such like precepts And no wonder for thes simple Gospel times knew no Bishops who watched not over Soules and laboured in the word and doctrine When the Apostle Peter commands Christians to obey civil Rulers He distinguishs the King as Supeream and Governours sent by him that a Chief subjection may be yeelded to the one and a subordinat to the other But nothing of this is heard of in enjoining peoples subjection to Ministers Ane honour must be allowed by Timothey by the people of God consequentlie to elders that rule weil yea and a double honor but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especialy to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine The Apostle in stating a distinction in the degries of honour allowed to elders and in this different character of the one from the other diversifies elders higher lower Now by the same reason upon which Divines doe rationaly build this conclusion it must be granted that the enjoyning obedience to all Pastores promiscuusly and without any Note of distinction will inferr their equal office and authoritie And by the same reason that the Apostle added this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy in this place he should have added in these or some such comands relating to the peoples obedience a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or especialy to distinguish the Diocesian Prelat from other Pastores and expressed it thus esteem them all highly obey them be subject to them that teach and watch over you All your Pastors but especially the Supereminent Pastor or Bishop who hath the cheifinspection and from whom all the rest derive their authoritie Likwayes in enjoining the pastoral duties he should have been especially noticed who had the cheif hand and authoritie therin which is a Topick improven by this informer but nothing of this is seen in Scripture as shall be after more fully cleared 4. Wee find accordinglie A practical Equalitie among Pastores or Bishops in the exercise of this governing power abundantlie held out and exemplified in Scripture The judging and censuring of the incestuous man is by the Apostle enjoyned to the Church Officers or Ministers of Corinth joyntlie 1 Cor. 5. Chap. compared with 2 Cor. 2. Chap. The Apostle all along supposeth ane inherent authority in these Ministers to put forth this grand juridical Forensical Act â—…ydes them for so long neglecting it and shewes its object viz. This person under the formalis ratio of wicked or scandalus Again he shews its nature to be Ajudging or puting from among them and delivering to Satan upon this judging previous thereunto He also shews that this authoritie touches all Church Members not them that are without whom God judgeth but those that are within Now as hee supposes I say ane authority of this Nature and extent inherent in these Church officers so he speaks to them indefinitly and universally all along which were very cross to his Scope If he had set up or allovved the Diocesian Prelat whose sole prerogative this were And the inflicted Censur he calls with the samine indefinitnes A punishment inflicted by many who accordingly are commanded with the same indefinitnes or universality of expression To receave absolve him upon his repentance The exercise of the binding and â—…owsing power being in the representative juridicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church to whom scandales must be delated and to whom the promise of ratification of her juricall Acts in Heaven is made Matth. 18 17. Besids we find the exercise of ordination in a Presbitry 1 Tim. 4 14. And that even in relation to ane Evangelist Timothy The Presbitry here must be a juridicall Senat and meeting for the Office can lay on no hands And ordination is ane hie authoritative juridicall Act. Pauls presence and laying on of hands together with them confirmes their authoritie as being cumulative thereto not privative therof even as his countenanceing of or concurring with our Adversaries pretended Diocesian Prelat let us suppose it in his Act of ordination would not infringe his pretended right herein Ergo. By their own Confession and by paritie of reason it cannot infringe or Impeach this power which is attributed to the Presbitery Had the Apostle in stead of Presbyterie put in Prâ—…at and expressed it thus By the laying on of the hands of A Bishop or Diecesian-Bishop I suppose our Adversaries would have thought the Episcopal power of ordination invincibly demonstrat ther from notwithstanding of Pauls saying 2 Tim 1 6. By the laying on of my hands viz together with the Bishop Pauls extraordinare Apostolicall imposition of hands being no white derogatorie unto the supposed Episcopal ordinarie power now verte tabulas the Apostle sayes by the laying on of the handes of the Presbitry Ergo the ordinary and equal power of Pastores and its equal exercise in ordination is herin convincingly made out Nixt The Prelats monopolizing thus in himself the decisive suffrage of Judicatories is cross many wayes to Scripture For I Its a stepping up in a peice of Diotrephese-lik or rather papal-pride above the Apostles themselves who in Churches constitut did alwayes take alongst with them the advice consent and authoritative concurrence of ordinary Ministers and Elders in Government As is evinced in the premised Scriptures wherin it is convinceingly clear that Paul though ane Apostle of all the Churches indewed with extraordinarie unconfined inspection over the same and Pastor thereof in actu exercito having extraordinary Miracolous-gifts being the Master Builder and Spiritual Father who by the Gospel had begotten both Pastores and flocks of many Churches Yet would neither excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone but put it upon the Church Officers as their duty to doe it by a judicial decisive joynt suffrage Nor yet did he exclud the presbyters in ordaining even ane Evangilist but took in their judicial and presbyterial concurrence And in Act. 15. In that meeting or Counsel at Jerusalem where was a wholl Colledge or Presbitery of Apostles and mett about ane Act or decision of a high Nature wherein was put forth both Adegmatick critick diatactick authority or power in relation to the clearing of that great pointe of truth anent the abrogation of the Mosaicall ceremonies and censuring the opposers of Paul and Barnabas herin who had disturbed the Churches and belied the Apostles Doctrine And accordingly in order to the restoring and establishing truth and order in these disturbed Churches The ordinary Ministers or elders concurr with the Apostles in every step viz In the conferrence disquisition the authoritative decision the drawing forth of the sentence and decree the sending out of the decreeing and censuring Epistle the imposeing of the decrie upon the Churches to observe and keep the same c. 2. This cutts the throate of that juridical forensical joynt decision of Church Judicatories which the Scriptur doth so clearly hold forth Where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the censureing juridiall court drawing sorth a joynt decision or censure Wher
and others owned as such a tradition lib 1. de pecc mer. Basil names four Apostolick traditions signeing with the cross praying to the east anointeing with oyle praying in the standing postur from Easter to whitsuntyd See the Appendix to jus divinum minise Evan prop. 2. The informer and his fellowes make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one But Beza could have informed him de grad 346. that Epiphanius Haeres 75 imputs to him as great heresies these Tenets 1. That he held it unlawfull to offer and pray for the dead 2. That he held that Saincts departed were not to be invocat 3. That there were not fixed fast dayes to be keept 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed because ourpassover is already offered Now if our Informer condemne him for these also we weed care the lesse for his condemning him in the point of prelacy 3. It is certain that the account of the first times immediatly after the Apostles is as to mater of fact very dark uncertain consequently a very slippery rule Hegesi pus apud Euseb lib 3. Cap 28. tells us that immediatly after the Apostolick age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad ant initium caepit Then the conspiracy of wicked error but the seducings of those who delivered another doctrine took its begining Eusebius himself the prime writer from whom in a manner is the wholl of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops and who presents these fragmens of writers out of which our episcopal men gaâ—…her up their proofes in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that worke entered into a dark desert therein he hath no footsteps of any goeing before him but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some litle occasions or some pitty narations which every one in their own time hath left and delivered let any read haumer ane Inglish Bishop his translation of Eusebius wherein this will be found very clear Scalliger prolegom in Chron. Euseb. Saith Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum c. