$to$4$$$$#$#: #♦##$&!#$## A $$$#3$$$$$$$ : $$$$$$$$$$$ ; Horn ft A <7 I3ri3 I SURVEY O F NAPHTALI. .PART IL Difeourfing of the Heads propofed in the Preface of the former; Together with an examination of the Do&rines of the Apolog, Narration concerning the King's Su- premacy in and about Ecclefiaftick Affairs, and the obligation of the Covenants. Pfa!. i2o« 6, 7. Mj foul hath U*g dwelt with him that hatetb peace', I am for peace ; but when Ifpe*k% they are for Vear. La&ant. Inftit. 5. 20. Defendenda eft Religio a privdtu omnibus non occidendo, ftdmoriendo ; nonfevitia^ fed patient ia j non feeler e % fed fide, Fubltfhed by Order. EDINBURGH, Printed by Evan Tyler , Printer to the King's mod Excellent Majefty , 1 6 6 9. -. a HI or :]P H . - - . N ? ' " I ] . i . T O T H E READER- j Jd there been no engagment in the former Part oft'bis Suivey, u proecute the conftderati* on of other matters contained inNzpht, the Author ( having paid [ome part of his loyal duty to the King , and (hcrved his tender affection to his fellow fuh] effs , in difcover- ing (liange dotl'ines that are dtffeminated throughout the Landjending to the utter overthrow of civil Or- der and Magi firacy, iffuch evil principles be receivedmto the hearts of people ) could willingly have fuperfeded this \econd labour-, but^ the promife becoming a debt , the too friendly importunity of fome cr avers* would by no means adjourn the payment : Hence this fecond Part , which was almofl jentenced to lurk in perpetual file nee , is drawn forth to the light , to take its venture of the favour and of the frowns of the World. It was not indeed 'convenient \ that feme teftimony being ?/- ven in behalf of civil Government , agaii ft perverfe dtgma* tizers and mafters of confu(ion> whofe d'&rines tend to the di([olntion of humane [ocieties > t-e concerns of the Church no tejs affaulte'dby the Writings of furious men* then King and Kingdom are, liquid have been altogether neglected % the bap- pinejs and well- faring of both being fo clofely : ihkd together ^ that the confufions and miferies of the one^ do or d*narilf re- dound upon the other % ifiheonebefbikch, the other can hard* ly he (table and firm. What regard will people have to am civil order, when reverence to God in his Miniftery and Ordinances 6 decayed and loft ? Hof. id. 3, Now they (hall 6jr> we hare To the Reader. have no King; becaufe we feared not the Lord, What ih \ iHbuld a K ihg do to as ? 'The fir earns of loyalty, muft be deriv- ed fnm the fountain and ff ring of piety ( othcrwayes it is not throughly found, hut wittjoon dry up andevanift) which fhould move Rulers chiefly in confciencc toward God^ hut in the next flare, in regard to their own intefcft, to givt all diligence 7 that their fnbjecls may he pious andgodly 5 if Gods inter eft he not fir (I cared for , theirs will fare the worfe: And upon the cthtr hand, when contempt is c aft upon the Authorities which God hath fet up for prejerving civil order, and people begin to wax wanton and kick again (I the fame, revolving to ufe might again ft right, and to do what is good in their own eyes if a bru- tffh power and force may be able to bear them up in high attempts again ft Authority, then jure, Religion is under a fad decay whatever pretentions be keep ed up of the fame , G od having fp often conjoined'the honouring of the King, with the fearing of, himlelf , as amain character thereof , and he doth certainly in* terete him f elf in the quarrels of his wronged Deputies on earth, He that refifts them, refifts God and his Ordinance. It were folly to expect, that this Writing fhould meet with another lot then thefe do which thwart the prepoffefsions and prejudices of the multitude. What can be expeffed from fuck, whofe la fine J s hathfxt andriveltedthem in an eafie Religion r embr aced with out \e arch up on the faith of others or cuflom gf^ theCountrey,but that they fhallde fire (till to be at cafe^andrejeff any thing that may put them to the pains to enquire ? Or, who can think it ftrange , that fuch as are inflamed with the wilde- fire of an ignorant zial \ fhould flee out again ft the doctrines here afjefted ? their wrathful humours getting the ft art vf their rea- fon and judgement, the plain a, d naked truths held forth here, no doubt will be expo fed to the wafpifl) flings of carnal contra- diliio/ij axdyetintbe end, will carry the day and will over* come the eppofers to their own advantage. But fure there art in the Land, many \ober and holy chriflians , who by the true, cxcrcifc of mortification , have become great maflers of their awn w To the Reader; own pa[sions , And who can with calm and compo fed hearts^ try the fpiiits whether they be o.t God , who can try all things and hold faft that which is good. Thefe are not a* the former ( who fe ferity brings their chrifl unity under quefli- tn*) hut are per fori s of abetter, more excellent and noble jpirit y albeit they befiedfafl in Religion ,. yet thy are not Jo wedded to their own opinions, anent the ordering of the exterior Govern- ment of the Churchy but they can lend a patient ear to \uch as are otherwije minded, pondering what they fay, and being alf* willing to bring under examination the folidty of their ow t grounds, whereupon formerly they were bottomed. However lit- tle hope there be to prevail with others^ to fuch this Writing is addrejfed, with the Authors defire that what truth is found therein may be embraced as Gods ; what errors there are, may bidifcovered that fo they may be amended 5 and that any mea- Jure of afperity of words againfi the Libeller may be pardoned andpaffed by, although the provocations have been ^reat , and the man that f mites with the [harp edge of the [wordy hath lit* tie cau(e to complain that he is mitten with&he blunt back of it. The Goa of truth and peace d'reff us in all truth] eflablijh us in love to him, and one to another, grant peace to his own Jerula- 1cm, and prosperity within her Walls , ejpecially , that we. may not learn War any more one again jl another, and thai there be no hurting nor deflroying in all the holy mountain of Gtol. The k To the Reader; have no King, betaufe we feared not the Lord, What then jflibuld a K ing do to as ? The fir cams of loyalty, mufi be deriv- ed frtm the fountain and ff ring of piety ( othcrwayes it is not throughly found) but willjoon dry up andevanifi) which fhottld move Rulers chiefly in conference toward God^ but in the next place, in regard to their own inter r/?, to givt all diligence, that their fubjects may be pious andgodly ; tfGods inter eft be not fir ft cared for , theirs will fare the worfe: And upon the other hand, when contempt is c aft upon the Authorities which God hath jet up for prejerving civil order, and people begin to wax wanton and kick again ft the fame, rejolving to ufe might again ft right, and to do what is good in their own eyes if a bru- tifh power and force may be able to bear them up in high attempts again ft' Authority, then Jure, Religion is under a fad decay y, whatever pretenfions be keeped up of the fame, God having Jo often conjoinedthc honouring of the King, with the fearing o£ himfelf , as amain character thereof , and he doth certainly in* terete him f elf in the quarrels of his wronged Deputies on earth, He that refifts them, refifts God and his Ordinance. It were folly to expect, that this Writing flwuld meet with another lot then theft do which thwart the prepoffefsions and prejudices of the multitude, what can be expected from fuch, whofe la fine fs hath fixt andrivettedtheminan eafie Religion^ embraced without • fearch upon the faith of others or cuftom pf^ theCountrey,but that they fhatlde fire (till to be at cafe, and reject any thing that may put them to the pains to enquire ? Or, who can think it fir an ge 5 thatfuch as are inflamed with the wilde- fire of an ignorant zial,fhould fleje out again ft the doctrines here affected ? their wrathful humours getting the ft art vf their rea- fon and judgement, the plain a,, d nuked truths held forth here^ nn doubt will be expo fed to the wafpi/1) flings of carnal contra* diliion, axdyet inihe end, will carry the day and will over* come U>e oppofers to their own advantage. But fure there art in the Land, many jober and holy chriflians , who by the true J excrafe of mortification > have become great maflers of their awn own fafsitms trvthe fpiiit To the Reader. And who can with culm and compo fed hearts-^ e fpirits whether they be ot God, who can try all things and hold faft that which is good. Tbefe are vet as* the former ( whofe ferity brings their chri fit anity under quefli* en *) but are per f on s of a better ^more excellent and noble jpirit $ albeit they be fiedfafl in Religion , yet tb y Are not Jo wedded to their own opinions, anent the ordering of the exterior Govern- ment of the Churchy but they can lend a patient ear to (uch as are otherwile minded, pondering what they (ay, and being alf* spiffing to bring under examination the [olid ty of their ow i grounds ^whereupon formerly they were bottomed. However lit- tle hope there be to prevail with others^ to fucb this Writing is addreffed, with the iutbors defire that what truth is fouvd therein may be embraced as Gods * y what errors there are, may be dif covered that fo they may be amended ; and that any mea- sure of asperity of words again ft the Libeller may be pardoned andpaffed by, although the provocations have been %reat , and the man that fmites with the frarp edge of the (word, hath lit* tie cau(e to complain that he is imitten withjbe blunt back of it. The Goa oftrutn and peace direct us in all truth) eflabl/fh us in love to him, and one to another, grant peace to his own Jerusa- lem, and profperity within her Walls , efpecia/ly , that we. may not learn War any more one again jl another, and thai there be no hurting nor dejlroying in all the holy mountain of Goal. The The Contents. CHAP. I. T Fie Libeller's outragicus revilings of the Kings Ma* jefly, the Parliament, the Council , the Commifsion, the City of Edinburgh , and all the Judges and Nobles of the Land, &c. ptg^ i CHAP. II. of the Kings Supremacy, in and about ecclefiaftical Caufesl againft the Apolog. fag. 169. &c. And againft Napht % Pref. . pag, 43 CHAP, III, Concerning the obligation of the Covenants Againft Epifco- pacy and for Presbytery $ and that the owners of the re- eftablifbtd Order of Epi(copacy,are faljly andunjuftly charg- ed with perjury- m pag. 1 10 CHAP. IV. Concerning the lawfulnefs of the Epifcofal office. The Libeller's outragkus and falfe rtvilings ef the Office^ Performs ^Conversation of the Bipvpfatb generally And par- ticularly, are confidered. pag, igp CHAP. V. The iawfulnefs of the Calling of&iinifters admitted by Bifhops^ j ardtheftnfulne(s of defpijing and fchifmatic*0y deferting i themin the mimftration of the holy things of God. pag, 240 CHAP. VI. The Libeller s tragical complaints ofperfccution,andhisv4in~ glorying of the Martyrs of his way, with other evidences of his pride and arrogancy. pag. 258 PART & ".'.•■*, ■/-'-.: (I ] ,* ■■•:; v.-.^r. ^♦♦^♦♦M****************-*************** »'®>E P A R T II. CHAP. I. The Libeller* s outragious rtvilings of the King's Majefty, the Parliament, the Council, the Commifsion, the City of Edinbuigh, And all the fudges and No Us of the Land, &c. He Libeller, to pave r is way and to prepare for the d ftrudionof all Authorities in the Land from the higheft to the lowed, bends his evl fpirit to revile and reproach all ef them , and to charge them with fuch high treafon agair ft the God of Heaven, chat the rude inraged rrulti.uJe (whom he flatters (hirreTullyJ may think, that they may b j d/ferveoly pul.'d down, and that it is the* higheft pr.ch of Reli- gion to a& rebd ieufly againft tbrn. Men that fe3r Gcd will th;nk thir a finguhr teheratv n , under God , is due to them in Autf oriy, 2nd will be loach to judge raftily of their acton< ; far le($ will ttey pronource raihly upon them or their action*, remembring who (aid if, Thou [h alt -Aotrtvi'.e the ^ods , %or curfe the ruler* of ihjptcp e 9 £xoa. 22. 28. and, Icclef. 10. 20. Curfe not the Ki*g\ rto not. in thy thought 9 &c. Th weaken 'be due eftcera theteof in the hearts of others. Private Sabjefe by bringing Authority in difgrace. This is notipoken, as if the (c who have calling to deal with the Princes and pjwers of the world , ihould not deal faithfully and freely in warn- ing them when they do mamfeftiy provoke God to wrath , although there is need of lingular prudence and lowiinefs of heart in dealing with fuch, that neither the warning be loft, nor the Authority they are inverted with come in contempt. Bar, to fall upon thefe in Au- thority by way of oucragnus Libels fecretly fpread amongft their people (as this man d>rh; (hews , that it is not their edification but dcftrution that is f ti^ht ; an-r rhar it is endeavoured firfttocaft them out of the hearts of their Subjects , that fo they may beeafiiy cart out of their Authority. But, let us take notice of the particular reproaches carton all Au- thorities of the Land, by this foal hand* i. For the King'b Sacred Mjjefty 4 no enemy could have done more to put difgrace upon him in the eyes of his Subjects, then this Shimd harh endeavoured to do ; and no man that hath in him any fpark of Chnftianity or Loyalty > can with a patient ( or rather ftupid) filence endure the defamation of that Sacred Pcrfon. True it is, it might feem a thing culpable and cenfurable, to mentfon the words utiti'd againft his Maj.rty (the honourable Lords of Council having juftly adjudg'd Nspht. to the fire) were it not that one fire cannot deftroy al the Copies , nor fatishc the minds of thefe who carry them about as B >oks of devotion , anent the matters therein contained ; and were it nor/hat it is needful to lay open the evil fpirit of this Ad- vocat and his Party , that they who will be faved may flee from them ; and efpecially, fcing they jeer at a m<*er refutation by burning, although it were unreasonable to put a State to the continual pains of a bale difputewith feditious Pampbleters. i. That he may provoke and raife up againft his Majefty all his Proteftaot Subjects, he labours to repiefent iome of his actings , as having tendency to re- introduce Po- pery i To this purpofe, he mentions a Declaration fet out by the King CiJ King in print , wherein he fayes, (as is alledged by the Libeller ) Tht Papifts were faithful Subjecls to him and his Father , rtkiitft others^ under pretence of Religion had involved the Kingdom in blood* Al- io the Libeller aflerts , That there is titration ef open idolatrous wajfes , that the execution of penal Lavs againft them is fuper- feded , that in England they are tdvar.ced to gr cat eft places of truft ; that a houft for Fathers or Fryars is provided •, that there being much prefumption of a Popifh hand in burning London, yet noconrfeu taken] or trying and funifbing the Authors and Atlors , as if wen were afraid to try the truth in that matter; Page8,9« of the Pre- face to Naph. Thefe are indeed horrid accufations againft our Prc- teftantKing, and have a native tendency to waken up any perfoos, in whom there is any thing of zeal for Gods Truth. But, the Libeller. is not of that credit , that all he fayes againft our Sovera'gn (hould be taken upon his bare word. i. Why did he not refer us to fome par- ticular Declaration fo favourable to Papifts emitted by the King, aod fet down the words of it,and fhewed where and when it was printed ? if he tould have pointed us to the Paper, poflibly fomething might be found in it which might guard againft any word feeming too fa- vourable to Papifts. But, let it be fo, that the King bad faid fo in any Paper, it is an undeniable truth, that Papifts ( he faith not all ) were faithful Subjects to him and his Father, while others fhe faith not all others,nor all Proteftants, nor Proteftants at all ) under pretence of Religion , had involved