviledges stands fast notwithstanding the present encroachments and invasions thereof and her Childrens obligation of adherence to the same accordingly 4ly That hence it followes because of the nature and tendency of this course of defection that all are obliged to keep themselves free from the least accession to it and therefore to disown Curats both as maintaining principles contrary to the principles and doctrine of this Church and as standing in a stated opposition to her likewise as the obiects of her censure if she were in capacity to draw her sword That the people of God have both corrupt doctrine to lay to their charge beside the corruption Worship and also their going out from the fellowship of this Church and leading the people away from our vowed reformation c. In the 4th place to come to clear ths great point on whose fide the separation stands let us premise these things 1. Every separation is not sinfull even from a Church which hath the essentialls yea and more then the essentialls a man may go from one Church to another without hazard of separation But further in these cases separation is not schism I. It if be from those tho Never so many who are drawing back and in so far as drawing back from whatever peice of duty and integrity is attaind For this is still tobe held fast according to many scripture comands as we shall shew So Elias when Gods Covenant was forsaken was as another Athanasius I and I only am left in point of tenacious integrity 2ly if we separat in that which a Nationall Church hath commanded us as her members to disown by her standing acts and authority while those from whom we separat own that corruption 4. If Ministers their supposed separation be ane officiating as they can have access after a National Churches reformation is overturnd and they persecute from their watchtowers by these overturners For in this case the persecuters separat from them and chase them away 4. There is a Lawfull forbearance of union and complyance with noto ious backsliders in that which is of it self sinfull or inductive to it which is far from separation strictly taken The commands of abstaining from every appearance of evill and hating the garment spotted with the flesh do clearly include this 5. Many things will warrand separation from such a particular Minister or congregation which will not warrand separation from the Church National nor infer it by Mr Durhams acknowledgment on scandal pag. 129. For if scandals become excessive he allowes to depart to another congregation 6. There is a commanded withdrawing from persons and societies even in worship the precepts to avoid them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the received Doctrine Rom. 16. 17. to come out from among the unclean be separat 2 Cor. 6. 17 to cease from instruction that causes to erre from ehe words of knowledge Prev 19. 27. to save our selves from the untoward generation Act. 2. 40 will clearly import this by consequence 2dly This charge of sinfull separation which they put on Gods people supposes many thigs which must be proved as first that the Prelats and their adherents are the only true organick Church of Scotland which is denyed her frame and constitution being such as it said surely the Ministers and professours adhering to her reformation must be the true Church of Scotland tho the lesser number as they should have been if this prelatiok defection had been intirely popish These souldiers who keep the Genâ—…rals orders are the true army not the deserters of the same Either the Church in this Nation as lately reformd constitute and to whose constitution many Conformists vowed adherence was not the true organick protestant Church of Scotland or this partie whose constitution
opposition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of the Lords worke and interest but how is it performd when we thus strengthen their hands in their avowed opposition therunto 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty such as enter into this league when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren wound and offend them and shake off a faithfull Covenant-keeping Ministry 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine worship and union when thus owning false prophets and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge and such as cause Divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnd Prov. 19. 27. Rom. 16. 17 18. 9. How maintain we the priviledges of our Church and her Reformed Government when owning intruding prelats and their creatures as Ministers of this Church and disowning her true Ministers now taking her by the hand This practice is ane approving of Curats call and mission rather then that of presbyterian Ministers which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant Next owning and adhering to Curats in this our case and according to our principles hath an accession to much guilt otherwise such as 1. The owning of a palpably blasted and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time 4. A casting of our selves on tentations of greater complyance 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for Gods worke and denying a sympathy with them yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground 6. A disowning the Ministeriall authority and tearing the commission of Christs faithfull Ambassadours and depriving our selves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours c. 5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists and of our Rulers demanded conformity therin unto the present course of defection will be found to fall under great scripture obligations such as 1. The obligation of persevering in integrity and holding it fast Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawfull and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood establisht this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erastiani me and also as a Disowning of faithfull Ministers 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin exprest Jude 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curats in this case 1. All Direct or interpretative consent to sin is here Discharged 2. A practice otherwise lawfull will on this ground become inexpedient hic nunc We must not eat in the case of offence tho we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions the owning of Curats hath an accession to their sin beyond that of ane apearance or a touch It being both a Deserting the presbyterian Ministry and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy and all the corruption and defection of the time which is therby advanc'd promoted 't is also in this case of competition a deliberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian interest 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty exprest Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice All truth must be avowed practically avowed We must walk circumspectly or exactly as the Word imports we must avow truth duty on the greatest hazard even the smallest mater is great when a testimony is concernd in it were it but the circumstance of an open window Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard And as this testimony must be full so must it also be constant Demas shame is that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ and embrace this present world And beside whatever truth or duty is opposed that becomes the speciall object of this testimony Hence Ministers and Professours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding and people's disowning them and adhering to Conformists is so palpably cross therunto as nothing can be more 4. This practice is inferd from the scripture obligation to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren exprest 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur saith Polanus Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning of calling truth in question of acting with a Doubting conscience or which weakens his plerophory or assurance is here discharged And neither the lawfulness nor Indifferency of the thing it self nor mens Authority commanding it Nor the weakness yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled will warrand the Doing of that out of which offence arises Paul Declares all meats lawfull yet will not eat in case of offence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice is equivalent to any civill Declarator or Law which alters not the nature of scandal Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat doth harden them in their apostacy and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them or may provoke them to act against their light and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty as matters now stand the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinfull 5. disowning conformists will clearly follow from the scripture obligation to turn away from seducers and such as turn aside from Gods way 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evills adhering to these in the last dayes putting among the rest of their black Theta's Covenant breaking concludes his discovery with this grand precept ver 5. from such turn away We must beware of false prophets the concision and of such as walk not according to the received ordinances Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christs sheep do flee from the stranger and hear not his voice Iohn 10 27. 1. All promoters of wayes contrary to the simplicity of the gospel are here commanded to be eschewed 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practicall unfaithfulness as well as false Doctrine Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that practically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away and consequently eschewed the saints must be fortifyed against these that ly in wait to deceive God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and