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the reigne of Trajan in which tract Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished let our informer observe this as to Ignatius may be truly called with varrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscur wherin nothinthat is certan hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians except some very few things which the enemies of godlines carches up by the way such as Suetonius Cornelius Tacitus Plenius Cecilianus which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew some things without discretion and choise out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromataâ—…â—…nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus a writer no better Tilen himself a great pleader for the Episcopal cause yet tells us Contr 3 l. 2 c. 2 Not. 39. and c. 3. Note 6 That the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp filled up with petty fables drawen from their own braine That from the end of the acts of the Apostles until Traian's times thereis almost nothing extant which is certain hence he saith occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to faine anything whom even the Apostles times wanted not Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius which may invalidat the credit of his history and his many gross errors therein and in other poynts observed by Scalliger and others How fabulous is that history of Christes Epistle to Agbarus rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Councel of Seventy Bishops at room That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans a Sect among the jewes Eusebius affirms that he wrot it of Christian mmks which Scalliger shewes to be false out of Philo himself in elencho tribaeresii He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proofe In the computation of times Scalliger observes his gross errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle peter but another of the number of the Seventy disciples Besyds many things in his personall cariage and qualities which may weaken the Credit of his History as his presideing in the councel of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrians side Scalliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad p 268 Setts down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors Arrianisme wherein some affirme that he died When he wrote the history he was ane Arian Moreover Admitt his Testimony were abeve all exception yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor is demonstrated from this by Didocl cap. 4. p. 119 that he maks mention of Sozomen who was born ane hundred years therafter Lastly As to the Catalogues of Bishopes which our Informer and his masters befor him exhibit to us from the Apostolick times he might have found them aboundantly invalidat by many of the learned whose judgement and Testimonys are collected by Didocl cap 4 p. 121 122 123 124 c. Which we may well challeng this man to answer Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes 1. That Tertullian Irenaeus and others who make use of this Argument of Succession against hereticks designe only to shew a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way Tertullian saith Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures c. Irenâ—…us in his time speaking of this Succession from the Apostles pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered makes mention of Presbyters opportet adhaerere iis c We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine and with the order of presbitery mentain the word And again therefore we must obey these presbiters who are in the Church who have their Succession from the Apostles as we have showen Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis certum Secundum placitum patris acceperunt That is who with the Succession of Episcopacy have receaved from the father the sure gift of truth thus he l. 4. c. 44. And because this Informer singes their old song who before him will still Shuffle in Bishops when the Ancients speak of Presbyters Let him remarke what he sayes lib 3. cap. 2. Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos c But when wee apeall them again to that
Apostolick tradition it receaves the same answer with what is said as to his calling Apostles Bishops For with Ierome Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custom are all one as that instance clears anent the observation of lent which he calls Apostolica traditio or Apostolick tradition writing to Marcellus and yet writing against the Luciferians he calls it Ecclesiae consuetudo oâ—… a Custom of the Church therefore by Apostolick tradition he meaned not Apostolick appointment for this were ane implicantia in terminus a flat contradiction since he denyes this to these Bishops but only Ecclesiastick Custom upon which he sayes their office was founded The Informers 2d Answer o this exception is with Davenant That by truâ—…h of divine appointinent Ierom meaned Christs express command by Custom the Apostles practise begun by them and after continued For proveing this he adduces the Instance now given anent Ieroms making Apostolick tradition and Ecclesiastick Custome all one Hence he thus senses the words That Bishops were brought into the Church not by Christs express command but by a Custom introduced by the Apostles into the Church and continued in their Successors Ans. 1. This fine conceit maks Ierom reflect oddly upon the Apostles as if they taught one thing and practised another for Ierome proves from their writings that all along they make Bishops and Presbyters one Now if they in practice set up Bishops distinct from Presbyters what Harmony makes this 2. He thus maks him reflect upon Christs express command in relation to government as if it were altered and opon his government Apostolick in saying that it was the ground of schismes How will this man guard against this which he imputed to us before 3. What will Davenant or he make of these Three periods of time in Ieroms discourse observed by learned Iunius and others to clear his words 1. Presbyters and Bishops all one and governing by Common Council all the Apostles time 2. Scismes arising 3. Paulatim and postea in process of time and by degrees a new mould of government projected and immutata ratio the order changed as Ambrose saith to the same purpose Now this glosse of his words will make the Apostolick government and practise not only the rise of scismes but to be Changed for a change its sure Ierom speaks of from the first order of government appointed by the Apostles and making yet the Apostles practise in government to continue the answer contradicts it self as well as Ierome As for the instance adduced it cannot quadrat here in this place when Ierom opposes thâ—… consuetudo or Custom unto disposition of divine truth for the Apostles practise seconded by their Doctrin as the Informer holdeth that both will patroniz prelacy is most formaly a divine appointment and their giveing unto the Churches what they receaved of Lord in their commission and therefore cannot with any shew of Reason be apposed unto a divine appointment as Ierome opposes this Consuetudo or Custom In Fine How wil Davenant or he separat and distinguish that which Jerome cites Act. 20. for the parity of Bishop or Presbyter and to prove Presbyters their common joynt government viz That Paul gave the whol Episcopal Charge to these elders in his last farewell as the Holy Ghosts Bishops not noticing Timothy in the thing How will hee I say distinguish this from ane Apostolick practice and a practice to be continued So that here was in Ieroms sense a Presbyterian practice of this great Apostle a practice founding that Government and to be continued so But the Informer dismisses this discourse of Ierom with some remarkes The 1 is That he speaks at least of ane Apostolick right as in many other his writings in relation to prelacy Ans. wee have proved that Ieroms words in these Tuo places mentioned the clearest account of his judgement in this mater since he is disputing this point ex professo doe evince the contrary his 2. Remark is That suppose he makes Bishops laiter then the Apostles yet he maks them needful to prevent Schism Ans. Ierom onely Narrats rem Gestam or the mater of fact viz. The ground that moved to bring them in but gives not his approbation of it Besides the Informer would take home his own argument here and bewar of making Ierom reflect upon the Apostolick Government and contradict himself in approving of a government as a remedy of schism which he disputs against from Scripture His 3d. Note is That Ierom submitted to Episcopacy and that Mr. Durham sayes that Aerius was condemned for brangling this order to the hazard of union Ans. Ieroms keeping fellowship wiâ—…h the visible Church in his time tainted with this Corruption and which was but then are embrio of that grown Monster now among us is a poor argument to plead for the best and purest and in so far the most considerable part â—…f Minsters and professoâ—…s in this Church heir complying with a Scismatick backslyding parâ—…y introducing this Corruption after it hath been universaly cast out and vowed against and the same may be said of Aerius Neither contradict wee Ierom in this for he maks not prelacy necessary for keeping out shisme as we have alteady told him and we heard that learned Whittaker calls it a remedy worse then the Disease Before â—…e can mke either Ieroms practise heranent or Mr. Durhams assertion as to Aerius bear any conclusion against us he must prove that the prelatick party are the onely visible organick Church of Scotland else Ieroms practise will fortify more the Presbyterians plea against him for breaking down the wall of Gods house and seperating from the Presbyterian Government of this nationall Church But of this when we come to examine the third Dialogue CHAP. XIII The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent ALthough this Informer would make the world believe that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde 1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita during life And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground is Beza's Episcopus humanus or human Bishop whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment Ambrose in his time acknowledges on 1 Tim. 3. That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart proves that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop So he holds