the Kingdoms in blood. Might not the King fay, that fome Papifts (for it is only faid indefinitely ,if it be tod) were faithful Subjects to him, although this Elogy extend not to the bloody Infh Cut- throats? ( as the Libeller fuggelts them to be meant, and wickedly hinteth at other Authors of that maffacreof Proteftants in Inland \ befides them.) And might not the King fay, that others, under pretence of Religion, involved the Lands in blood, though he meant not all his Protectant Subjects . ? Will this Libeller deny , that the Sectaries did fo, to fpeak of no others ? If fome Papifts in thefe Lands did ftiew themfelves really more loyal to the King and his Fa- ther, then fome that called themfelves Proteftants, (though they were nor) might not fuch a thing been faid,without favouring Popery } ■ Pudet hthe ufurping of the Prerogative of Jefut Chrifl, pag. 90. afiertin^, that he ought to have no hand in the difpvfat of any part of the exterior policy in the Church , no not fo much as in thefe thing/ that meerly concern or- der and decency , Napht. pag. 29. H- fayes , that he eretls a papacy in hlmfelfmore abfurdly then the Pope did , Napht. ^ag* 59. He tells us, (6y us, that all Miniflers and Ecclefiaftical Courts are known, allowed and pre/umed to aft according to the warrandofthe word of Cod only . and therefore muft not Ire controlled by Kings , Napht. pag. 20. He rageth again ft the Parliament , forgiving the King the Sxctfe ad vkam, pag. 112, 1 13. alledging , it is more then ex-equates the burthens impofed by the ufurpe/s , and is imployedin perfecuting^nd infixing the people ; alfo there he rageth again ft the lojal offer of twenty thoufand men to the King when he (hould need them as a flavi/h implicit e emancipation of our lives ; And,pag. 1 1 5. he rageth againft the Convention of States, for granting one years Afleffment to the King; And fay es, the people are more harajfed and opprejfed now , then the conquering Sword of the Enemy did before* And that no- thing might be omitted, to fiiew his wicked malice againft the King, he ripes up the bufinefs of the Coronation oaths,the Dunfermline D e- claratioft, the matter of Clova, fome private Letters,^. <58. &c. the matter of the fines he alfo infills upon, pag* 11$. Iq a word, there is nothing that this man can imagine may turn to the Kings difgraceor deftruclion, but he aggravates ic , and yet for all this, and much more which might be noted in the wicked Libel, we mult be deluded into a belief, that the mm and his party is very loyal to the King ; only per- haps he will fay, their loyalty is conditional, if he "bill give them their will , and lay do^n his Authority and Laws at their feet , and then they will modifle him io, that it fliail be a very eafie matter to be loyal in their apprehenfions. But all thefe injurious matters againft the King, (hall be paffed over with a few reflections upon them ; (waving what concerns his Supre- macy anent Church-affairs and the matter of the Covenant, being the fubjeel of the two following Chapters) Only concerning thzfc, there be further, one or two things coniiderabk. 1. That this man afferts boldly, pag, 39. Napht. That all Minivers and Ecclefiaftical Court Si arc known, allowed and prefumed to [peak, and aft only ac- cording to the war rand of the Word of God , and therefore are not ac- countable to the Magiftrate , till they confefs their $ivn fault s y and judge ofthem, and if they be challenged for the fame, the imputations laid on them of Treafon , Sedition and Diforder, are but formalities toptllUtthe Kings ufurpation , &c. True it is, no Minifters nor Church courts are allowed (the word which the Libeller cafts in deceitfully or foolifbly) to act otherwife then according to the rule of the Word ; but where he adds herewith, that this u known and prefumed, that they do fo (and a preemption ic is indeed, to fsy (O) (7) fo) he fpeaks falfeiy, and arrogates the infallibility to every Minifter and Church-court, which we deny to the Pope. Many Mimfters and Church-courts alfo have been known to deviat from die rule ; And the cafe is hard for the Magiftrate , if when he hath good knowledge, that things trcafonable and fedicious are fpoken in a Pulpit or Presby- tery , he may not judge nor call them fo, unlds the Mimfters will fay fo themfelves, ( who are ready enough to befparing of their cen- fures one againft another, when there is difpleafure againft the Magiftrate ) Nay , God warrands him to pall fedition and treafon from the horms of the Altar; and to notice mens mixing in matters that are not in their commifiion from Chrift , with his holy things. 2. That the man boldly alTerts, that the King hach not fo much liberty as to interpofe in the determination of matters of decency and order r in the adminiftration of the Ordinances of God, nor to meddle in any circumftantJal thing undetermined by the Word of God, Napb. P. 92* but all this fhould be referred to Minifters only. For, (faith he there) The King upon a double account is excluded cleany from mealing with arj mutter concerning the decent > orderly Adminiftration of goas Ordinance* ; aH this being referred to the Churches arbitra- ment, ( fo far as it is not determined particularly in the Word) to be defined according to general rules of Scripture , and the King is no Church- officer : but^ though he be a Nurfe father , If. 49. 23. yet, (ubmiffionts i* joined him in aH the-fe things unto the Churchy ibid. They (ball bow down to thee with their face toward the earth , and tic \ up the daft of thy feet. So the Kirn? muft not ( albeit he be the Chuiches Nurfe-father ) fo much as offer to order any thing decently in external admimltrations of Ordinances of God, (which in his Word is left undetermined , as to the particular ) but mufl bow down his face toward the ground before the Seffio* or presbytery , and, lick^ the du/} cf the feet of the [age Senators , ike Mimfter itnd his Elders of all degrees* ( Ruftxks , and Ma'hsnicks, as Well as Earls and L >rds) and in doing this homage a and in giving this fubmif- fion to them , ftands his Office of being Nurf -father to the Church, as 2^aph. faith. Such gioflls on Scriprure would both make Hera- ciitu* to weep himfelf to death , and Democritus to laugh himfelf to death. But this high-flown Libeller mi ft \ now , that Kings and So- veraign M igiftrates, being keepers of the firft Table of the Law as well as of the fccond * as in order to ptefervethe fetond Tible, they have power from God by their ads to determine anent circumftanthl mat- ters which concern the guarding or prefervation of the fecond Table ( 8 ) Table of the Liw, (yet alwayes having refpecl to the general rules of Scripture) So, in nutters citcumftanual belonging to the guarding and prtltrvirg light, orderly and decent performarceof the fpiritual O.dinanco of d d , they havealfoa power ( within thecompafs < f thtiir Calling ) yet (o , that the general rules of the Word touching things of that nature be eyed and not neglected. I or, there is no dif- ference as to this, in their way of guarding,pn ferving and procuring the right doing oi duties ofthefecond Table and of the fit ft. Itis true,as they are, in determining of matters circurofhncial anent the fcond Table of the La w,to make ufe of Juris* con[ft/ts and men skill'd in thcfe matters ; bo are they in determining anent variable things in the exte- rior pol.ey of the Churcryo mak, ule of Divine. 1 , who may be beft able to refolve what comes ncareft to the general Sci ipture rules, as t o thefe matters. But that nich thing* be altogether put over to Church-mens arbitrement,without the authority or the King, as keeper and guardian of the tables of the Law>cannot be yielded. Minifters have their com- miffion from Chnrfyo preach theGofpd,minifter Sacrament?, j/^.Bur, that the ordering of all external things and cncun fhnces anent.divine Ordinances not txprefly determined »n scripture , is referred to their meer a biirtmert, excluding the Nurfe*father of the Church from medling therein, we read-not* And-hecan fureiy (hew tetter wairand in dealing in thefe thing?, then they can : Neither doth theScripture //. 49 23. fpeak of the Nurie- father of the Church, his fubmifiion to the M;nifters, even to the licking of the duft of their fcer, in their de- terminations of circumftancial matters in exterior policy of the Church fuppofed to be left to their only arbitremenr, ( as this Libel- ler abufing the word of God, would bjsar us in band;For ^Divdate on the pi ice tells us , the meaning is only, That they [halt fubrmt to Chr fit Faith and Kingdom^ mi* iff red by the Churchy or thejjhalldo h image toChrift jrefent in fh: ntiaftoftbeChMrcb.Novt thefe matters whereof we now fpeak, ( and which he challenpeth only to bedifpof- e 1 by Mmift-rs arbitrement ) are not matters of faith f nor wherein the Kingdom of Chrift doth (land. And Mr. Calvin upon the place, wiich he finds abufed by Romanics, ( as it is now bv the Libeller, in favour to his parry ) for moving Kings to give fhvifh adoration to their idol the Pope, tells us well, That the adoration here *nderfto»d f is nothing elfe^at Princes (ubmiffi 'in to God ana Chrifi y and obedience to his Word yeacoed b] the Church j Hie honos & cultusjtnes Hiutn ipfum integer manet , But it fprakes not of fubm flion, in matters not determined in the Word 9 concerning exterior policy, as this man will have (9) have Princes (as to tbefe) to licj^the du(l of the Churches feet , ab-fe- lately fubmitting to their pleafure. But in the fpewing out of his fplen agairft the King, as he and his party were loath that ever he fhould nave come home ; fo, he cannot indure the anniverfary remem- brance of his Birth and Return, which Gods providence trifted to be May 29. but calls chat dutiful remembrance appointed by Parliament, a profane inftitur ion. And the tslfology alfo reafons very weakly againftir, />*g. 89,90. u From the narrative and grounds of the aft. 2. From the unlawfulnefs of appointing of any anniverfary holy day by any creature : But as to the firft , whatever the Parlia- ment was plea (ed to make a narrative of the ad for the anniverfary folemnity (which narrative hath too much truth in it) it may be queftioned , if thefe who confent to the conclusion of the ad , be bound to own and confent to all that is mentioned in the narrative? if what is concluded be juft snd lawful, whatever be in the narrative or grounds laid down , which perhaps could not abide the ttft of reafon ; yet, the flatutory pare may be lawful and obliging without any obli- gation to content to all things contained in the narrative : I may affentto many conclufions and yet not allow the verity of ail the premiffes, which are either erroncoufly aflerted , or the conclufion er- roneously deduced from them, beiDg true ; as I may aflert to this con- clufion, That every roan is a rational creature, though it were deduced from thefe premiffes, Every brute is a rational creature, Every man is a brute, €rgo t &c. or from thefe, Every rational creature is a living foul,Every man is a living fou^Brgo Every man is a rational creature ; the former fyllogifme is peccant in the matter ? yet the condufion is true; the latter is peccant in the form, yet is the condufion true; So, in ads and ftatutes, let law-givers mix in what they will ia the narrative , that oblieges not me to confent to all they therein fay ; but if the conclulion and fhtute be juft and good, I will do ir, al- though they who made the Law fail in the prerailTes upon which they ground their inference r For , I do it not upon their grounds, (if they be not good ) but becaufeotherwifeljudge the ma:terofthe ftatute honeft and juft. a. The Apologift is Anabaptiftical , in denying liberty to the Church of God or Chriftian Magiftrate , to appoint fee times for commemorating yearly Gods (ignal mercies ; he talks in- deed of the want of power in any creature to confecrateany portion of time and to make it holy , and that it is not in the power of any un- der Heaven to appoint anniverfary Holy-dayes , this being only pro- per toGodj and fo doth he challenge the Parliament of impiety, C in ( lo ) in appointing foch i day. Bat this is eafily taken off: For, albeit it be iropoffible to make a day holy by inherent holinefs, (the fubjcft not being thereof capable) and abest no creature can make a day ho- ly by relative holhefr, wh chis tobe eftteraed aepsrt ofthe worfhip of God,and making the other worihip of God, and the worfhiper, the more acceptable to him, becaufeof the time wherein it is performed ,• and binding the confcience fo, that even out of the cafe of fcandal or contempt of order , a mans confcience m3y on geod grounds charge iin upon, in the omifTion of the obfervation ; albeit, I fay, this way no creature can mike a holy (relatively holy day) nor any day that is in fe per /V, fanttiar vel facratior alits^ fuch confecration and dedication of a day, belonging on ! y to God, the abfoluteLord of dayes and times, and the appointer of that wherein his own worfhip confiftetb ; Yet, it it in mens power, ( both the Magiftrates and the Churches ) to de- pute certain dayes for exercifes of the holy ferviccofGod 5 especially upon occafion of (rgnal mercies obtained, or, for averting threatned judgements, or, for obtaining great favours defired. And if the day be called holy, it is not for any inherent holinefs , nor for any relative hoIinefs,as if it were in itfelf more holy then another day ( it* ut per ft fit pars coitus Svini , as divines fpeak ) but it is called holy, onely in regard of the ufe and exercife of the holy ordinances of God therein to be performed. Iodeed, the old Sabbath amongft the Jewes, ( we enquire hot now, whether there be the fame reafon for the Chri- fUan Lords-day ) and other feftivuies, the very obfervation of the day the dedication and fepar3tion of iz to Gods fervice, was pars cultus, a part of worfhip, becanfe commanded by God ; the day was not only holy becaufe of holy exercifes performed in it ; but holy it wasjbecaufe by divine Command the day was hallowed for fuch exercifes , and the keeping of it for fuch exercifes was a part of worfhip : And the ob- fervation thereof cou'd not be omitted , ( even fecludmg the cafe of fcandal) without leaving the ftain of adirecl breach of Gods com- mand touching his worfhip upon the confcience. But this way , to make holy dayes, we think is not in the power of any creature ; albeit, if a day be called holy meerly ratione ufus, or be laid to be relatively holy meerly in regard of deputation ef it to holy exercifes , to be therein performed , no found proteftant Divine will deny, thatfnch dayes are lawfully appointed and keeped crdinis & polui* gratia, for the more convenient performance of duties to God,in referrence to the paflfages of bis good provide nee to us. And what may be once dofiCjmay at the turning of the year, in the fie occafion be done over again, agsin,to fecnre the duty the faecter,and left Gods doings ftiould ccrne in oblivion* Let Rivet upon the Decal. />*£. 