is It is not permitted to Titus pleasure to doe all things alone and impose upon the Churches what Bishops he pleased but he only bides him oversee the Elections as Moderator Paralleling this with Act. 14. 23. where he saith that Paul and Barnabas acted not soli pro imperio that is solely and imperiously to put Pastores upon the people who were not expetiti or electi desired and chosen but only probatos cognitos men approved and known Now let this man say himself doth not Calvin here clearely assert our principles and kill the diocesian Prelat with the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction So that nothing can be hence Inferred but that Church consistories were not then without order and that one did praeside among them for Calvine sayeth on the 7. verse porro locus hic abunde docet nullum esse Presbyteri Episcopi discrimen And he who praesided here was Titus whose Episcopacy we have aboundantly disproved As for that which he tells us Calvin adds that one was in authority over the rest at that time ergo what Had not Paul Barnabas Titus ane extraordinary authority commission for he sayes tunc or at that time wherein these offices did exist but will any think that Calvin could mean a Diocesian Prelats ordinary power which immediatly befor he was disputing against from the text He adds presently nihil tamen hoc ad prophanum tirannicum collationum morem This hath nothing to doe with the profane and tyrranicall Custome of Collations longe enim diversa fuit Apostolorum ratio for the Apostles case and ground was far different from this As for that which he addes of Calvins letters to a Bishop in the Church of Rome anent Episcopacy it self as being of God I can appeall this mans conscience if Calvin thought the Episcopall hierarchie with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction far less the popish hierarchy to be of God and whither he doth not in his Commentaries Particularlie in the places cited speak against the diocisian Prelat as such Besides we shall here tell the Informer that this passage which he cites as in the volume of his opuscul a page 72 upon a search of two several editions hath not been found As for his letter to the King of Pole approveing all the degrees of the hierarchie it is so grosly contrary to Calvins principles and writings that the Informer must excuse us not to take it upon trust from him Especially since he exhibits no part of that letter For his letter to the Duke of Somer set citted by Durel and the more to be suspected as coming from the hands of such ane enemy to his principles anent some fantastick ones fludiing to bring in confusion under the name of the gospell we think it a fantastick inferenc of our Informer to conclude therupon that he calls the asserters of Presbyterian governement such Although in that Epistle there is no express advice to remove Episcopacy what then there is no express advice for removing severall other Corruptions But the Consequence that therefore Calvine did not disowne these Corruptions the Informer himself will grant to be a gross non sequitur And some Considerationes of prudence might move to wave the express touching upon this head at that season when light was but dawning as to a Doctrinall reformation and the scales of the gross cimmerian darkness of popery were but begining to fall off from the eyes of that people Yet when the Informer shall peruse that Epistle again he will find that Calvine Leaves it not altogether untouched when heuseth these wordes habeat sane hoc locum In rebus istius vitae atqui alia prorsus est ratio regiminis Ecclesiae quod spirituale est in quo nihil non ad Dei verbum exigi fas est non est inquam penes ullum mortalem quicquam hic aliis dare aut in illorum gratiam deflectere that is let this truely have place in affaeires of this life but the Church Government which is spirituall is of a far other nature wherin there is nothing but what most be brought unto the touchstone of the word of God here I say it is not in the power of any mortall to gratify any thing unto others or to decline for their favour A passage which compared to Calviâ—…s principles in point of Church Government doth fully Antidot the Informers waspish extraction from this Epistle For his treatise to the Emperor Charles the 5i anent imbracing of a hierarchy tyed by a brotherly society among Bishops and by the bond of truth and united only to Christ I see nothing discrepant in it to Calvines or Presbyterian principles If Hierarchie be rightly taken and for this if their be indeed such a passage whereof I have no certainty I think we can in no reason suppose Calvine to owne the popish Government even as abstracted from false doctrine since he holds the very Diocesian Bishop to be contrary to the Apostolick Government far more the Hierarchy will any man say that Calvin did owne all the Locuâ—…s of the profane popish orders which are parts of this Hierachy so that Calvin by hierarchy and spirituale regimen doth indigitat the most simple and primitive Episcopacy which the fathers speake of and withall since the embracing of the gospell simplicity and truth which Calvin there desires as he sayes would quickly sned off all Luxuriant branches of humane invention in point of Government and like wayes since Calvin ownes the Church Government set down in Scripture as our pattern which doth as much reprobat the popish hierarchy as the doctrine therein set down doth their errors all this will preponderat towards Calvins meaning only a gospell Ministery which is equally distinct from Bishops in the popish and prelaticall mould As for the difference betwixt the primitive and popish Episcopacy I think there is indeed a great difference we have proved our present hierarchy to be as much different from it and soom what more if its erastian mould be taken in as the Informer must The treatise to Charles the fifth entituled de necessitate reformanda Ecclesia is so Generally cited by the informer without quoting either page or section that himself seemes half convinced of the Impertinency therof For Saravia his asserting that he defended Calvins opinion against Beza he said in this as in the rest more then he could prove For what he adds of Hooker and Durel who assert That Presbytery was settled at Geneva because another Bishop could not be gotten after the popish was away and that it was settled not out of a dislike to the hierarchie but because they were in ane equality and stood so being bent on reforming the doctrine I Answer His Authores in this assertion stand upon a very slippery and sandie fundation What Were there no able men to be Bishop after the popish Bishop was gone and had they not leasure sufficient to doe this
foundation and basis of that tye but begs the question in the application thereof to his case I suppose a Presbyterian Minister should plead this to warrand his officiating among his people in opposition to the Curat incumbent that the people are bound to owne him as their Minister because of this reciprocal â—…ye That the Scripture obligations mentioned by the Informer lyes on him to be faithfull and diligent which while he is endeavouring according to his duty founded on his relation to his people the people are therefore bound to attend on his Ministrie to esteem him love him receive the Law from him and and not to discountenance nor discourage him by withdrawing to another Now let this man shew what he will answer to this pleading and his argument will quickly evanish before his own answer If he say that the tye is loosed let him instruct what that is which has in this case loosed it Sure neither the Magistrates violence nor Prelatick censures according to our Principles and the Doctrine of sound divines when this case is truely stated And if this divine tye stand what will he say Will it not 1. follow according to him that a Minister may be under a standing tye to his people and they to their Minister and yet the people for all this may not be obliged to hear him but another hie nunc and that warrantably without hazard of disobedience to these Scriptures and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare generall argument from the reciprocal tye Sure in some cases the tye may stand and yet the actuall reciprocal exercise or obligation to the exercise of duties may be hic nunc warrantably suspended in very many supposable cases as of Physicall impediments in the people and Minister hostile invasion Pestilence Imprisonment c. 2. If the tye or relation do stand and likewise all things which do immediatly dispose to the exercise of duty then the Prelatical incumbent is in this case an intruder and not to be own'd For I suppose he will not say that a Presbyterian Minister might lawfully officiat in his own Parish after the Curat is setled there for this would quite cross the scope of his Argument Now the Question betwixt the two competitors is which of them hath the prior lawfull and standing tye will he dare to deny that Presbyterian ministers had this and since he cannot shew how it is loosed nor prove it to be loosed this argument will militat not for him but against him Next as for what he cites out of Mr Durham on Revel pag. 105 106. anent this tye It is still extra oleas and nothing correspondent to his purpose untill he instruct that which is the basis and foundation of this Relation in the case of Conformists which he neither doth nor offers to do Mr Durham speaks of a special delegation from Christ of his speciall warrand and appointment to such a man to treat with such a flock Now sure this most be instructed from his Word and Testament as to Curats before he can from this make any shew of Argument For Presbyterian ministers do upon better ground lay claim to this special appointment in relation to their flocks upon which conformists have intruded yet this man thinks these ministers are not to be owned And since this deputation and appointment is with Mr Durham the foundation of the duty betwixt minister and people it must be cleard from the word in the case of Conformists before this passage of Mr Durham will afford any patrociny to his cause Then he tells us Thaâ—… Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded on meer voluntary consent Well let him mark this and then he must acknowledge that it s not meerly the Curats gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre nor the peoples blind consent that will make them Ministers of these Congregations where they officiat What is it then that founds this relation The Scipture-commands saith Mr Durham 1 Thes. 5. 12. Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord. Heb 13. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that most give account c. But will this man deny that Mr Durham speaks upon the supposition of the Minister his having the Ministerial call and mission according to the rule of the Word to ground his pleading these Scripture commands and his special commission to such a people And that he look't upon the Presbyteries mission and ordination and the peoples call together with due qualifications and the visible evidences of Christs call in the person thus admitted as the foundation of this special relation to such a flock according to the Scripture pattern and the order and Government of this Church then established I durst pose his conscience upon the truth of this and whether Mr Durham did ever dream of a speciall relation to a flock in this Church resulting from a Prelates mission in a Method of perjury in opposition to our Covenant and sworn reformation without the mission and ordination of a Presbytry or the peoples call and in a way of intrusion upon the charges of faithfull Ministers violently thrust out by persecuting Prelats the men thus obtruded being for most part such as have nothing that may ground a reasonable or charitable construction of them that they are sent of God but palpable evidences of the contrary While in the mean time the faithfull Ministers are willing to cleave to their flocks and the flocks to them If he say that all the Ministers he pleads for are not such I Answer he makes no limitation of this Argument but pleads the foremention'd Scriptures and Mr Durham's Testimony universally and tells us in the next page that Mr Durham binds the people fast to the Ministers of their own congregations by this discourse he means to the Ministry of all the Conformists As for that passage of Mr Durham's Testimony after cited by him anent the Sympathy betwixt Ministers and flocks and the reckoning that will be made in relation to mutuall duties We think it pleads very strongly for that Sympathy that ought now to be betwixt Presbyterian Ministers and their flocks which Conformists have usurped upon and the mutuall performing of duty to each other upon all hazards in opposition to the Curats intrusion And if Paul aggreaged particularly the Gentiles slighting and grieving him by his particular delegation to them which was even as to the Apostle himself by the imposition of the hâ—…ds of the Presbytry Act. 13. 13. Presbyterian Ministers delegation to their flocks which was in this manner must needs stand and may be much better pleaded upon this ground then that of Curats Who are sent to flocks by Prelats as their own underlings and have nothing like Pauls delegation in their mission So that Mr Durhams arguments and the Scriptures cited by him are
gospel and an enemy unto it Jackson thinks with sevral others that Paul said I knew not that he was the high priest c. ironically it being very improbable that Paul knew not the high priest and suppose it were so he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest because as a judge it was against the law to revile him Therfore saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28. though they understood Paul as excusing himself yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest who carryed so Which saith he is the more probable when it s considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes It s not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas secuta turpis prophanatio Paulum quasi integra vigeret solito honore prosecutum fuisse qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ and vile prophanity attending it that Paul as if the priesthood had been standing intire would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title And having objected to himself that we must not contemn civill Magistrats in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers Inter civiles Magistratus saith he ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet he tells us the Lord will have subjection remain intire Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat solâ—…untur piorum conscientiae ne injustae dominationi pareant c. spirituall government being degenerat the consciences oâ—… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjusâ—… domination But our Informer will say that I thuâ—… set the authors of jus divinum minist anglic by the earâ—… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place I answer they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest buâ—… onely that many think he did 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not is not laid upon this solely nor positivly at all even as a partial but onely as a probable ground And the conclusion it self when admitted will never reach his designe as is above cleared Again admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion civil rule as such being Gods ordinance which is not made null by corruptions so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians Let us next consider how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning since he offers not as I said any argument from these citations but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers In that piece scil Due right of presb page 220. to 256. There are several passages which this man takes hold of as 1. He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached and sacraments duely administrat is unlawfull and vindicats 2 Cor. 6. Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry professors then for Conformists whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church in such a case as this since as we heard he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number and that the backsliders from truth and purity tho the â—…reater number yet really are the Schismaticks And â—…n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship will not infer an absolut separation And his allowing non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation in the case of purer to be joyned with and his admitting a partial separation because of a partial corruption of ordinances Peacable plea page 121. will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words Peaceable plea page 122. doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds who will not go before us and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so Thus page 148. concl 6. he tells us we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church So that its evident that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland nor her worship while withdrawing from Curats in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned viz. page 233. the personal faults of others are not sufficient ground for separation That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin though they knew one of them had a Devil Again page 250. It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth page 253. The Godly separated noâ—… from the Church when the altar of damascus was seâ—… up things dedicat to Idols as Lutheran images are called Idolatry 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation and the cup of devils yet Paul commandâ—… not separation and the table of the Lord was there I answer this is already removed by what is said above as to any conclusion for his cause which thiâ—… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ouâ—… upon these citations 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland to which in this case we are obliged to adhere or 2. If we can prove that according to our Churches Reformation Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland though the persecute smaller number which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy for he sayes that in case of defection truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part Due right page 253. In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to