1^7. ie8. beread,ar,d it will be feen , that whereas the Jeftiice Antrim did difpute againft the King« power in appointing holy dayei to commemorate great victories, or their nativity or coming to the crown, granting only to them power to appoint dayes of civil folemnity for fuch things; yet, that found Divine herein oppofetb him , averring , thai it is in the fove- raign Magiftrat's power ( he being a believer and Chriftian Ma- giftrate) to appoint a day forfoleran , publick and religious thanks- givings for figoal merries; and that all Cbriftians under the power of that Prince , fhould apply that day to holy ufes , maxims antem Paltores Ecctejia, chiefly the Paftors of the Church, who are fubjefi to Princes as well as others : and fo, ( he fayes ) the godly Empe- rors of old appointed certain dayes for religious ends and purposes.' t\nd,pag. 170. he fpeaks notably well of this purpofe,oot doubting to brand them as Anabaptifts qui nullos dies fejlos inftitut t voitint % commending the good midleway in this matter betwixt the Ana- baptiftand the Papift. &ut this dpoiogift fwajes to the Anabap- tift, condemning all feftival dayes for religious ends, efpecially fuch as are anniverfary , labouring to bury the remembrance of Gods good- nefs amongft people, and their religious acknowledgements of the mercy of having a good King of their own. There can be so reafon given , why foleran remembrances of mercies may not be re- newed yearly at a fet time. God Almighty hach left it under mens liberty to depute or defign certain portions of their time for friend- ly Vitus and entertainment of love wich others ; for recreations of the body, to quicken and ftrcngthen them far the duties of their calling; for thefe things, they may fet times weekly or monthly, &c. And Qui! we think , that he hath abridged mens liberty in defignirg fet portions of their time; whither in the turning of a week, or monethjOryear, for foiemn remembrance of his fignal mercies; and for labouring in a fpecial way, to raife up their hearts unto his praifes, or, to humble their hearts in a more then ordinarily manner, for (ins publick or private, national or perfonal, and for deprecating his fierce wrath - ? It is true , he is Lord of our time and dayes , as be is of al! things that we have ; yet, as in other things which we have,he leaves us to our liberty in difpnfing thereof, providing we break cot throu-h the hedge of his Moral law which he bath fet about us; fo is it the matter of the ufe of our time. And if divine Providence (hould trifle a time fet for re/oycing with calamities , it were very fit then C 2 moft (12) nnfl: to mtice the recent calamity; ycc not fa as to forget the an - ticnt mjrcy : thea G:>d calls to fcrve him wich fear and co re Joyce with trembling m a fp:cial msner according co his prefent difpenfatio n. Bi: torn the L-belier ragethagiinft die Kings Prerogttive (as we heard his W)rds cited) His Mijefty ani hts faichful Councellors may tak. 1 no:ice, that thefe (licklers aim not only at Prelacy, but the Kings Prerogative allowed him by the Laws, is f with Prelacy ) the Butt thatisftotat. Were Prelacy no: in beeing, theinvafion would be upon the Prerogative. King James coupled thefe two. No "Bt/bop no King* and the Libeller couples Prelacy and Prerogative, as the great eye-fores of his Faction. Let men mince the muter as they will,thefe two arc like to incur one fate by the hands or fuch proud violent men who (Irikeat both ; and yet (forfooth) we muft hold them to be very loyal; we muft be deceived into a belief, if we pleafc to be cheated, that it is only Epifcopacy (licks in their (lomach. Further, he ragech exceedingly againft all the demonflrations of Loyalcy which the Pirliament and Subje&s have given to the King. I. Againflthefourty thoufand pounds Sterling given him advitam, Pag. 112,113. Napht. which he aggravates, as fully exequating the excefsof burthens impofed for a time by the V[urper^ and that it "& 'as given him for no other end y but to complement favourers of Pre- iacj y and maintain force toperfecntt andenflave the body of the people The matter was tfms , The Kings Majefty having been for many years outed of his own Eftate , and no doubt being beholden to fome in the time of his affliclion,while fome amongftour felves, during his Fathers time and his own , for the fpace of twenty three years , had polTeiTed themfelveaof his Rents, (hared them amongft them, eating his bread, while they were lifting up the heel againft him : And ( when he re- turns) it being found , that the evil humours that formerly wrought vifibiy amongft many, were not purged out, but were working toward the mifchief that of late appeared ; The People and Parliament of Scotlana returning to their dutiful obedience to the King , offered that teftimony of their Love and Loyalty to him ; wherein , as there was much love , fo there was not a little of juftice ( in refpeel: of his for- mer fufferings) and very much alfo of wifdom for preferring the pub- lick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom. It is falfe that what is given that way,exequats the burthens laid on by the Usurpers : for, it is cer- tainly Sefs, Excife and other Exactions on the Countrey, they drain'd out of Scotland more then five times fo much every year then the [ King gets by that Excife* Nor is it a perpetual impofition fas this man 03) mm faith) it fs only for the Kings life, which all good Subjects will pray may be long continued. But,his malice overflows when he fpeaks of the bellowing of that money , as if it were for no other end but to complement favourites^ Prelates , to raife Forces toperfecute andoppre/s the body of the people. How the King beftows his Re- venues 9 is not for private Sub/eels to enquire : But fure , that Re- venue was not given to the King (as this man faiths to perfecute and enllave the body of the people by military Force , but was given him mainly for enabling him to keep the Nition in order, and bearing down diforderly people demented by fuch as this man ; and therein he doth God and the Nation good fervce: yet , were it fomewhat juftand more acceptable to the reft of the Kingdom, if the heavieft part of that burthen ftiould lye upon the faoulders of unquiet people, who neceflitate the holding up fome inconfiderable Forces againft the in- clination of the King. And the man is exceedingly malicious in lay- ing the blame of this ( as he doth of all the publick burthens of the Nation ) on the B.faops , the fettling of Epifcopacy being then fcarce thought of, and Presbytery itanding by Law when that offer was made to the King. But , were fuch burthens laid on with refpeft to Epifcopacy, fas they are not) yet Scotland will not fmarc fo much under thefe for one hundred years to come, as it did in twenty four years under Presbytery. Who knows not what vaft fums in Seffes, Excifes, Taxt and Loin, exorbitant Fines, borrowing upon printed Bands,hath been drawn from this Nation* meerly upon sccount of pre- fervation and propagation of that form of Government ? Again, it vexeth the man, that there hath been any fined ; and cfpe- cially he rageth againft the humble render of the Kingdoms loyalty to the King, of Men and Horfe to aflift him when he fhould need , as the AH 25 . Seffion 3, bears. As for the Fines,it hath been an ufual thing in all revolutions to fine fome , who have been counted too ftirring againft the Government that is raifed up: But, let the Fines laid on by late pretended Parliaments and Committees 3 be compared with thefe laid on in this laft Parliament , they will be found to furmount them. And although this paughty.perfon wi!l have the Kirg count- ing how he imployes them, it becomes humble Subjects to forbear fuch thoughts, allowing charity to the King that they are well employed for publick good. That the Biftiops have any hand in thefe matters, is falfely affirmed by him 5 but th& roan would have the King made naked both of money and men ; he grudges at all the dutiful belpfrs SubjeSs hath given him in money, for preferving of peace within and for. for refusing of forraign enemies , to which end the laft years Sefs was granted. And alfo , he cannot endure the offer of men to him to af- (ift him when he fhould need ; this he calta*? implicitt fiavifb eman- cipating of our lives to him , and cryc6 \iut, th At now the people are more barajjed and oppreffed, then the conquering Sword of the ene- my did before, by the Scjs , Naph. p. 1 1 5 . and all this is imputed to the Bifhops , forfooth. But who will believe this Libeller, that the Bifhops who at that Parliament and Convention after, were at their charges(for the raoft part)or,that the very fmall number of them there prefent were fo mighty men , as to move fuch great Reprefentatives of the Land to put themfelves under oppreflion, to emancipate their lives and liberties blindly ? Indeed , they are bound to do all the fer- vice they can , under God , to the King ; but that their interefts in- fluenced thofe great Meetings in thefe offers to the King,is faKe, the maintenance of peace at home and abroad was that they minded in their offers. But it concerns the man and his party , to lay as much weight of the peoples grievances upon the Bifhops.as poflibly can be ; there is no burthen that Parliament", Convention of Eftates , or people voluntarily take on themfelves in loyalty to the Prince , but all muft be laid on the Bilhops ; they muft be reprefented as the great Enginicrs of all that which the feditious calls opprtffion and flavery , that they may beexpofed ( under fuch boar- skins ) to be devoured by the Fe- rity of an enraged multitude : but God will protsd: them and plead their innocency by his great power , againft fuch furious men who abound in tranfgrcfllon. But, why doth the man call the loyal and humble tender of their duty and afliftance to the King , a blind eman- cipating and enflaving lives and liberties to his arbitrenxnt? Doth not the Act it felf plainly declare, that the offer is made/or the main- tenance of hit Royal Honour, Authority and Greatneft , and for the peaceable fectsring the Sub]s&s in the enjoyment of their Religion, Liberties, Laws and properties y &c. Whereof they have already the experience of his tendernejs ? Might not the Parliament and Sub/eels ( at that time ) be in fome fears of his Ma jefties trouble from Ranters, Quakers, Anabaptifts, Fifth Monarchy-men? ( although thefe who have appeared of late were not thought fo difloyal, as to draw their Swords againft him ) fhould a loyal Parliament have left the King naked to the fury of a psrverfe Faction, without fo much as offer of afliftance if he needed, or modelling the way there- of? feing it was known, that had his Majefty been deftitute of help, their malice did prompt them to all wickednefs againft him. Did not a Committee (is) Committee of Eftates, not long ago, not only prorrjife, but fend in an Army of twenty thoufand Foot and two cr three thoufand Horfe effective into a forraign Land , to invade their own King and his Friends, profefTedly in behalf of Presbytery? and fhall it be piacular in a Parliament to promife the aflHlance of re en to the King when be needs them ? Is the Nation now therefore enflaved , and was \t nor thrn ? But, the matter is this, the man and his party would have the Kwg both pcor and difarrced , and then they could talk with him ; bur , their earntftnefs this way (hews their evil confeienct and wicked defigns to rife in rebellion tp^n rebellion ; it galls them to be any way prevented of that which their hearts are perveiily prepared for. Bur, arichPurfe and a ready Sword both, will be great helps to Peace : nor fhall it be thought , that any Rhetonck will peri wade the Powers to lay down the Sword altogether, which others are fo ready to take up to their prejudtce and to the roine of their people. It brings to mind Sfofs Apologue, when the Lyon was enamoured of a Countrey- roans Daughter, he became a Suiter for her to her Father • who an- fwered him , that he fcorned to give his Daughter to a Beaft. The Lyon began to grin and roar at that word; but theCountrey-man fearing his own life, began to fpeak calmly to him , and promifed he (houldhave his Daughter; only he befought the Lyon, in regard the Damfel was young , and would be afraid to match with him , unlefs he would take out his Tusks and Teeth , and break or] his long Paw*, that he would do this ; which the Lyon t being much in love with the Dimfel) was content to do , that he might enjoy her. But after he had done this , the Countrey-man got a great Cudgel and beat him away out of doors howling. It fbaii not be needful to give the mortiitj. As for his enimity againft the Kings Majefties Perfon , at well as his Dignity, it hath been fpoken to before; God prefer ve that Sacred Head, and give them repentance who feek his hurt. As to what con- e-errs CoroMAtion Oaths, the Declaration at Dunfermline,- Glova^*- finefs, &c. all which this Libeller labours to aggrege, to caft him otic of the hearts of his people ; it fhail be needlefs to fay much * till the obi gation of the Covenants be fpoken of. If Kings do rmd in their conscience, that in at: y ad ion they tiaveer^agetfctre^felye*toany thing againft ttieirdury, Under great tetrpcatiofls,it is no part of their Prerogative to fee impenitent , nor againft their true Honour to'amend any thing thattoatb been done amifs,or contrair to their duty, as Chri~ ftians or as Kings : And we ought toallow tfrit cfcarjry to cur Ktng, that: that not anfwering the/e engagements , ccmeth not from contempt of God, but fri m religious coivdic n c i his conkierce , of having done Umt wliat a mifs , which for fear of God, he could not ftand to ; but ihey have much toanfwer for, whom the day of his temptation, did csftinares upon him, without fufticitnt dtarirgtf his conference j there hath been too much fin and fcandal on all hands in thefe times. How abufively he was dealt with in the bufinefs of the Declaration at Dunfermiinejmpokd upon him, all Scotland knows, when the.pre- vailing party at the weft-tyrl^, ( againft the mind of the more fober and godly ) difowned his intereft in the quarrel betwixt the land and thefedatian army, only for his delaying to fubferibe that Declarati- on impofed upon him : What ufage he had at that time , by fome in- folcncones, is unpleafant to remember. The unbyafled Presbyteri- ans in England^ and Timorcus and Crofton in their names, condemn the undutiful proceedings with him at that time ; which yet this man defends againlt them as wholly innocent ; nor wanted they juft in- formation thereof, as this roan fayes. What alfo were the grounds of the Kings juft fears , in the bufinefs ofCiova , they who lived at a diftance could not know well, nor ihould without knowledge con- demn. A prevailing party there wa9 then in armes in this Land pleading againft admiflion of the King to the exercife of his royal Power, ( with whom , too many pretending friendship to him,were tamper- ing ) if jealoufie of fuch mens too much complying with the feclarian army, which had fubdued half of the Land , did put him up- onfomefuddencouifes, what marvel was it? But to forbear thefe matters, private perfons, who are not acquainted with the grounds of Princes actings , nor the intrigues of publick affairs and various cir- curoftancef, would in due veneration of theMagiftrate, be fparing to aggravate what they think amifs in their actions, to ftir up fediti- on againft them , and to caft them out of the hearts of their people ; which is this mans defign direclly reprefenting the King as of lejfe Conjcience % honor and Hone fly then the mea>eft Subjetl^ Napht. p3g. 70, Stirring up all good Patriots, ( as he calls them ) to vindicate them/elves from this unnatural conqntft , whereto ( he fayes ) tee are reduced, and from theflavery andopprejfion, pag. 116. telling the people ', that »a\V they are reduced to their prim&ve liberty , as tf they had no Ruier, and are free for ertttmgneW combinations^ Nap. pag. 123. That there are asjuft zaufes of revolt , as the Neather- lands bad for their revolt from the King of Spain , being epprefled ly *D»\e dc Alva, &c. wherepf afterward.; and telling them , That the Co- (ij) Covenant is the very fundamental Law of the Kingdom , and the great Charter of Religion and Righteoufnefs 9 whereon all the rights and priviledges , either of Kirg or People , are principally bottomed andfecured^ Napb. pag. 72. Yea, in the wicked heat of his fpirir, he is mifcarried to blafphe my >/>*£. 67. averring, that Gods own immediate grant of a Kingdom ^ and h\ sinter po fed oath to give it, is nojuch good right to it 9 as contracts and agreements with people , citing the Scriptures toconfirm his blafphemy , 2 Sam* 5. 3. 