Presbyterian Ministers and their Assemblies Next Mr Rutherfoords scope is to prove that personal faults corrupt not the worship which wee deny not but as we have above cleared this falls utterly short of reaching his conclusion as to the owning of Curats untill he first prove his forementioned suppositions wherein he begs the question and this principle or assertion of Mr Rutherfoord will plead more strongly for not disowning Presbyterian Ministers untill this Informer prove his suppositions and disprove ours in this debate In a word the impertinency of all his citations here appears in this that there is no reason whereby he can ward of this argument its reaching adherence to Presbyterian Ministers and inferring a conclusion of owning them but it will either first be retorted upon himself or secondly the universality of the argument and the conclusion deduced there from so limited as utterly to irritat his design since he must acknowledge that there may be a Lawfull separation from a Ministry and ordinances altho not polluted by personal scandals And therefore this principle in every case will not infer a separation to be unlawfull far less a non union and he must acknowledge that to argue the unlawfulness of a separation or non-union in every case or meerly from this ground that there is no pollution of ordinances by the personal faults of Worshipers or administrators thereof is a gross petitio principii ignoratio elenchi and which his case supposeth many things which are to be proved as 1. That Conformists are this Church 2. That this practice of disowning them as now circumstantiat is properly a sinfull separation 3. That Prelatists have the best right to officiat as Ministers in this Church 4. That we have no other reasons for a non-union but this pretended pollution of ordinances and that we stand obliged upon this supposition that the ordinances are not thus polluted to joyn to them rather then Presbyterian Ministers And since this principle will prove them all to be Schismaticks who disowne Presbyterian Ministers in preaching the Gospel it will follow therefrom that our Informer is in this pamphlet pleading for Schism or else he must so limit this position as thereby his conclusion against us shall be utterly cut off as is said Fourthly he presents unto us that passage page 254. where he shews That the godly in England tho separating from Bishops and Ceremonies did not separat from that Church and approves their doing so and in keeping communion therwith in unquestionable duties the contrary whereof he charges upon these separatists against whom he reasoneth telling us ibidem that if a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retain the true faith it s to be presumed that God hath some there to be saved that Christ himself is where his ordinances are and some union with him the head that though a privat scandalous brother ought to be cast off yet not an Orthodox Chuch Ans. 1. The Presbyterians have all this to plead for pleoples adherence to them untill this Informer prove that the prelatick party are our nationall organick Church which will be ad Kalendas Graecas 2. Mr Rutherfoord all along states his question as to separation from a Church so and so polluted Ergo he spaks not of a Schismatick destroying Innovating party or a separation from them rather then a sound Church contending against them which would quite invert his scope and arguing and the ground and hypothesis thereof For I pose this man what if a party of acknowledged Innovators cast out the true Ministry and should plead this passage of Mr Rutherfoords for their schism and the peoples adherence to them sure he would charge them with begging the question as we do Consormists in this point and would acknowledge that Mr Rutherfoord pleads nothing for them Fiftly Mr Rutherfoord sayes ib idem We may separat from the Lords supper where the bread is ador'd and from baptism where the sign of the cross is yet we are not to separat from the Church Ans. We may hence collect that in Mr Rutherfoords principles 1. We are to separat from all contagious Worship tho not absolutly corrupt 2. That this is no separation from the Church while there is a purer Church Ministry to be joyned with and to which we were joynd 3. That a fortiori a non-union unto and disowning of a backsliding party who are not our Church is warrantable because of their contagious corruptions especially when as is said the opposition of that party to the true Church is so virulent Mr Rutherfoord tells us there that we separat not from the Church when we profess to hear the word and allow the truth of Doctrine and do not Presbyterian professors owne the true Doctrine of our Reformed Church while hearing and and adhering unto her faithfull Pastors Beside Mr Rutherfoord tells us that there may be cause of non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation as Paul separat not from the Jews till they blasphemed yet saith he there was no cause why people should joyn to that Church before that time since they had the cleaner to joyn with viz. That of the Apostles Ergo in case of a true Reformed Church her being divided and rent by a backsliding destroying party opposing her Authority union and purity introducing Innovations into her contrary to her Reformation and vows and casting out her faithfull Ministry who dare not comply with their wicked course a non-union to them and adherence rather to that faithfull Ministry contending against them is no sinfull separation from the Church nor a separation at all by Mr Rutherfoords doctrine Sure the Presbyterian party are in our principles the cleanest Church to whom therefore Mr Rutherfoords allows to adhere page 253. But here the Informer presents us another passage in that same place to repell what is said viz. that he asserts there is no just cause to leave a less clean Church if true and to go to a purer though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that which he conceives purest Ans. This makes as little for him as any of the rest for 1. He is still speaking of a Church thus intirely less pure in comparison of a more pure But blessed be God their prelatick impurity has not infected all our Church their being 1000 of Ministers professors who adhere to the truth This man will not say that this will plead for a peoples adherence to a party of Schismatick backsliders Intruding upon a pure Church Introducing Innovations into her and ejecting her faithfull Ministry as Conformists are now doing which will be yet more convincingly clear if we consider 2. that Mr Rutherfoord layes much weight upon this that a man is already a member of that Church which is less pure but we cannot be said to be hactenus members of and on this ground under a prior obligation of adherence unto a party of Innovators and
Rectius Instruendum Or A REVIEW and EXAMINATION Of the doctrine presented by one assuming the Name of ane Informer in three dialogues with a certain Doubter upon the controverted points of Episcopacy the Covenants against Episcopacy and Separation Wherein The unsoundnes and in many thinges the inconsistency of the Informers principles arguments and answers upon these points the violence which he hath offred unto the holy scripture and to diverse authors ancient and modern is demonstrat and made appear And that truth which is after godlines owned by the true protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland asserted and vindicated Prov 19. 27 Cease myson to hear the instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge Printed in the Year 1684. THE PREFACE to the reader Christian reader THat which the wiseman long since offered to their consideration who observe the revolving course of providence is ther any thing wherof it may be said this is new hath its signal accomplishment in the renewed collisions of opinions and debeats The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yesterday but as early as the morning of time when he who is a liar from the beginning assaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfulnes of God and having by a lie mad a breach in our first parents integrity by inducing them to believe it instilld his poison into our nature a love of darknes rather then light The eye of the understanding like natures bodily organ when its cristalin humor is vitiat cannot see and receive the impression of its object truth and duty in its lively colours and natâ—… simplicity and if sometimes the clear beames of truth force a passage for it self make some impression upon the perverse dark mind of man O how quickly is that litle Victory lost this begun signature obliterat by the rebellious will affections The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God nor can be hence truth is detaind in unrightiousness convictions stiffled and the convincing spirit of God counteracted and grieved Hence all the renewed pleadings for discoveries of truth begets in most men by a wofull antiperistasis nothing but renewed contradiction spurnings against it While as the suns vigorus influence upon the vapors of this dull earth by its irradiations it attracts and condenses thick foggs dark clouds of peruerse disputings the more to obscure it self Yet a holy seed there is and hath been in all generations children of light and of the day whose work and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth who under the conduct of Michael that great prince who stands up for his people truths sincere lovers and asserters have from the beginning warred this good warfare against that old apostat and his followers So that the warr which John saw in heaven betwixt Michael and the Dragon was not then only begun but a new battel and encounter of that old warr proclaimd in paradise betwixt the seed of the woman and the serpent All men are inrolled in one of these two armies imbarques in one of these interests according as they are regenerat or unregenerat as they have the seed of God in them or not discovries of truth have various effects accordingly either of more intense love or violent hatred as the sun shining upon the flowers dunghil draws equally forth a sweet stinking savour The erecting of this royal stand