2 I(ing t n. ij % which we did clear before. Bur, God help the King and People both, if this new fundamental Law of the Kingdom , fas that of the Cove- nant is termed ) be the principal bottom and fecurity of all their privi- ledges , it being ft flexible to the various fancies of this man and his party , and others alfo; that , although the fubftance of Religion and Righteoufnefs contained in the word of God and allowed in our unqueftionable Laws, be indeed the great ftability of the King and peoples priviledges, (which we conftantly own, and even the matter of the Covenant>fo far as it concerns thefe ) Yet the Covenant ( as mif- interpreted and wrefted by thefe men ) and the Law for it is fo far from being the principal found uion of Prince or Peoples fecurity in their priviledges, thatitmufl needs be the fountain of continual confufi- ons and troubles', and ( if flood to) be the deftruclion of the Go- vernment and peace of this ancient Kingdom : And being impofed by fubjecls upon the King s againft the fundamental Laws of the King- dom,, and by fome fubjecls (who had no lawful authority ) upon others,againft the fame fundamental Laws, it is moft juft'y laid afide : Although our truft in God is, that our conftancy in the proteftanc Religion. eftabl (Tied by our juft Laws, fhail. appear to all the world, to the glory of God and the confufion of wicked and feditious fpirits who breath out blood and cruelty* But nex; , the Libeller falls upon tbe loyal Parliament with much fury, rep^qfetning them all alongs as a moft wicked Apoftatecrue, a°tingin the meer fpirit of wickednefs: And particularly , falls upon the wickednefs of the Afts and Laws pad in that Parliament. He afferts , the parliament did direflly inntvate the fundamental Law and Qonftitutionrf, the Kingdom^ and made the Kings Throne the foundation of Perjury and tsfpoftafie, Naph. pag. 8(5 That they heinoufly blafphemea the Spirit andWorl^of the Lord in the Aft for anniverfary remembrance of the Kings Birth and Return , p»g. S7. That the Aft refciffory of Laws againft the Presbytery , Was the complement of all wickednefs and the height of ftfarpation, above D papal ; fteriesof State : and if they have not room in the Kings Councils to do as they pleafe , his a&ings fhall be foon in the Pulpit to berepre- fented as they pleafe. Bur, for this particular, was it fuch a crime of m:f-governmcnt ( in the neceffary want of a prime Officer of State ) for the King to give fpecial ttuft to one fingle perfon ( without over- ruling his Council) to correfpond with him , and to take care of pub- lick Affairs I Doth the King of Spain, appointing a Deputy in Naples, ikzLorvcouKtrep , Mexico 3 orothcrof his Dominions, therefore alienate his Crown . ? or, is he therefore to be looked upon as doing that? or, will it import that he may do fo ? Or, may the King of 'Britain alienate Ireland, becaufc there he hatb a Deputy ? It is not againft the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, that the King being abfent, fhould lay fome greater burthen of the Government upon foroe fingle perfon , with whom he may fpecially correfpond, without neglecl of his Council • and it is known , whether under that name of Commiflioner or not , Kings f when abfent ) muft have fome one or other to communicate their minds to in publick Affairs , more imme- diacy then to others. Nor is it againft our own Laws and Cuftoms, that there have been Lieutenants under the King ( even when he was prefent in the Kingdom ) for managing the Government , even when the King was neither minor, nor di fabled by ficknefs or age. As in the time of Robert the fecond King of Scotland, he had under him his Lieutenant and Governour of the Realm, Robert Earl of Car- r/#,afterward King Robert the third, Father to James the fiift. And it may be feen in the Parliament held at Scoon t tsjnno, 1372. the Earl of Ctrrill is conftitute by the King as his Locumtenens , his Lieute- nant, and he gives his pcrfonal Oath of fidelity to the King and Countrey, and the Parliament fwears to be true in afliftinghim/W JRege in executing juftice. And if a King may make a Lieutenant to himfclf while he is within the Kingdom , as that King did, with how much more reafon might the King have one when he is without the Kingdom } But, as to the Council, that he might leave no Authority untouched with his foul hands , he falls on them for fix Proclamations emitted in the Kings Name ; he calls their Acts and Proclamations very wicfyd- **/>, Pag. 1 2t>» and exclaims on the Council, in Scripture phrafe, as murtkerers, Pag. 125. Wo is me now , my foul isVveary becattfeof mtsrtherers* But a little confider the Proclamations : The fir ft Pro- clamation doth not ( as this man faith ) difcharge all charitable Con- tributions; this is a calumny. All that is intended by the Proclama- tion r.s .) tionis) that no publick Contributions be made without the caufes be fcen and approver! by the Magiftrate and he be fatisficd in the defigns and ends of fuch Contributions pretended for charity: If fuch dif- order be permitted, that the Kings Subjects be put to contribute with- out his approbation or permilTIon , a cafb might be gathered by a fedi- tious people to levy war againft the King , or to feed and fofter his known enemies under pretence of charitable Contribution?. Iq the fecond Proclamation , Parochioners are injoyned orderly to repair to their own Paroches ; and this Companion is an infolent Sectary , ja calling our Paroch-aiTemblies Curates Conventiclesx they are meetings of Gods people under lawful Orthodox Paftcjrs , ( as he dare not de- ny, and will be made good againft him ) and yet this man f who will have Papifts forced to the Church , albeit they think the Minuter an Heretick, will have Proteftants forfaking the true Church and true Miniftry. As to the third Proclamation againft Conventicles ; The occasional meetings of gracious and humbie Chriftians , for the exer- cife of Gods worfliip to their mutual edification, were never inhibited ; nay, on the contriry, the King engages to give ail encouragement to godly and peaceable perfons , both in the publick and private worfhip of God , nor will the liberty be denyed which is allowed by the Ge- neral Aflemb'y, 1641. in the Acl againft Impiety and Schifme. Bur, when thefe Kingdoms had ( for many years) fad ly experienced the evil fruits of Conventicles (under pretence of Religion, but for worfe ends really ) who can blame the Rulers to have fuch meetings in fome jealoufie, and to keep a watchful eye over them, th3t they be not Nur- feries of mifchief wberein rebellion is contrived, while God is pre- tended to be worshipped , efpeciaily when open contemners of pub- lick Worship do flock together to fuch Conventicles? fhail there be noreftraintputupon the meetings of fuch perfons, in order to the prefervationcf publick Peace ? The fourth Prcclamation requiring fuch as had affifted , or might be called to aflift Minifters in Discipline and the exercife thereof,hath nothing evil in it. What fuppofe it were not told them in what capacity they were to ad ( as Eider* are not J There is do perfon in a Parcch ( thought fit for it, and being war- randed by the King and Councils Authority ) but may , and ought to counfel , countenance and affift a Minifter in bridling and bringing to order fcandalous (inners : but fuch is the regard this man hath to Gods glory , that he will have all men to ftand upon their points, be- fore they do God any fervice in curbing fcandalous offenders. And though by theirwifdom, authority and moyen in a Parcehe,they might be (it) be very aflillant to the Minifter in fuch a work , yet will he have them do nothing , unlefs they be declared Eiders of equal power with the Minifter, and direct managers of tht keyes of the kingdom of Heaven. And yet.we fay,that thefe who thought themf Ives fuch Elders before, ( fuppofed to have a divine Ecclefiaftical Calling) were left by the Pro- clamation to polfefs themfelves of that opinion, (which the Procla- mation declares not againft) So that they might have been doing the duty injoyned, upon their own principles and grounds. It is a certain truth, when a duty (which is upon the matter good) is commanded to be done either by anufurped Authority, or by a lawful Authority upon unwarrandable grounds • yet, if he who is commanded to do ir, finds a co-incidence of another juft and oblieging Authority and a well-grounded command, he may, and ought to do the thing command- ed, albeit on the part of the ons Authority that commands, there be defect of juft power , or though his command doth not ftand ( as ie comes from him) upon warrandable grounds , 1 may do many things eojubente, fed non ejtu jtt[ftt* This well considered, might have help- ed beth Minifter* to have concurred in Synods , and Elders in SeflionSj without fo much fcrupling as was pretended. The fifth Poc lam a- tion is juftifiable as the third is, being much to the fame purpofe. The fixtb Proclamation was very pious, inferring no irapofition upon mens judgements touching Epifcopacy ( although it be not againft piety to allow thereof ) The purpofe of it is only, that godly fupcriors fhould in their callings labour , that their inferiours turn not rank Atheifh, and that they be not expofed to the feducing fnares of the devil , by forfaking the orderly waiting on an orthodox and lawful Miniftry. All thefe things confidered, what reafon was therefor a petulant Rhe- torician to flee upou his M a jefties Council and Proclamations iffuing from him by their deliverance? But next,above all he vents his fplen againft that moderate (not ar- bitrary) Commiflion, for executing the Laws touching Religion : he challengeth the illegality of the erection thereof, and tyranny of pro- ceeding therein. This Commiflion he calls high % but it is very lw and limitedlnhs actings , and more then fome other Judicatories in the Land, Naph.pzg. 114. &c. pag. 143. &c. and, pag. 126. Now he flees out fo furioufly againft this Judicatory, chat not only pleads he it to be illegal in the erection of it ; but alio, arbitrary ani highly tyrannical in the proceedings and actings thereof; of which, two things let us now take notice. 1. Napb* pag. 114. alledgeth this Court directly contraveens the Act of Parliament, Pari. S, K. Jam. 6. Act f*3) Acl. 1 5 1 • ~D if charging all new Courts pot approved in parliament t and bccaufe he forefaw , that the acknowledgement of the Kings Su- premacy and Prerogative,might be fome ground for his liberty ro erecl: this Court for executing his Laws , the Libeller fayes jeeringly , Than the Catholicon cf the Kings omnipotent ^rergative ( where is the man that counts it omnipotent ? ) cannot falve this breach inrefpetl the fame 'Prerogative was by the 129. «/f# of that fame Parliament , immediately preceedmg the Acl a Hedged, then alfo re- cently enabled. And then he exclaims on this Court, as a State- mon- fter, abfaralj confounding See lefiaftical atd Civil jurifdielion^im* powering fecnlar perfons to fufpendand depoje, and pretended Church* men and Minifters to fine, confine, hear cerate, &c. True it is, that in that Parliament^ 5 84. May 22. the Kings Royal power overall States and Subjects withiu the Realm , was ratifyed or rather declared ( not recently enaded, as this man falle'y faith ) the occafion whereof, was the malapertnefs of fome Minifters, who, hiving preached treafon in the Pulpit, for which they were convented before the King and his Council , did decline him and them , becaufe ( forfooth) they behoved to have no Judges of their doctrine but their ownPrCibyteries ; whereupon, the Parliament tflerts the King Au- thority over all Minifters, and with the Kings Authority, declare it pum(hab!c as high treafon , if any perfon , ( Minifter or oners ) being fummoncd before him and his Cour.cil , fhould offer to decline him or his SuccefTors and their Council. This was done indeed , as became a Monarch and a faithful Parliament , that heady demagogues might not,under pretenceof preaching,do and fay as they pleas'd to the opsn affronting of the Supreme Authority of the Land. True it is alfo, in the I$t, Ad of that Parliament, ad judgement sand jurifdiflionf, that had been accujlomed t* be ufed and executed upon his Makefiles Snbjs&Sy fir twenty four years by paft, which had r.ot been approved by his Highnefs and the States, are ordmined to ceafe in time coming, while the order thtreof be confieredby his Highnefs ard the parlia- went^and allowed and ratifiea by them. It is maoifcft by the Adic felf and the occafion of it , that Church-alTernblies, ( which had uf- urped Power over the fubjeds without Law, or allowance of the King and his Parliament ) were i peciaUy meant, ( not excluding any jurif- didions or judgements civil , which before that time had entred in ufe and practice without Law, if any inch were ) But evident it is by the Aft it felf, that whatever difebarge there is of formes of judgc- ~.:s and juril'diftionsjbefore that Ad entered in practice and cufton\ with (24) without allowance of King and Parliament , yet a liberty is left to his Majefty, ( without mentioning the Eftates ) by his [fecial command and exprejje licence ', to call Councils > Conventions, tysjjemblies , to treaty con/ nit cf y determine in matters of State, Civil or Ecclefi* afiical , even otherwife then in the ordinary judgement : For, it be- ing declared unlawful for Subjects , without his command and licence to meet and treat of thefe matters (except in ordinary judgements and judicatories ) the Parliament clearly makes it free for the King, to give command and licence to fome, to meet to treat of fuch matters (even outwith the ordinary judgements ) to call fuch meetings, as he fees the neceflity of the State and publick peace require, is remitted to him, even outwith the ordinary judgements. This power the Parliament took to be included in his Prerogative(which they had acknowledged; to be ufed by him as he might fee the particular neceflities of the State did require. So that if the King fhould fome time find a ne- ceilicyoffettingupa Court, (albeit none of the ordinary Judicato- ries ) he is fully warranded by that A&of Parliament to do it, and it well accords with the intent of that Ad. Accordingly, that very fame Parliament, in the following Ad, 132. twice over mentions and allows the jurifdicl'ton of the Kings Commiffioners in caufes Eccle- ftafticat: And alfo in the Ac! , 133. So thititisfalfc, that Com.