art of Zions King and lawgiver ingadges his faithfull witnesses to flow unto it and come under it and excits such who have but the spirit of that world in them to a counter-muster against it Who would not have thought that the longed for appearances of that Immanuel and desire of all nations that eternal word and wisdom of God in the flesh should have put an end to all rebellion of wretched sinners agaâ—… him but it never grew more then by his convincing discovries of himself Eternal truth and holines suffred contradiction of sinners against himself he oft silenced enemies reasonings not their malice and the most admirable actings of his effectionat condescending love to men the giving of himself to death for them was intertained with the most virulent and hellish eruptions of their wrath against him in murthring him The rulers opposed this great ruler of Israel the learned scribes and rabbies with all their literal knowledge of Moses and the Prophets could not yea would not see and acknowledge this great Prophet the covenanted people would not receive this great messenger of the Covenant and they who boasted to be Abrahams seed rejected this promised seed could not see him when among them but hated him whom Abraham saw a far off and rejoyced in the discovery Yet this wisdom of God was then and still is justified of all children of God and such as are of the truth will see its beauty throw all the mists of mens calumnies and contendings against it The angry cloud wherwith God hath now of a considerable time covered the daughter of Zion in our land challenges in this as much as in any thing else our mournfull observation simpathizing compassion that men have taken the boldnes with perverse disputings to infest her true sons and children to assault her precius ordinances and priviledges and with a barefac'd impudence to indeavour the removal of the ancient land marks which our fathers have set nay which the great God hath established Yea to cajoll us with poor sophistry into a carless disregard and abandoning of the magnalia Dei the great things of gods Law important truths and dueties as if they were meer trifles and indifferencies to cast the aspersions of supercilius scrupulositie upon true zeal for God of rebellion upon true loyalti and faithfulness to the King of saints of devisive humor upon sincer indeavours after the union and true order of the house of God is it not to put light for darknes and darknes for light bitter for weeâ—…t and sweet for bitter yea cruâ—… percilius mockrie Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatick pamphleters The authority of the second great moral precept anent the receiving and maintaining of all gods ordinances the doct worsh. disc and governm of his house the weight and importance of the third anent the observation of most sacred solemn oathes and vowes to him for this great end weighes but light in these mens ballances but he whose hand holds the plummet and line judgeth otherwise their ballances are false not the ballances of the sanctuary Their new plagiary divinity depending in a great measure upon the camelion-rule of worldly wisdom and steering its course by the versatil rule of human lawes is calculat for any meridian but that of canaan immanuels land where all must go to his Law and testimony and is pronounced base mettal which is reprobat by that touchston where every pin of the tabernacle must have its samplar from the holy mount ere it get
argument as signifing any thing against us Since the retortion thereof is so manifest and therefore nothing he hath said will impeach Calvine and Beza's impugning of Episcopacy whose impugnations of it will stand to all generations Moreover in this citation of that epist. to Bishop Grindal the Informer hath sued off the half of the sentence viz quod tu igitur coram istam quorundam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamdiu pertulisti reverende vir ineo sane insigne patientiae ac lenitatis Christianae specimen dedisti quo majori c. and neer the close of the same letter Beza faithfully adviseth as the fittest remedy for removing offences ut in legitimo caetu ex uno Dei verbo abolitis semel papisticae tyrannidis vestigiis ea constituatur administrandae Ecclesiae ratio non quae huic vel illi adlubescat non quae veteri aut recenti consuetudine sed quae firmo verbi Dei fundamento superstructae piorum Conscientiis fatisfaciat in eternum perseveret that is that in a lawfull A ssembly from the Word of God onely all the footsteps of popish Tyranny being once abolished that Method of Church Government be established not which shall please this or that person not which is founded upon new or old Custom or the wisdom of the flesh but which being built upon the sure foundation of the word of God may satisfie the consciences of the godly and endure for ever Which rule and mould of Bishops would no doubt cashier and raze to the foundation the diocesian Erastian prelate whom he pleades for yea all the Prelates in Brittain For what he adds p. 87. It may be easily and without prejudice to our cause granted that God by his providence had made him a Iudge The Informer will not owne such ane Atheisticall principle as to deny that the Bishops civil government in England or pretended Ecclesiastick is not the object of divine providence or be so brutish as to conclude Gods approbation of usurping Tyrannes from his permissive providence in reference to their tyranny or usurpation else he will for ever destroy his loyalty and fealty either to the King or his Lordbishop That passage of Calvins letter to Cardinal Sadolet after citedby him p. 88. though admitted is a poor proof that he held Church Government to be alterable Certainly Calvin held the scripture parity to be the most ancient Government Vetustissimae Ecclesiae or of the most ancient Church for such no doubt he held the Apostolick Church to be Beside wee must tell him that this passage upon search is not found and as it is here expressed is very insignificant since by Vetus Ecclesia he may understand the Church after the Apostles time which early began to Corrupt the Government As for Salmasius his retracting his opinion as to Church Government it will no more Impeach the truth it self which he asserts then any other mans defection will weaken the sound Doctrine which he once held Would the Informer take this argument from the Papists if they should plead from the retractiones of protestants and from their writing for popery that the protestant Doctrine were not sound would he not say that their first practise or writings for truth will stand good and witnesse against them in their defection Though it may be a question whither that retraction be reall or not which Durel mentions and the Informer out of him p. 89. Especially this being another of our Informers mute citations which he keeps as he doth the state of the questions in these Dialogues under the Clouds pointing us to no page in that Answer of Salmasius to Milton We will not here stand to shew how that Salmasius eyes were blinded with Court-gifts and pensions having receaved no small summe from King Charles the second for his encouragement to that worke and several learned divines who best knew him think his literature more Considerable then his divinity was solid As for that place of Salmasius in his Walo Mess. c. 4. p. 253. cited page 90. the Intire sentence is Epistolae illae viz quae Ignatii dicuntur natae suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeculi quo tempore primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum Introductus fuit Whatever time this was it appears by what followes that place in Salmasius that about this time Church power began exceedingly to be Corrupted and Bishops exalted almost to ane equality with Christ and men began to plead a jus divinum for them for Ignatius In Epistola ad Trallenses asserts Episcopum venerandum esse sicut Christum quemadmodum Apostoli praeceperunt that the Bishops must be had in veneration as Christ as the Apostles have commanded and he cites the Apostles words but such as do no where occurr in our Bibles And certanly if there be no more truth in that relation anent his retraction mentioned by that author then their is soliditie in that ground of it which he alledges it is not worth the noticing For the confusions in England cannot with any shew of Reason be charged upon Presbyteriall Government which was never yet settled there And this Informer dare not deny the blest effects of truth and unity godlines which it hath had in this land as is acknowledged by Churches abroad and particularly in that passage of the Syntagma confessionum which he cites in the last dialogue If Blondel in callng Episcopacy most ancient doth except the more ancient Apostolick times which he pleads as exemplifying Presbyterian parity he gives it but the spurious after-birth of humane antiquity The same we say as to his passage cited out of Moulin p. 90. and if something of the humane proestos were granted to have creeped in ere Iohn went oft the stage will that commend it any more then that mistery of Iniquity and love of preeminence which the Scripture assures us was in Paules time and his Surely by no meanes Besides we must here again tell our Informer that this Citation out of Moulen is among the rest of his Mutes since he hath neither noted booke nor page But now from our opinion of the unalterablenes of Presbyterian government and our acknowledgment of the bringing in of a Proestos so early the Informer will involve us he sayes in one of Two great absurdities Parturiunt montes What are these the 1. is That that generation who lived shortly after Iohn was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles minde anent Presbyterian parity else they would not have adventured to change the government But this absurdity is easily discussed for it lights equally upon the Instance already given of Israells defection in worshipping the golden Calf fourtie dayes sooner then 40. years or more after the holy patterne of doctrine shewed them upon the mount How often doe we find suddener changes in scripture of the divine Institutions How quickly after Ioshua and the elders did all Israell depart from Gods way and ordinances How quickly