- miifioners or Courts meeting about Ecdefiaftical afiairs by the Kings Commiflion, are by that Parliament difallowed ; all former Courts not allowed by Law, were indeed discharged, till they iliould be ap- proven by King and Parliament 5 but future Courts , which his Ma- jefty might fee fit for executing his Laws in fome Church matters, ( not for making new Laws, nor encroaching upon the work either of Council or Seflion, or other ordinary Judicatories ) are no way for- bidden in that 13 1. Act of Parliament, but ( as we have heard J ra- ther allowed,and a liberty in thefe things left to his Majefty ; So that in fetting up this Court, he doth nothing againft Law, but according to it : befides this we hear alfo of the Kings Commiffioners in caufes €cclejiaftica/ t Par. ;. Jam. 6* All 51. and Par, 11. All 28, So that fuch a Commiflion to be given by the King, for putting his Laws con- cerning Church-affairs to execution, is no new tbirg in this Kingdom, nor without the approbation of our Laws > rear a hundred years ago, and even fince the times of reformation. We enquire not anent the diverfe meafures of Power granted to thefe , fo called Commiflioners then and now ; on f y,we fee that by !aw,the King might appoint Com- miflioners in caufes Ecclefiaftical : Neither doth the King aoy thing be- tides fid^s his duty,ih appointing fome to take fpecial care of the vigorous exe- cution of his laws touching Ecclefiaftical arfau\%and to reprefle diforder- ly and tumultuous affronting of thefe% Nor is it any prejudice to the Subject, thefe Commifiioners being limited by the law in their pro- cedure ; yea, it is for the eafe of the Subjects to fcqutfter fome to no- tice thefe matters in fpecial manner f that they may not be burthened with a tedious and chargeable attendance before they get a hearing or doling of their matters ; an inconveniercy that might endamnage them in their attendance on fome greater Courts , where multiplicity and throng of weighty affairs might make a necefiity of great delay, and longer and more chargeable waiting. And there is no man , that can cordially acknowledge the Kings Supremacy, but muft allow him a power for better preferving order and the greater convenierxy of the Subjed: to ere& (when need is)fuch a well reguIiteCommiflxon- Court. But the other great exception againft this Comrmtflon i$, that it is a State- Monfttr ; che ApoL and this msn calls the King a State-anti- ckrift, aciviiPope t becaufe he will not let every Minifter and their meetings play the Pope,but claims his own right. And now (forfooth) the Commiffion , ( which he calls high, though it be levelled with the Laws) muft be a State-mwjler. And why is it fo .'becaufe ("faith hejit abfurdly confounds civil and ecclefiaftical )xixM\&>Qv\jmpQwerifl£[{CHl» arper(ons to fufpend^epofeMtnifters. And the ApoL z6ds t pag. i$9»to excomwanicate^and giving ptetended Church-men andMinijters poty- er to fine ' t c on finest near cerate. To wh ch we fay, 1* That it is falfe that the Kmg commits fufpen(ion,depi fition , excommunication to meer fe- cular men ; there is not one word in the Commiffion of excommunica- tion • ( fo that herein the Apologift lies fplendidly ) nor is there any word in the Commiflion, importing a power given to fcular men, to fufpend or depofe Mioifters • For, the Commiffion ( as the words bear) doth only empower the perfons named , to appoint disorderly Mwiftcr s to be cenf tired, with fufpenfion and Uepo fition* Now fure, it is one thing to appoint to be done , and another thing to do : Our ancient zealous Parliaments thought it no encroachment upon the priviledgesof the Church of Cbrift , (neither did the Church then think fo of their deed J to appoint relapfed Papifts and non-Commu- nicants continuing obftinate, to be excommunicated, and the fentence to be pronounced againft them. And to appoint fuperincendents neg- ligent in their duties to be removed , Par. g. James 6* Ad 45. Not that they thoughr,that fecular-men, (as this fpiritual-man calls them ) could immediately execute and do fuch things j yet, thej appoint the E things (tit) things to be done by thefe whafe concernment and calling it was to be immediate doers thereof: and this is no more then any Supreme Magiftrate may do. Any Supreme Magiftrate may , upon cognition of th: caufe, appoint Churchmen to do their O.iice in centering Delinquents, as they will be anfwerable , for the right difcharge of their duty,according to the Laws which concern Affairs Ecclefiaftical. But, it will be faid, that albeit a civil Judicatory may appoint Church-men or Meetings to do their duty in Ecclefiaftical centering of Minifters , or others who are delinquent; yet , they may not ante- cedently take the cognition of the caule to themfelves , but refer both the cognition of the caufe and executing of the cenfure to Church- men, who by vcrtueof their fpiritual Calling and Office, may in the Name of Chrift, both judge and execute the cenfure. Bur, this Judi- catory doth not only take the antecedent cognition of the cmfe , bnc further, doth actually cenfure with fufpsnfion and depofition , which are proper Ecclefiaftical cenfures. Anf. if When a Church and State are embodyed together, and become materially one j and when Religion and the order of it is be- come the Law of the Land, that the Magiftrate, the La w-giver,may not (without dependence on others) judge what facts are clearly con- trary to the Law (avowed alfo by the party accufed to be contrary) and punifliable according to the tenor of it , is indeed a ftrange limita- tion upon his power. Who can imagine, that a Law-giver may not judge according to his own Laws , and injoyn the executing of Law to thefe who by their calling are concerned in the immediate execu- tion thereof? If a Magiftrate may appoint an obftinate Papift to be excommunicated by the Church (atkirgour Law, as we heard, doth allow of) Why may not the Magiftrate be Judge in the matter of fift clearly contrary to the Law, and injoyn Church- rulers to do their duty in the immediate executing of the cenfure ? True it is indeed, where the f ift is not clear, nor confeltcd to be againft the Law (as for example, If a falfe Teacher or Heretick plead, that his Doctrine is not agaicft the Religion eftablifhed by Law) in that cafe, much is to be attributed by the Magiftrate to Church- officers and their Meetings, that they may refpondere de jure , and declare the oppofition of the Hereticks Doctrine to the received orthodox Doctrine eftablifhed by Law : But, where the fact is both in it felf clear, and clearly confefled by the accufed party to be againft the Laws concerning Religion , the Magiftrate may antecedently judge thereof, and needs not wait on the refolution of others, but put Church-men to do their ducy in centering the (17 ) the delinquent as be deferves, and as they will be anfwersble for malc- adminiftration,in not doing their duties as the Law JBJeyot* 2. As for what is faid, that in that CcrcrrmTion fecular men (as this celeftial Prophet calletb them) do by themfelves fufpend , depofe Mi- nitowers , which are fpiritual cenfures, only to be managed by fpirituai Office-bearers , It is anfwercdj 1* Suppofe fuch a power were grant- ed to thefe (fo called fecular men,) it would be confidered , that this CornmiiTion is not intended to be perpetual , but is granted in the pre- fenr, confuted, and not yet well-conftitute State of this Church (the Church having for many years been disjointed by a furious Faction) And their own men do grant, Magiftrates may do a great deal mere in Church- maters now then ordinarily in a found conftitution is allowable. 2. It is not true, that fecular men do in this Coromiflion fufpendor depofe Miniftcrs, but only thej appoint them to be fo cenfured , whe- ther by their own Blftiops (if they abfent^ or by fome other B (hops Members of the Meeting, who are their Eccleliaftical Superiors ac- cording to Liw, and whom the whole Meeting may require to do their duty according to Law. 3. It is much doubted , if any Minifter hath been formally depofed, (that is) deordinated or degraded of his Mi- nifterial Function and all the power of it by that Commiflion ; the moft chey do, is to remove them from a particular Church where they gave ofience, or cannot fervc with fafety to the publick Peace ( as the CommifTioners do judge) or ( where the tranfgreffion is great againfl; the Law?) to difcharge the exercife of their Miniftry within the King- dom , and to deprive them of any Benefice therein. If this be called depoiicion from the Office abfoluteJy,it is not rightly fo called- 4. As to what he adds of Chirch mens medling in civil Afiiirs in that Court, it leads to the great queftion of the lawfulncfs of civil Places or Power in Church- men, of which wedefire not to fpeakmuch ; wiping, that God may from time to time nife up honourable Pcrfons, who are not imployed about Affairs in the Church, men of integrity and ability to fervc their Prince and Country in managing the Civil Government, that others may not be put to the trouble; and praying God to bkfs and profper thefe who are honoured by their Prince to be imployed in thefe matters. But when the queftion cosnes to be, whether a Prince, perceiving fuch meafure of prudence and ability in fome Church-men, that he doth account thcafliftance of their cotinfel and judgement needful for the publick good , may not at times make fome ufeof their good Gifts for counfel or help in fome parts of Govern- ment ? and whether thefe Church-men (of which number they are but E 2 few) (»8J few) may not, as fats fl*g/s*,give him any meafure of that afliftance which be calls for, whether in counfelling, as to the cftablifhing of Laws, or judicial managing fome times of fome pare of Civil Govern- ment ; efpecialiy in thac part of it- that concerns the guarding and fettling the Church, bearing down of fcandals , and prefer ving refpecl to the Ordinances of God ? It may BJtbought a very hard bafinefs either to fcclude the Prince from making ufe of fuch, when he fees it fit for the publick ncceflicies of the State , or for them to refufe to ferve the Prince at any time in that kind as Subj.cls and faes Regni ; yet fo, that there be no notable diftra&ion from their main Calling , their temporary feceflnn from the fame being otherwayes Efficiently fup- plied, and they honeftly aiming, in their temporary imployroent for the State , at the good of the Church , which is lodged in the Common- wealth, the wellfare thereof much depending upon the happy and peaceable ftate and right government of the fame. Mr. Ttez.* , in his anfwer to my Lord Glames t queft. i. approves, that a Pallor, being called by the King to be upon hisCouncil,may thereto content tanquam Civis Regni , and that a Minifter may have , as a Citizen in the Com- monwealthjplace in Comitiis Reiptiblica^v in the Parliament ; Yea, in ihe raoft ftricT: times in this Church^Mr.Ptwf, Minifter &tSt>Cftthberts, a great man in the A(TembJies» was allowed or tolerated for a long time to be a Senator of the Colledge of Juftice. True it is , a Gofpel Mi- nifter fhould not be ambitious of any imployments in rebus hujw fe- culi, nor voluntarily and with delight follow thefe things, either aim- ing to fatisfie carnal pride or fordid covetoufnefs , and turning his back apon his fpiritual Calling, negleding the flock of God committed ta him, Tcii/Tct f*5Ae7d, q*tkts/* t that our opprejfiont and grievances , by reafon of that Court alone , do far exceed all the preffures and injuries of the Spanifh Inqttifitinn ^hereupon the United Provinces have juftified and approved th;ir revolt from the King of Spain to all P rot eft ant States and Churches. Before the exceptions at the proceedings of this Court be confiier- ed, we cannot but be aftonifaed at the bold wickednefs of this Libeller, who dares not only to compare that Court with the Spanifh Inqut- (ition (raprefenting it as far vjotk) but alfo to a{fert, that by rea- fon of its exceeding the preflure of the Spanfh Inquifition , there is jufter caufe to revolt from our King, then the Netherlands had upon account of that Inquificion to revolt from the K ; ngof Spain : For fohe faith, that the Netherlands upon that account jufiified their re- volt, be fore all Proteftant States and Churches • andtheprejfures now being by this Court greater^ (as he faith) who cannot but clearly infer, that now a revolt of this Nation from the King is more juftifi- able , then that of the Netherlands from the Kipg of Spain > This is fo dear ftirring up of the Subjects to a revolt from the King , that k cannot be coloured with any excufe. And it is wlfhed, that all who love the King and the publick Peace, may watch well againlt fuch incendiaries. But before we come to particulars,the man is in a very great miftakfv to think that the jnjuries of the inquifition , were either the only or main caufe of the revolt of the T^jatherlands from the King of Spain, ( although the grrveous and tyrannical proceedings of that Court, to- ward (30) ward thefc of the reformed Religion, and the bloody perfautiom thereof, were brought in at lift as a collateral or partial adjuvant caufe of the revolt ) for, any acquainted with that hiftory may know* thatthe War ofthe2^f£rr/W/ againft the King of Spain 9 was a War of State and not of Religion, the raoft part of the people then when they took Armes againft him bcingPapifts; the Armes were raif- cd for their civil Liberties, which they conceived to be opprefled, fiift A by Cardinal (fra»viifoih by Duke do Alva ( efpecially) Cent thither by the King of Spain. The oppreflions ufed by this Duke againft their civil Liberties and his horrible cruelty » deftroying by the hand of the Hang-man eighteen thoufand of them in the time of fix years, where- in he governed them , as the hiftory faith, was the great caufe of the War and of the revolt , as any acquainted with the bjftory may know. But it is horrible perverfends in this man to fuggeft, that the proceedings of this one Court of CommiiTion , for executing his Mi jellies Laws, (hould be a greater caufe of revolt then that which the Netherlands had for their revolt from the King of Spain: fe- ing neither are our civil L berties thereby opprefTed ( this he dare not fay ) nor hath there been any drop of any mans blood fhed by them ,• nor any thing done by them , which may not abide the teft and light of Law, as fhall now appear by considering his exceptions againft their proceedings, i. He faith, that contrary to the Acl of Pari. Jam. 6. Pari. 10. cap. i$. Anno , 1585. perfons are brought before them byfe>[ure, orfummary citation^ without any caufe fignifi-^d , but to anfroer fuper inquirendis >»*/& far of Officers of Stste conferring ro ifTue the fummor.s. And fur- ther it may be faid , whatever inhibition by the Aft there is againft the Secretary or his Deputies, to iflue fuch fummons, this hinders not the King and his Council, ( or any part thereof , whom he employes about publick affairs ) to irTue fuch fummons, when they fee the fafety cf the Kings perfon and publck peace fo to require it, that the muter cannot admit delay. 2. The Libeller chargeth the Court for tyranni- cal proceed iogi in re fa fag to permit advice to per/ ens cited, cr to ad' wit or receive Larvfal defences , fro inftanced in cne Mr. < Por-> terfield his cafe. Albei: it be a hard C3fe for publick Judicatories to be brought upon the St3ge , to make defence of their actings againft every (editions perfon, tfitt can (lip in his calumnies againft them into tbepreffc , without avowing his name, (ifL^rds of Council and Sefiion were put to the task, hew hurt hen fome, ridiculous and contemptible fhould Government be rendred in the eyes of peo- ple?) yet we doubt nor,that the honourable Court of the Coramiflion can and will clear their own actings , and that they do not deny to any man to advi/e him/elf well nor refafe to atmit lawful defences ^hkb needs not be many before a Judicatory where the queftion is only of matter of facl in Submitting to the Laws or not : the only defence againft an accufrrion for not fubmitting to the Law , is to plead fub- miffion or a readinefs to fubmit ( feing the quality of the Law is not difputab.'e in that Court ) and fuch a defence , that Court never refufed. If that perfon did offer to table a procefs againft a Mini- fter, in order to his cenfure, as it is not to be doubted, if that honour- able Court could have conceived, that all fcandalous words of Mini- fies to o:hers, belonged to their cognifance ( parting by the Bifticps and Synods ) they would have granted him a full hearing, he be- having himfelf as the Kings Subject : But when herefufeth the oath cf Supremacy , albeit otherwife they m ght have congnofced upon his accufations againft the Mioifter,the matter was juftly Sopped ( to fay nothing of other concurring circumftances,\vhich the Libeller conceals, and cannot be cleared but from the Court-books J the ]urij ccn- fults will hy>Legem contemnens , non eft dig* us bene fie 10 Levis, his refufing to own the Kings Supremacy, did clear fuffieiently from what fountain his diforderly withdrawing from publick Werlhip flowed, and alfo, his difsfFedion to the Kings Government for which he was fined, &c Bur when particularities of the proctfic are not known, the matter (ball not be taken on truft from this maJicous reprefenrer cf all the proceedings of that Court* 3. He accufeth that Court > f*r Arbk* arbitrary and tyrannous proceedings^ becaufe they require men , who - an/wer their other queftions and demands , to take the oath of Supre* rnacy^or fome other (ul/criptionfor obedience to EcclefiafUcal Laws, or any other bond and fecurity they pleafe , in which their tyranny they are fo inconfequent , faith he, that they neither remember that Luvrs (hnuld be obeyed,not fubfenved^cr that this is agriveeusim- po fit ion upon the perjwafions of people Jtohich ( as he faith; Was fat [el j charged on the Covenant, An(. i. \\j y did not the Libeller infiar.ee fome perfons that were put to fubferibe obedience to Ecclefiafiical Laws, and (hew us what thefe Fcclefiafiical Laws were, whereto their fubfeription was required ? Seing he hath not done this ( not for want of will, which he (hews in other things fufficiently ) it muft be looked upon as his fiction. 