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
God all duties we are tyed to in his holy law 4. They are universall engadgements all were given up to God in them representatives and members of Church and state 5. perpetuall and reall as that betwixt David and Ionathan 2. Sam 9 7 21 7. That betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites Ioshua 9 18 19. And that Covenant Dent 29 14 15. Secondly the binding force of theseengadgements appears in the subject they affect as first our Church in her representatives and in their most publick capacity the solemne assemblies in both nations 2. State representatives Parliaments thus all assurances are given that either civil or Ecclesiastick lawes can affoord and the publick faith of Church state is plighted with inviolable tyes So that they must stand while we have a Church or state in Scotland both as men and as Christians as mmbers of Church State under either a rereligious or civill consideration we stand hereby inviolably engadged and not only representatives but the incorporation of Church and State are under the same Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter and Object 1. The immediatformall object is the Word of God the Truths and duties therein contained and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godlinesse under that formalis ratio is here abjured the eternall Truth of the Gospell as holden out in the Word and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement whatsoever is approved by it is embraced and what is condemned by it is rejected under that notion 2. The more remote or materiall Object are the publick necessary great and important Truths and duties therein enumerat both of the 1 and 2 Table and the errours and sins therein abjured To the observation faith and obedience of the one and abhorrencie of the other under the formentioned consideration as either consonant unto or dissonant from Gods eternall Word and truth we stand perpetually and inviolably oblidged So that this Oath hath ane objective as well as subjective necessity contained therein a necessity of the matter in its own nature prior to the engadgement as well as a necessity of performance flowing from the engadgement it self which may take place in things indifferent Finaly the constantly obliging ends and scope of these engadgments joyned with the importance of the Matter subservient to these ends further discover their inviolable obligaions There is here both necessitas precepti necessitas medij finis The matter sworne to be performed falls under divine precepts the sins and evills abjured falls under divine prohibitions and these engadgements are both in respect of the matter it self and as to the professed scope of the swearers and engadgers levelled at continually obliging ends such as Gods glory the advancing of Christs Kingdom the publick good of Church and State the preservation and propagation of publick and personall reformation truth unity c. Now both these Oaths and Covenants are professedly entered into as perpetual engadgements and in order to these great ends for ever to be promoted as their tenor clearly holds out If any say what is all to the speciall obligation for Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacieâ—… the Oath may be temporary or cassat and made void as to that point though there be never so great duties otherwayes engadged unto therin Ans This particular engadgement in relation to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacie runs along in the forementioned particulars 1. It falls under the obligation of the Oath vow promise and Covenant and under the forementioned qualifications of solemnity universality and importance Again 2. the publick faith of Church and State reaches this most evidently and is engadged for it And 3. as Gods great ordinance holden out in his Word Presbyterian Government falls within the compass of the object of these Oaths and under that consideration is sworne to be maintained and Prelacie as contrary therunto is abjured which contrariety hath been already cleaed Again Presbyterian Government is here engadged unto as subservient to these great ends mentioned and Prelacie is abjured as hindering the same as both the Word of God and experience hath convincingly discovered CHAP. II. The Informers arguments against the abjuration of Prelacy in the nationall Covenant fully examined Some reasons of his against an Oath in generall or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed The Apologeticall narration and the Assembly 1638 vindicated WE come now to examine what this new absolver or pretended doubt-resolver hath presented to us against the oblidging force of these great engadgments The defence which he hath patcht up out of the survey of Naphtali and that pamphlet called the seasonable case consists of 2. parts 1. He denys that the bond of either the national or solemne league and Covenant doth strike against the present Prelacie 2. Upon supposall that the solemne league and Covenant doth strike against it he denys its obligation In both points we shall examine his grounds and trace his Method I the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant so that none may warrantably owne the Ministry of such as preach under them as being perjured To this consequence he repones nothing but seems to admitt it and therefore we need not speak unto it Only he quarrells with the antecedent tells us that we would act more Christian Like if we were sparing in judging another mans servants who stand or fall to their own Master But the judging there forbidden being a rash felfish judging of others in things indifferent as meats or drinks and as Calvin paraphraseth the words de hominium factis pronunciare extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem sed ex verbo Dei That we are not to judge of mens practises by our own opinion but according to the rule of the Word and not without its limits Telling us further that Iudicium quod a verbo sumitur neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human privat judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures the impertinent application of this passage premised Scripture to our case which is a practicall disowning of palpable perjury and turning away from such whose instruction causeth to erre from the words of knowledge is obviously evident This is no judging without Gods word but according to it to say that perjury is perjury sin is sin Our Informer by this new knack would take away all christian judgement of discretion yea by this his wide glosse all judiciall decisions whither civill or ecclesiastik Besides is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans servants Ministers and people as schismaticks and what not for disowning Curats upon the forementioned grounds Doth he not and all his party judge despise and persecute the people God for that which he calls indifferent and a disputable point at the foot of the page But to
proceed his Doubter alledging that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them he cryes out at all Bound as a paradox and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it and asks if we think them bound Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant Deut 29. who were not there as well as these who were there young and old wives little ones from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water It seems this man either hath not read that chapt or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incorporation although not personally sworne by every individuall Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacie or alledgeance If so then a man could not be guilty of treason which is certainly a breach of this fealty unlesse he had personally sworn which I know not who will assert But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity he tells us that this is a strange fancy Iuramentum being with casuists vinculum personale binding those that took it only that accordingly the Covenant sayes we every one for ourselves and not for our selves and others That the father who was against Bishops his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement who is for them in a disputable point or oblidge him to act contrary to his judgment Ans 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary as well as personal is evident in scripture and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it which is not only thus evident but acknowledged also by Casuists Was not that oath and Covenant Deut 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto and by consequence engadging their seed for ever Deut 5 2 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive even that Covenant at Horeb though they were all near dead with whom it was made Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan the oath to the Gibeonites such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan 2. Sam 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such cannot be doubted it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance which no time