2. As for putting men to take the oath of Supremacy, the Law allows the fame// thefe who are entrufted by the King fee caufe to require it • and for bonds for good behaviour andficuring the peace, he himfelf cannot difallow them. 3. The man delivers here a piece of firange Doctrine , that whatever be the extent of a peoples furrender unier any conftitution, for the enforcing of obedience and fubmiffion j yet the liberty of perfwafton is undoubt- edly under Rood to be referved } and it cannot be abridged by any im- pofed oath or fubfeription , without their own conffyt: wherein, 1. He fpeaketh a piece of fubhrae nonfenfe , if he mean, that no oath impofed on them to abridge their liberty, can be taken, without their own confent, that is fure ; for, every one, that fubferibeth or fwear- eth is prefumed to confent ( however his confent be obtained ) But if fie mean, that Magifirates can impofe no oath u}on any per[ons y with- out their antecedent confent to have it impofed j er,that an oath y which is again ft their perjwsfion to the contrary , cannot be impo/ed on them by the Magiflrat's Authority (which he muft mean,if he fpeak to pur- pofe) he loofeth the finews of all Government, and of fecurity of Ma- gifirates in Governing. No oath of Alledgiance to the King can be thus impofed, ifpeoplefay, it abridgeth the liberty of their perfwa- fion that it fhould not be taken. And thus alio (ifthisaf&rtion hold good) the Covenant was undoubtedly impofed unlawfully up- on the moft part of Scotland ; for, men were not content, withafur- render in fubmiflion and obedience to Presbytery ( other things in the Covenant concerning the Protefiant Religion againft Popery, were willingly owned) but would have that particular form fworn ( as this man thinks ) in the Covenant , contrary to the liberty of perfwafion that many had of k : And the impofition was enforced on all ranks with til) with dreadful penalties , and all this done without and againft peoples confent, as antecedent to the impefition. 2. Is it not evident , that when fuch men had power , they were not content with peoples fur- render to fubmiflion and obedience, but without their confents regard- ing the liberty of no roans perfwafion to the contrary , impoied Oaths upon whom they would ? not only that cf the Covenant, but that Pari, in the Year, 1649. (now Declared null and unlawful) Aft 10. Ordains a bond to be fubfenbed by any whom they thought expedi- ent to put to it ; wherein, not only is the fubfenber under penalty en- gaged to keep the Peace, but the liberty of his perfwafion is clearly ab- ridged ; for, he is ordained ( as the words bear) to declare, that b*ac- knoVtledgetb the indittion, meeting and confttttition^ the Uvpfulnefs freedom and Authority of the /aid Parliament ; and not only that he (hould never call the fame in qucftion, but even di/cover and reveal the weft fe ere t thing , which in any fort may prejudge that T^rli^ment er their Committees ( were it but a word fpoken by a friend in fecreti &c* ) Was there not here, not only a fecuring fubmiflion snd fecuring the Peace under penalty , but a plain abridging the liber- ty of perfwafion concerning the conftitution of that Parliament ? for, many that thought it unlawful and disorderly, were put to aflerc the contrary , elfc they were to be held as publick enemies , and pro- ceeded againft with all extremity, that the Parliament and their Com- mittee fhould think fit. Will the Libeller fay, that there was tyran* nous proceeding ? will he fay that they dealt abfurdly, whereas they bad made a Law declaring the lawfulnefs and freedom of the confti- tution of the Parliament; ycr, to require mens fubferiptions to the matter of that Law , as they faw caufe ? will he fay that obedi- ence to them was fufficiently fecured by their own fan&icn and needed not peoples hand- writing ? But now, this meek Creature,in the pre- sent cafe will have no impofition of Oaths or Subscriptions againft a peoples liberty of perfwafion or to abridge it ; this may be remember- ed for another time, if this fort of men in divine wrath attain co pow- er : In the mean time, their partiality may be obferred in iropofing Oaths aod Subfcriptions ( when power was in their hand ) upon any whom they pleafed, without their confent and without regarding the liberty of their perfwafion to the contrary of things which they put them to declare ; But now denying that liberty to the Magiftrate, to do any thing of this kind againft the perfwafion of people, whatever the matter of the Oath impoled,or Subfcription required, be ,• for that is not under queftios now. But be the matter of the Oath lawful F or (34) or unlawful, the roan maintains , chat againft peoples perfwafion and without their confent there (hou Id benofuch irnpofuion ; albeit he and his party might have ioipofcd Oaths, &c % contrary to peoples con - fents and perfwaiions. So doth he dore on his own party , as if they did all things infallibly right : And no fuch power is now to be allowed to Magilhste*, as was and fhould be allowed to his party when in power. 4. That honourable Court is charged with fudiain, proceeding to (entence, without any breathing or inter mijfion , upon dtfeovery of the Icaft guile or offensive demeanor • And of exceeding their Conimijji on and the Laws in their degrees and qualities of pu- nipjmentt thtj inflibl, Untill this libeller produce his proofs, it fhal! not be believed on his ttftimony, ( although his feduced party may be given over to believe his lies) That this Court , wherein there are fo many psrfons of Honour and Confdenceyioth precipitate their fenten- ces, or proceed without grave advice, confidering that they have not only upon them the eyes of an evil people in a fedicious and quarel- foa?c time ; bur,that they are accomptable to the King in their doings, and above all,that the eyes of the great God are upon them , who will revife all their fentences and judgements. As for the excefles of punifhment infltEted ( as he faithj beyond aU proportion either of Law or reafon^and beyond their Commiffion, which (35 he faith ) in the principal, hath no fuch War rand as toftigwatize, bam(h % &Q. We fay, when he C3n produce the principal warrand of the Commiffion , their power will be feen ; nor can any rationally fuppofe that the Court would venture beyond the bounds of their Commifli- on : And if his Majefties Council, or any competent number thereof (in that capacity ) did in the cafe of horrid villanies highly tending to the difturb3nce of pub'.ick Peace, aggravate punilhments,they know how to anfwer it. And it is worthy to be considered, feing it is impoflible for humaneLaws exprefly to provide the proportioning of punifhmenrs to all poffible aggravating or alleviating circumftances of faults, whe- ther in punifhing, Judges ftiould befotyed to the letter of the Law, that in cafe of fome fpecial unforefeen circumftances of faults, whe- ther alleviating or aggravating the fame , they may not either mitigate the punishment, or make it fomewhat greater. Albeit in ordinary cafes they are to look to the letter of the Law, and fleer their courfe by that Star ; yet , fometimes there is a necetfity to commit fome particu- larities (which the Law could not comprehend^) to the prudence of Judges , who are rather to look to the mind of the Lawgiver and the equity of the Law,*s applyed to actions fo or fo circumftanttated, then to to the bare letter of the Law. In judging according to humane Laws, fometimes a quum is to be preferred tojuftnm , there being that defect in them, that there could be no provision for all circumftances of acti- ons concerning which Laws are made; which caufeth a neceflityof referring much (in cafes of punifhment) to prudent and good Judges. Ciccro-pro C^cinna {peaking of Laws, faith, Serif tumfe qui calum- *i At oris efi, boni vero Judicui tuthoritatem fcriptoris voluntattmque defenders It will not be denyed by any rational man, that where cir- cumftances do notably leflfen a fault againft humane Laws, if the Judge (hould ftrain the Law to the puniihing of fuch a perfon according to the rigour of juftice, which the letter of the Law holds forth or feems to require: There jummum jus might b° fumma injuria* every one will grant } that in fuch cafes, the AmMty.Aiw , or height of the Laws rigour, may be corrected by the prudent J udge, and without par- tiality mollified according to the mind of the Law-giver, who pur- pose! not in fuch and fuch cafes, that the rigour of the Letter (hould be flood upon unreasonably, ( could fuch circumftances been forefeen) So upon th- other hand, when there are fome exorbitant, horrid, flagi- tious aggravations of faults , not provided agaioft by the Law-giver in the letter of the Law astodue punifhment , much is to be permitted to the prudent and good Judge in aggravating the punifliment, even above what the letter of the Law holds forth , ( yet fo , that as men fearing God, they do not indulge themfelves in exceeding the merits of the caufe, through any private revenge while they are inflicting pu- tt iftunentsj Punitive Juftice being the Medicine of the Common- wealth • Judges (hould have their eye to theLawsinufingit* and yet, as the circumftances of faults notably vary, fo may the aggrava- tions of punilhments ( which belong to fome few , albeit the fear and fruit thereof belong to all j may be aifo wifely ordered by the prudent Judge ; Secundum tutntitAtem dsUtti \zvd> augend* ^fay the Lawyers. Neither is it againft Reafonnor againft Law,to aggravate punifliments as crimes arc aggravated; See Pari. K. Jam, $. Act 27. Pari. 1. Char. 1. Act 7. APhyfician may be walking according to the rules of his Art , albeit he keep not the fame method with all perfons at all times incutiog the fame dileafes. Who will think, that (when two perfons, equally culpable as to the matter of the breaking of a Law,yet the one in his being difobedient hath (hewed more modefty, the other hath been more ranting ajxl vain , and (hewed fome contempt of the Law or Lawgiver,©* of the Judge before whom he appears, in proud, haughty mifdemeaaor) the Judgefsaynot, in fuch a particular cafe Fa fo io aroimftantiated, aggravate the pumfhment of the one man beyond the other, albeit the Law hath not provided for fuch an aggravation of a fault a parrcular aggravation of punifhmem? Particularly, a* to theftigmatiz'ng and fcour^ing four pcrfons who invaicd a lawful! Minifter in going about his Caliieg according to our Lawes, they defaved to be proceeded againft criminally , and being by Law worthy of greater punifhment , the Judges in punifhing them as theyd:d, exceeded not in making fuch a commutation of punishment, which was lefs then our Ads of Parliament required to be inflated i there was therein a mitigation of the Law-punifhment. But this mans fpirit may be here eafily difcerned , who ( although he would gladly cover the wicked violence of thefc perfons againft Mr. Sect, whom he calls excommunicated, but tells not when, or by whom, or for what caufe) under the Rhetorical flowers of the excefs of hu- mane pafiion, 2{*ph> Pag. 127. Yet he faith , all the people of Scot- land Were indifptnfiblj oblieged in a higher meafure , to imitate their w'eked example for extirpation ofPreUts&c* Lord rebuke fuch men of violence and blood, and give them mercy and repentance, if they be corrigible. As for that he calls banifiment and deportation to flx- very whereunto fome were fentenced ( of which he can give no in- Ihnces, but of one Minifter kr\t to Zetland, and of two Rufticks ap- pointed to be fent to Tlarbado's ) It is a thing as vety ordinary in all Kingdom* , fo confonant to the Laws and Cuftoms of this Kingdomi to banifli and drive away turbulent and infolent perfons , who can be contained in no good order, but do continually creat troubles to the State. If a Minifter , carrying infolently to the Court appointed by the King,or chief Members of it , had fome more then ordinary mea- fure of feverity ufed upon him, for that and his other feditious carriage (under pretence of private exercife ) he deferved it no lefs that he bore the name of a Minifter, but the more, that having been in that Calling! his corrupt pride mifcarried him to what became not a Mini- fter : and that which is called hu banijhment to Zetland, was but a confinement. As for thefe appointed to go to Barbados, this Libeller highly aggravate this deportation to jlavcry ( as he calls \t) and faith, The Whole tenor of our Laws, and the undoubted priviledge of Chri- flianitj 9 reprobats and condemns /uch a punijbment ("as to be fold ) Which they behoved to be t not being able to redeem themfelves or their liberty, Naph. Pag. 1 16* Now to this we fay , that as this was the appointment only for two perfons in all Scotland, ( whofe crimes deferved a punifhment of a higher proportion and greitnefs) So, if it was was executed, what a great matter is here to make fuch a noife , about the fending of two turbulent and truculent perfons to 'Barbado's, amongft Chriftians better then themfelves , and ubi nullum eflptricu- lumfidei, and where they might have both the Gofpel in liberty, and more gainful fervice then they could have in Scotland , and have the advantage alfo of being out of capacity of making trouble in this Lind,which might bring them to an evil end ? And for what he talks of their being fold flaves there, ( a punifiment, as he faith, reprobate and condemned by the priviledge of Chriitianity ) as their Judges did not in fending them away fell them ( though they fold themfelves to work violence and wickednefsj So need they not, who are fent there, to fell themfelves as perpetual flaves^there is no fuch thing in ufe there amongft Chriftians, only Matters may hire their labour for a certain determinate time ; and thefe who are at charge in tranfporting them, may claim from them fome benefit for their pains j ft being fuppofed they confent themfelves to the embarking, to avoid a greater evik But, as in the determinate time of their fervice there, they have main- tenance; So when the few years (wherein their labour is conduced ) do expire, their gains amount to more then they could have gotten in Scotland ; and very few of ours who go there have a mind to quite the Land again. But , as our Law hath noth'ng againft fuch fending to a Chriftian Country, (efpecially within the Kings Dominions) thefc who are at home extremely unruly j So, albeit it were a felling to lla- very, the Libeller is much miftaken in faying , that the undoubted pri- viledge of Cbriftianitj doth reprobate and condemn fuch a thing : For, albeit it be true , that by the pofitive Laws of Chriftian Princes, for the honour of Chrift and refpect to Chriftian fraternity, fuch a thing as the ancient flavery is come in defuetude j and now we have but fervants hired for a time ( who may in a year or at a certain time go out if they pleafe) yet the Libeller ( who would feem to fpeak all from the Word ) would be delired to produce his warrand from the Word, that it is the undoubted priviledge of all profefling to be Chri- ftians,thai: they cannot be fold as perpetual fervants, or at leaft accord- ing to the meafure of the time, which amongft the ancient people of God, the Hebrews were allowed by the Law of God, (as to Hebrew fervants) Exod, 21.2. Levit. 25.39, T>eut. 15. 12* which is the ufualtimeof this fervice. If this great Theologue can inftru&us, that every fuch thing is unlawful amongft Chriftians , let him produce his ftrong proofs that we rmy confider of them. If this be tie un- doubted priviledge of Chriftians , nevej to be in fuch a cafe amongft Chriftians,, (38) Chtiftians, forae word of the Goipel muft be produced for this. In the mean time , we mull believe the Apoft!e Paul better thai this vain Dictator, who albeit fervants in thefe times wherein he wrote , were moft part not hired for a time, but fold (lives, never doth cither exhort their Milters in his Ep files to manumit them or kt them free; nor exhorts he fervants to flee from their fervice after their convcrfioo to Chrift ; but exhorts both Chriftian Mailers and fervants ( moft of whom were in thefe times fold Haves ) to a right carriage in their re* lations < approving the ftate fervants were in as Iawful),but directing Matters to moderation and fervants to humble duty. And better ic vvtre,that feme thriftlefs, gracelefs or tut bulent perfons, fhould be fold to that condition of a moderate fervitude to Chrjftian Matters abroad, (who oughr, according to duty, carry chriftianty to them J then that a Country (hould be peftered and catt in confuiion by them. And now the Libeller hath difcharged his great Guns againft that honourable Commifllon ; by all which, the Reader's eyes may be opened to fee bow full of fury and madnefs the mans fpirit is, to a/ferc that the tyranny of this Commiflion alone is jufter ground for a re- volt from the King, then the Netherlands had for revolting from the King of Spain becaufeofthe Spanifti inquiinion, which is the clear import of his words , Napht.p*g. 226* What isthegroond of the revolt? Forfooth, this is it: Four Rufticks were Stigmatized and Scourged for invading the perfon of an orthodox Minifter fol- lowing his calling; two companions, for their high mifdemeanotirs, were appointed to be tranfported to Barbadocs , an Ifland within his Ma jetties Dominions ; a furious man, whofe fashions are difrelifhed by fuch as fcem to be for Presbytrry as well as others , is confined tr. Z t and ; One Man and a woman , appointed for their misde- meanours to be Scourged , this is all he can fay ; albeit , being guided with a lying fpirit, pag* iatf. 130. he aflerts thefe to be but a few inftances of many particulars of this kind, &c. Whereas there arc few or no moe inftances then he hath named. And (hall all this, (confidering what hath been faid) amount to a clearer juftificttion X)f a revolt from the King, then the Netherlands had to revolt from the King of Spain} Curfed be this mans anger , for it is fierce ; and his wrath, for it is cruel : O wy Soul, come net thou into his fecret 1 But now come we to fee the Libellers declamation*, againft the ho- neftCityof Edingbur^h^ho ( in the day of the horrid rebellion of thefe who pretended Religion ) proved religioufly honeft and loyal to their lawful Soveraign. That City hath, under the coodticlof that that truly honourable Gentleman , S\ttsfndre\\ Ramfaj Lord Pro- Voft, left fuch a lading memorial of their love and loyalty to the Kings that generations to come will remember the fame to their honour. Their actings are little inferiour ( if not equal ) to the honourable actings of the Lord Mayor and City of London , againft the rebellious rout nifed under fVat T)ler and Jac^StraW of old againft the King of England ; the remembrance whereof continues in hiftory for the glory of that City : And no doubt, his Sacred Ma/efty, will in his time really demonftrate his kind refentments of the fignal loyalty of the City of Edinburgh to him in a time of need. But this Libeller furi- oufly falls upon that noble City, calling that loyal conjunction of the Council and Militia of the City ( wherein they engaged, to be true and faithful to the King , and todtfendhts Authority again ft this Jnfurre&on and Rebellion , and any other that fhouU happen , with the hazard of their lives and fortunes ) a confplracy , conjuration and horrid Rebellion againft the great God, Napht. p. 2. 14. And he faith, that tbfj toohjart with the Rebels a%d Apofjtates, againft God % to oppofe and opprefe the godly, and that thej abandoned Religion and Liberty to the luft of abufed Authority, Nipht. pag. i6<5. And pag. i6j, he threatens Lor.dons Plagues and Judgements againft Edinburgh, as being more fmful upon the account of this Conspiration then London. Let the City of Edinburgh look to the fpirits of fuch men; whether they have a mind to fetthem in Londons flame of conflagration ( that their word may be made good ) who can tell * It is their way , when they have prophefied and menaced mifchief, tofetfome a work to do it, left they fhould feem falfe Prophets. God Almighty watch over that people, againft all the fury of incen* diaries, who are full of extream cruelty, and their waves are wayes of defolation and deftru&ion. Edinburgh may fee caufc robe ware, left fuch fire-birds neft'e in their bofom* in fach a multitude, as may again hazard a furprifal of the City , or fome new mifchief. But, as to the deed of that City which they fo malicioufly afperfe, it was mod lawful, lojal and laudable. That judicious Lord Pcovoft, ho- nourable Council and faithful Militia of the City , beholding a rabble Of private Country-clowns almoft at the Pons of their City, who had rifen in Arms without and againft his Mijefties, Authority and all Authorities in the Land , did juftly judge the riling to be an infur- redion againft the King and hi? Authority, and ingaged themfetves honourably to maintain the fame agamft that infurre&ion for any, other that ihould happen,) wkh their lives and Fortune?.- For this the (4°) the Libeller rageth againft that loyal people, becaufe they did n ot joyn themfelves with rank Rebels againlt the King to work mifchief with them, and did not fet up their Ports , to give them liberty to come in, and lay their hands upon all their pleafant and precious things to make up their lofTes at home; and to take the Princes and Nubles to bind them in chains and fetters of iron, that they might poflefs their abufed places, (as this Libeller difcovers their intention to bave been) and to execute judgement PhineasA\kz upon all whom they in thei* bloody cruelty had dedgned unto death. As the abfurd man mentioned in the Roman hiftories, entred action of Law againft a certain pet Ton, becaufe,when he ftruck at him with his Sword, he would not let it en- ter far enongh into his body; So, this clamorous man pleads againft this noble City,bccaufe they gave not way to the wickednefs of an en- raged party, to come into their bowels, and to make Munfter of Edin- burgh. As for his Declamations againft the loyal engagement of that City to be faithful \and to maintain the Kings Authority e gain ft that Rebellion^ and others that might happcn y with their lives and fortune s* t Who but a furious Rebel,will deny the lawfulnefs of it ? And for what he faith, that the obligation of lojaltj Jhoutd have been With a re* ftriftion to Religion 9 &c. That hath been formerly fpoken of; And this mans doctrine, pag* 177. where he alTerts all alledgiance to * King is indiffenftblj reftritled to his maintaining of Religion ac- cording to the Covenants ( and the Religion he aims at mainly is Presbytery, about which, as elfevvhere he tells us, all the z.eal of Cbti- ftians [bouid be concentred , as the main Covenanted duty, is a moft falfe, wicked, Anabaptiftical doctrine, ( and alfo, in fpecial confidera- tion$i Antichriftian and Popifti ) which all orthodox Protectants will look upon as a curfed error. God be praifed,our King cominueth firm to the ProtcftantReligion,and alloweth and encour3geth his Subjects in the profeflion of the fame. But were it otherwife, (which God avert, and which cannot be furmifed without much wickednefs ) we /hou!d not think our felves loofed from Aliedgiance to him ; albeit we owe no obedience to any thing he might enjoyn contrary to Gods mind, Aliedgiance is one thing and obedience another, and are (ometimts feparable- And that loyal City in their engagement to maintain the Kings Authority againft the RebelJs , did not ( as this man wickedly gloffes upon their engagement 3 Napht* pag. 178.) bind tkemfel- ves to concur attivcly with , and a fj, ft the King in all his tyranny, or whatever he fhould command or do 9 to the overturning the work, of Coi y fnbvtrtingReHgion t &c. But, fuppofing and being rerfwavkd, trac C4D that their Religion, (which ftands not in a Presbyterian parity of Minifters governing the Churchy was kept intire to them and not fubverted, and that the rights and liberties of the Nation were not ta- ken away, but ftrengthned ; they framed their engagement to the neceflity of the prefent cafe, beholding an Army at their ports in Arm?s againft his Majeihes Authority, (which no man > but one of addp:racely hard face, could deny ) thus they bound themfeives, for maintaining his Authority then invaded : No doubt >bdng ready alfo to Ipecifie their engagement to his Majefty , whensoever by him they are called to maintain his Authority , in maintenance of Religion and Liberty , invaded by any whitfoever. If the Covenant ( which this man calls fo oft holy) importeth fuch limitation and reftriclion of duty to the King in owning his Authority,as this man often afkrteth ; it is an unholy Covenant, because contrary to the holy Scriptures, (which do allow alledghnce and fubjeclion to the King, though not obedience, without fuch reftriclion or limitation ) And this idol ( as it is glolTtd upon by the fafiion in that article concerning the King , and in other articles) is to be call -by as a ?(jhftfita» and a device of (inful men, in the compofure and aimes of it, contrived to be an incentive of Edition; and (as this man abufeth it) to be the bellows of a civil conflagration by continual amufing the people with the Gorgons-hezd of the holy Covenant ; and which alio he calls the magna Charta of Religion and R'-ghteoufnefs, Napht. pag. 85. too high a ftile for a hu- mme deceitful devce, a ftile to be referved for Scripture and the Covenant of grace with finners,by which we are fandified,and where- by we look for life eternal. Certainly , there is none that truly fears <§od, that dare appear before the Tribunal of God , owning thefe Covenants in the corrupt and antifcriptural fenfe which in feveral articles of them this Libeller and his Complices put upon them, &c* ahhough they be paflive of fome found fenfe; yea, and fuch as tends neither to the overthrow of the prefent eftabliiliment of Go- vernment of Church or State, nor to the inftigating of private per- fons, ( who think themfeives ftrong enough) to rife in Armes againft all Authorities, and occupy their places, or punifli their perfons : to which wickednefs, this Libeller will have the Covenant to tyein- difpenfibly. But to leave this,that loyal City did but what was their duty, and what is the duty of all Scotland to do in the like cafe ; nor had the Libeller any reafon to fpew out his vennm upon them, Napht. pag* 177. 173. calling that City ^retched Edinburgh, aflert- ing,ftaf thsj had made a conspiracy and combination againji the Lord G eni C4») and bis annointed, and badjojned them) f elves nuth the powers and au- thorities of the LarJJeing in manifefi and notorious Rebellion again ft the Lord , and that there is a double wickednefs in their engagement^ above ail th it the Declaration doth import ( there being wickednefs in none of thefe J but what (hall be done with a ranting railer? What a pain is it to rake in his fwelling wicked words of vanity ? As to the reproaches wherewith this Libeller and his fellow wit- nefs the sApolog* loads the Nobles and honourable Judges of the Land, calling the Nables, Nafht.pag. 176. men utterly blinded and fliviih,and, Apology 24. 25. calling them profane and dtbaucht men of no onfeience and honour,who have (hip- wracked their confeiences and fold their Souls to the fervice of ambitious defigns , and fuch as have acted below men, and have confented to Epifcopicy/>nly to have liberty to follow fin with grcedinefs, &c. And the Apolog. pag. 328. 329* fpeaksofour honourable Judges , as thevi'eftof men, per- jured and men-fworn, from whom no Juftice can be expected, who would not be fuffered to be Judges among Heathens, whofe Oath ought not to be admitted above ten (hillings Scots in any Court of Scot /and. Thefe things are unworthy to be mentioned, it (hall only be wi(hed,tbat both our Nobles and all perfons of all ranks,may be blefled with grace from God to walk chriftianly, that this Reviler may be re- futed by their real Godlinefs : But we muft fay,that it is no part of the ungodlioefs imputed to them , that they have acknowledged the nen- obligation of an unlawful or not binding Oath^rafhly entred upon inthe fury of thefe former times,and now not to be cleaved unto without fia, in the matters under debate. God the fearcher of hearts , know- eth how loath we would be toftrengthen the hearts or hands of any perfon of any degree in a clear fin, that they might not return from it ; but it fhall be no grief of heart to thefe honourable perfons,in the day of their accounts,that they have recognofced their due liberty from an initiating Oath, as to the matters under debate, if otherwife they walk orderly before God;nor (hould they account much of the noife of the vain words of a feditious perfon,ftriving tocaft iniquity upon them in clamourous inriftives without anyfolid ground; fuch abufive dealing againft eminent perfons,^^*/ tuls/tt ? As it is (in, to deny that to be fin which is fo; So it is a great fin, to acknowledge that to be fin which is not fo. Wo to them who call light d*rk*e(s , as well as to them, who call darhnefs light. Finally, as to his reproaches caft upon the Lord General, whom he calleth a Mfffcovia beajt % pag. 7 2. brought from Mvfa to be Exe- cute r (43) cutioner, &c. If the valour of that excellent Commander hath made Lira famous abroad in other Countries , why fliould this be turned to his difgrace ? That generous perfon proved bimfeif a wife and v«liact Commander both in Mufco and in Scotland : And if his fever ity hath been unpleafant to this mans party , who do not profit by lenitives, they may blame thtrafelves. As for the mifcarriages of tl.c Souldiery, and their exactions upon the people (which had the Author pleafed,be could have aggravated much more , and with as much either truth or falfehood as he hath done ) we are not to juftifie any thing that hath been amifs , more then to believe all that he faith to be truth : Thefe are matters under the examination and tryal of the powers above us, who are concerned in thefe things , and not we* But, becaufe the moft part of the challenges againft all ranks of per- fons, proceed upon the owning of the Kings Supremacy anent Church- affairs ; and upon their recognofcing the non- obligation of the Cove* nants, as to the retaining the form of Church government in Presby- terian par.ty : Therefore, the two following Chapters {hall treat of thefe matters at fome length. CHAP. II. hiw of the King s Supremacy in and about Eccleftaftical Cau[es > again [I the Apolog. fag. 169. &c 9 and againft Napht. Pre/. i. *•■"■* He Author of Naphtali, with his fellow witnefs the Au- ra thor of the Apology y pag. i6p. do moft irrationally and M defpitefully rail upon the Kings Majefly , for taking on him the care of Church-affairs which God allows him to have in his pUce , as if he *>ere turned a civil Pope, a Statcanti- chrift , more ahfurd and intolerable then the Pope , N3ph. pag. 38. as if he wre an invader andufurper of the Crown, 'prerogative and Kingdom of cur Lord Jefus Chrifl , pag. 15. as if he intruded in the Priefls Office , like Saul and