can alter evacuat or limit and having the publick faith of Church and state interposed therin by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath And likewise being in its nature promissory in relation to duties midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging it is palpably evident that it is reall and not personall only 2. For that expression every one for our selves it is very impertinently here alleadged to exclude the posterity for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be the glory of God the advancement of Christs kingdome the happiness of the King and his posterity the true publick liberty safety of the kingdomes c. wherin every ones private state is included which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them Next in the close of the first article the posterity is expresly taken in when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love c And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity and therefor his negative inference viz for our selves and not for our posterity is opposit unto the very sense scope and words of this oath so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities conditions and relations wherein in order to the work of God the then engadgers stood 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fathers engadgement is a poore shift For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact in matters of a farr lower nature then this This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute and oblidge for our selves and posterity that it shall stand in this posture Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame owned by the primitive Church But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded be prelimited by the father or els must he act contrary to his judgement let the Informer see to this If he say it s not a disputable point to hold the present prelacie and that therefor the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant and that consequently his objection is naught and the horns of his horned argument are crooked so that it pushes us with neither of them We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practice in many things not indispensably necessary will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children witnesse that case of the Rechabites And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter Nay who knows noâ—… that the great morall precept honour Thy Father and thy Mother imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such in order to obedience to parents and gives unto parents a large and extensive authority hereanent But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these or act contrary to it so this objection in the Informers sense and according to his scope will blurre out a great part of the 5t Command But what needs more the matters here engadged unto are important truths and dutys not disputable points as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them and therefor we are under perpetuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same But if this man will abide a quere here and a litle retortion of his notion further thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and professors of this nation in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity by so many laws and acts or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement Sure fathers have at least as great if not a greater authority to limit their children then the Prelats
their course of defection and so this practice is both sinfull in it self and scandalous to others His 2d Answer to this premised argument of his Doubter is That the Apostle ordinarly when forbidding to give offence speaks of the use of liberty in things indifferent that it must not be used to the offence of the weak brother lest contrary to his conscience he be emboldned to sin 1 Cor. 8. 10. Or be grieved because he thinks we sin in doing what we should not Rom. 14. 15. Ans. We shall not much stand upon this only we here see that the lawfulness of a thing in it self will not according to him Justify it in that case wherein either the weak is emboldned to sin grieved or made more weak and his plerophory hindred And that the sincere enquirer for Truth may be confirmed in this sound persuasion and guarded against what he after subjoyns I shall here offer unto him the sense and Judgment of an eminent Father and Reformed divine upon this point Chrysostome upon Rom. 14. Homily 25. Expones all the Apostles Arguments to the same scope of the unlawfullness of offending the weak in things indifferent Particularly upon verse 13. Si non salvare fratrem saith he culpam habet id quod Evangelici talenti deâ—…ossor indicat Quid non faciet datum etiam scandalum Sed inquies quod si suopte vitio scandalizatur infirmus propter hoc ipsum aequum fuerit ut illum feras Nam si fortis esset tali cura opus non haberet nunc vero quia imbacillior est multa etiam curandi diligentia opus habet that is if it be faulty not to save our brother as the hider of the talent maketh it evident What will not even the giving of Scandal do But you will say what if the weake be scandalized by his own fault Upon the same very ground it is just that you beare with him For if he were strong then he would have no need of such care but because he is weak he stands in need of much diligence for his cure In the next homily he hath many things upon the rest of the Apostles argument to the same purpose Upon the 14. ver I know nothing is unclean of it self He offers an objection to the Apostle for clearing the words Quid igitur non corrigis fratrem ne putet aliquid immundum esse â—…t quid non illum ab ista consuetudine omnibus viribus abducis Why do you not with might and main withdraw your brother from that opinion and practice a thing that our Informer and his fellows make no bones of as to dissentients To this he answers in the Apostles name Verâ—…or inquit ne moerore illum afficiam unde subdit Verum si propter cibum frater tuus contristatur non jam secundum charitatem ambulas Vides quoâ—… 〈◊〉 familiarem interea sibi faciat infirmum Auditorem ostendens tantam illius rationem halere se ut ne moestum reddat etiam quae vehementer erant necessaria praeciperere non audeat sed indulgentia illum â—…agis ac dilectione attrahat Neque enim postea quam vanuâ—… exemerat metum potenter illum traâ—…it aut cogit sed sui ipsius Dominum esse permittit that is I am afraid lest I make him sad and hence he subjoins but if thy brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably See how tenderly he deals with the infirme hearer shewing that he hath so great a regard to him that lest he make him sad he dare not command these things that are most necessary for he he doth not draw and force him after he hath taken away the groundless fear but permits him to be his own Master And upon the 1 Cor. 8. v. 20. He hath things to the purpose On verse 9. Non dixit quod licenti a vestraoffendiculum sit neque certo asseveraverit ne impudentiores faceret Sed inquit videte timore eos abducit ne faciant prohibet Et non dixit scientia vestra quod majoris esset laudis neque perfectio vestra Sed licentia quod suberbiae stultitiae non dixit fratribus sed infirmis sratribus ut gravius eos reprehenderet quod nequeinfirmis parcunt maximefratribus That the Apostle imputes folly and pride unto them who offend the weak brethren Upon the 10. verse the conscience of him that is weak shall be emblodned to eat c. He shews that the offender of the weak cannot charge the guilt upon his weakness tu enim imbecilliorem facis duo sunt quae te privant venia quod infirmus quod frater addatur tertium maxime horrendum quod Christus neque mori propter illum recusavit tu autem neque ei indulgere pateris That is the offender makes them yet weaker that two things render such as offend them inexcusable the one that they are weak the other that they are brethren and a third crime may be added which is most horrid that thou â—…fuses so much as to spare those for whom Christ refused not even to dye Upon 12. vers When ye so fin against the brethren wound their weak Conscience ye sin against Christ. He hath these words quid homine inhumanius existimari potest qui â—…grotum verberat Etenim omni plaga gravius scandalizare est nam saepenumero mortem adfert Et quomodo in Christum peccant Uno quidem modo quod quae servorum sunt ipse pro se accipit Altero autem quod in corpus ejus membra faciunt qui percutiunt Tertio quod opus ejus quod propriamorte absolvit ii propria ambitione destruunt What can be more i nhumane then that man Who beats one that is sick for to scandalize is more grievous then all strokes for it oftentimes brings death And how sin they against Christ One way because he takes to himself what concerns his servants another way because they wound his body and members Thirdly in that the work which he accomplisht by his own death they destroy by their own ambition Upon the last verse of the chapter If eating of flesh make my brother offend I will eat none while the World stands He saith Hoc Magistri optimi est officium suo exemplo erudire quae dicit Et non dicit sive juste sive injuste sed quomodocunque Sed non dico inquit Idolothytum quod propter aliam causam prohibetur sed si quod licet permittitur scandalizat etiam illis abstinebo neque una aut altera die sed totâ—… vitae tempore Non enim manducabo inquit carnes in aeternum Et non inquit ne perdam fratrem Sed simpliciter ut non scandalizem That is this is the duty of the most excellent Master to instruct what he sayes by his own example And he saith not I will not eat whether justly or injustly But whatever way I will not As