Vzziah, ( and [0 may fear their punifh- ment) and claimed power formally ecclefiaflical , to ixtrce affs mesrlj fpiritual and proper to Minifiers and Church- officer s > pag. 40,41. And the man aflerts , thdt the Kings Prerogative hath a wicked in- tent and defign, and it U none other then that of the devil, exalting the King into iliimited Stveraignty and pretended Omnipotencj , that G 2 he (44) he may be declared in all, and over all j and that the native i fines of 'Prerogative and Prelacy } are the very rejloring and re. eft ah lifting of the Kingdom of Antichrtft , pag. 86. That the Parliament exalted the Kings prerogative diretliy contrary to the Word of god and Laws of the Land,' pag. 89. That their Alls that way were the com- plement of all rviC^ednefj y atove all that ever the Papacy it (elfaffired to , pag. 90, That the Kings Supremacy ii aprefumptuous and ab~ fnrd ujurpation, pag. pl t 92. Thtt the King is utterly excluded from medling with the external decency and order of the Church that comes under general rules , and are undetermined in the particular , pag. 91. That the Parliament (et the King upon the Throne of our Lord fe(us Chrift 9 with a high derogation to him^ and nfiitlion on him t &c. This and much more fluff hath he to this purpofe 5 and the Apology , pag. 169. & c * undertaketh todifpute down the Kings Supremacy in Church- affairs, but both pitifully mif-ftating and riii- ftaking the queftion, and arguing moft weakly, or falfly and fraudulent- ly. And becaufe there is nothing materia! in this point faid by Naph- tali , but what is more largely in the Apology ; therefore wc follow ihcApol. clofely, albeit in ib doing, we are forced from the compen- dious way intended. It well becomes all that are feeking their life in Chrift, to be very zealous for his honour ; the government of his Church is upon his {boulders , he hath the. key es of the houfe of David : and as he will not give his glory of that abfolute, fupremt Government to another 5 So, neither fhould we attempt to alienate that glory from him , nor attri- bute the fame unto any creature. Whoever will take Chrifts glory to themfelve5, make him their party , and he is a dreadful one. Yer, we muft not be fo (Imple as to believe every high pretender for the glory of Chrift ; for,fometimes men who are feeking themfelves, talk very highly of Chrifts interefts. If they themfelves can be ftated in the power which they claim to be Chrifts Prerogative, then all is well ; but if any other lay claim to it, then they clamour infinitely. Herein is holy wifdom to order matters fo, that Chrift have no lefs then his due, and men no more then what is due to them by the will of God and of Chrift. Againft this equal courfe, men have fhoarcd and (hip- wracked upon extremities ,• fome giving too much to men , and too little to Chrift ; and fome,under pretence of giving all to Chrift,(haring out too much power to themfelves, depriving others of thejuftpri- viledgewhich Chrift allows them. 2, That 1 45 ) i. That the ahfolutely fupreme power cf governing the Church is Chnfts Prerogative, no Chriftiandoubteth; He is the King, the Law- giver, the Head of the Church, in whom ail Authority is, and from whom it is derived , and co whom all powers upon earth mult humbly ftoup, ferving him, not as they will, but as he willeth. He is fo Head of the Church, that no earthly creature can, without ufurpation and terrible treafon againft him,claim to be Head as he ; He is Head of the whole Church in Heaven and in Eirth; He hath fuchneer, native, amiable, intimate conjunction with his Church ( at leaft with the in- vifible Church of believers,) that they may be called his body ; He giveth influence of internal fenfe and motion by his Spirit, (lied abroad and working in the whole body; power and direction for the out- ward regiment of the whole body is derived from him • He is above all the Church in perfection and dignity , even above all the Church in Heaven and Earth. And much more may be faid of his Headfhip, wherein he can have no competitor amongft the creatures. All this Headfhip and abfolutc Supremacy over the Chu-ch, is by our Chriftian Kin$ dutifully recognofced to be Chnfts Prerogative and his only. Toe Pope indeed incroacheth terribly upon the Prerogative of Jefus Chrift, claiming a power over all Chriftians on earth and all the world over; yea, a power in heaven to canonize Saints, and fetthtm upas^ objects of religious worfhip ; and a power in a part of hdl(Purgatory) to bind or ioofe as he will : a power thus far extended he claims. The Pope challengeth a Monarchick power over all the Church on earth; So that all Church-authority is firft refident in him as Prince fs cr Mo- narch* Seek fit • and is derived from him unto others, as TSettar* The Pope ufurps power to make Laws directly binding the confeience, though he cannot give inward influence , he labours to ufe internal jurifdiction. The Pope takes upon him an infallible authentiek power of defining con- troverfies of faith , and interpreting Scriptures ; So that he muft not be controlled. The Pope and his followers teach, that if he fhould de- termine vice to be virtue , and vertne to be vice , the whole Church ought to believe the matter is fo, ( thus Bellarmine exprtfly ; and al- beit he would in his recognitions mollifie the fpeech.he mends it little) The Pop? faith , if he fhould draw thoufands of fouls to hell with him, no man fhould fay to him , Domine , cur it a (acis ? The Pops takes .( 4* ; takes upon him to difpenfe againft the Laws of God, and to do againft Chrifts institution, which he puts cnT with znonobftat , (asisfaid, Council of ConftAncCiKon obftame Chrifti inflitutione, &c) that his will may carry. The Pop- 1 appoints new objects of Worlhip, new Worfaip, new Miniftenes by tbe plenitude of his alledged power ; and in doing all thefe things, cannot produce his patent from Chrift. That hcadfhip he claims is highly injurious to Chrift, bothbecaufe warrand is wanting for this claimed power , and the power arrogated is incompetent to a creature. 3. Bur that which we attribute to the Kings Majefty, is neither the power that is proper to Chrift only, nor that which the Pope (who is Antichrift) doth arrogate to himfelf in a manifeft derogation to drifts Prerogative; but that only which belongs to aU Chriftian Kings and Soveraign Power?, to whom God hath committed the poteftative and jurifdidional care of his Church in their Dominions, under himfelf and under his Son Jefus Chrift. As for the Title of Eetd of the Church to be given to a Supreme Magiftrate within his own Domi- nions , we regard it not fo far as it may give fcandal to any weak ones who do miftake the meaning of it; although, if it be not finiftruoufly underftood, there is no offence in it to call the King Head of the Church,not as a myftical fociety, but as political, and joyned with the civil body under Chrift in his own Dominions* nor imports it any encroachment upon Chrift Jefus his Headfiiip over all, no more then when Saul was called head of 4 11 the tribes of IfracI , wherein were not only the Prieftly Tribe of Levi, but all the people of God , the Common-wealth and Church being one materially, 1 Sam. 15. 17. Neither doth it encroach upon Gods Soveraign Headship over all the Kingdoms of the world, that he hath appointed fome to be (and to be be fo called ) heads of Nations, Countries and Kingdoms under him, 1 Cbr. 29.11. Thine is tht kingdom^ O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Yet, Tfal. 18.43. 2>**& faith, Thou haft made me to be head of the Heathen. And , *?/• 110*6. there is mention made of the heads ever many countries : and, //. 7. 8,9. God com- municates the name of head to Princes , The head of SamarUh is Re- wallahs fon^ and the bead of Damafcusis Rezin. If itbenodif- paragement to Almighty God (who is exalted as Head above all; that Soveraign Magiftrates be called heads in their feveral precin&s of Go- vernment; yea, even amongft a people that were Gods Church, we would gladly know, why it (hould be a difparagement ro Jefus Chrift, who is t\c head of the company of people, that es his Church, over alf the (47.) the world, that Cfiriftian Kings ana Princes under him be called HeadV of that Society, which is materially the Church, i, e, Governots and Rulers of all Cnriltians within their Dominions ; unlefs men will affirm, that ( which we hope they will not ftind to) the King governs men only as they are men, and not as they are Chriftians ? Why fhould we gf udge the allowing unto Cbriftian Kings and Soveraign Mag-ftratcs, the title of Head of the Churches within the precincl of their feveral Dominions, ( by which norhingelfe is meant , but that they are chief Super vljors, that all things in their Dominions, be done according to Chrifts mind; more then we (hould refufe tfum the titles of gods on fart h t which the mouth of God hath given them } ?(% 82. It is true, the title of hesd is given to them, ( in comparifon of Chrift ) very homonjmouy and catachrefticalty, yet can it hardly be denyedjthat there is in them fome head- (hip under Chrift in the r fe-- veral Territories ? feing fome Government they have in reference to the Church of Chriit, lodged in their Dominions ; for, the King is Supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 15. without limitation to civil matters, and and with txtenfion to all matters for the good of Gods people, Rom* 13. 4. HcutheMinifterofGodyforthjgood, (goodtisWy ecck (iaftical, fpiritual,and eternal ) Now, how can there be Govern - ment without head- (hip ? u e* a priority in order and fupenority in power, (to fay nothing of eroinency in gifts, on which accounts, there areeveoin theChurch metaphorical heads, 1. Cor. 12. 20.) If that might be taken foundly , which was foundly meant ; why may not the King, whom God calls without reftridion, vristyav the Supreme, 1. 7*'. 2. 13. be called the head or chief member in the Society,which is materially the Church of God ? or why may not the Supreme Minifter of God , for the Churches good, as it is a Church, be called under God and Chrift, Headfman of the Society or Church ? Do not Minifters fet over the people in the Lord , as to the miniftca- tion of his holy things,claim to be Rulers in a Church relation t He&. 13.7. 1 7hejj: 5. 1 2. and were it a greater crime,to call them Heacf* men in their feveral charges , then it is to call them guides, tiytpifof* Captains, Leaders>Governor?, or any fuch flile, importing Authority ? Do no: the orthodox Divines call the Supreme Chriftian Magiftrare pr&ciptiHm Membrum Ecclefa, and how far is that from the Head ? When there is fuch'palpable homonymies in the word Head, their (feynefs is to be marvelled at, who in no fenfe will yield it to men, who ifcfetin Authority toward the Church: The word Head is of fo tixe afenff* that the great tfregarj , who was as zealous as any man again(r„ f 48; agiinft the title of univerfalHead or the whole Church jyet in that fame cpiftle, where he is fo zealous lib. 4. cpift. cap. 35. He calls Bifhops or Miniftcrs, capita [mguUrixm Plebium, and in Regift. lib. 4 cap. 4. he calls P. mlyCjpHt gentium: and the great Council of Cbalce don y hycs to Leo y prefiding in an alTembly, quilus xu tatiquam caput praftdebas. And itisftrange, that every Mimfter will take on him to be called the Bifljop of swls in his own charge, ( which is Chnfts ftile, in re- lation to all the Church, 1 Pe t. 2. 25.) and yet will grudge the ftile of being Head, (to any particular Church) unto any perfon upon this account , that it is Chnfts property. Indeed, it is his poperty in- communicable (infomefenfe ) as well as to be Bifhop of bouls • but as he calls men to t mployments under him , he is plcafed to impart this name to them in fome ienfe,as he doth others of his names. But if any take offence at the name of Head of a particular Society of Chri- ftians, which is a Church • as we cannot help it , fo we iiiall not wil- lingly give them the offence ; bat tell them,that no more is meant by k but Governor* 4. Some of our eminent Divines,have indeed Humbled at the King of England's taking to himfelf the name of Head of theChriftians, ( or Society of Chr ftians,which is the Church of England ) Mr. C* lm vin by name, in his Commentary upon the feventh of Amos , inveighs much 3gainlt the title , and againft thefe who condefcended at firft to give it to the King : And veniy,he had no leffe then reafon to be angry at it, in thefenfe which the prime givers of that title to the King in the convocation had • For, Stephen Gardiner Bifhop of PTinchefter, ( being a Papift in ail other things , and at laft wholly levoltirg to the Popes obedience ) was a main leader in that bu(inefs,in giving the ftile of the Head of the Church of England^ Henry 8- and he at the Con- ference of Ratisfone,ptofcfad that theKing by vertue of thisHeadfhip, might inter ditt Minifiers marriage , and the peoples ufe oft he cup at the^ommunion^and many other things t that Headfhip fo-expoa*d,was juftly deteftedibut the orthodox Englifh Divines though they did for a time retain the name of Head of the Church of £tf£/4»d,attributing the fame to the King in a found fenfe; yet they were far from giving to the King all that the Pope under that name ufurped. Dr. Kejnolds ( fup- pofed by fomc to have been almoft a Presbyterian ) as he did himfelf take the Oath of Supremacy ( which the Presbyterians of England nev.r refufed, as may be fecn in the Lbicolnfbire abridgement ) fo he maintains the fame againft the Jefuite Hartjn the conference with him, avowing, that ncithet Calvin, nor at>y of our found Divines % do repre- hend *£• 17 1 . bringing in Peter Martyr on that place ,as **/- allowing that power which the King of England recovered out of the bsndsof the Pope ; fdng he defeads it as the juft right of all King*, anJ doth fo excufe the unufual title, that though exception was taken agaitift it, ytt he thinks it may have a good fenfe, and that it means no more, but that pcrfons and things Ecciefiaftica) , fhould have no exemption from his governing power and care over chem, ( all which governing power the Pope had ufurped J more then per* fons and matters civil. 5. The Oith of Supremacy , wis devifed to chafe away the Pope,and to pull down his ufurped power in thefe Dominions: But behold the fubcilcy of the paracelfian Presbyterian the Apolog>fl. pug, 185. who can extract popery out of the very Oath that ftrikes at the root of popery ; he is bold to averre,that whoever takjth the Oath of Suprc- mac j, licks tip agnin the abjured popery ; verily, if he can make out th\$ y erit mihi magnus Apollo : Buc,how weakly goeth he about this work ? He is ftrong at averting, that the Popedome is not now chang- ed, but only the Pope, and that by this Oath, a Civil Pope It fet up in place of an Ecc'efiaftical : And fo elfewhere, he terms the King a State- antichrift , and will have his invafion of Chrifts rights, more abfurd and intolerable then the Popes. But how weak is he in making good his undertaking > ( we may fay to him , aut adde viribus , tut deme animis ) O faith he i when we abjured popery or fuch it piece of it, it was not only abjured, as it wat feated in the Pope, but [imply irtitfeif; and our reformed Divines, writing againft the Popes Su- premacy and Head- (hip , do not write again/l it, as a power ufurped t tithe prejudice of fame one or other Prince* but as an infolcnt $tfurpa» tion of thai which belongs to the King of hings,and Lord of lords , &c. And if the King arrogate what the Tope had , his usurpation of Chrifts rights , is as evil or worfe ; and to acknowledge him to have that power, it to relapfe unto popery % Anf. 1. Will this man fay, that all the power that the Pope did ar- rogate to himfelf, is (if it be transferred toothers then Chrift ) dill ufurped, and popifh and derogatory to Chrifts priviledge and honour ? If he have any fenfe he dare not fay it : For t I would ask , is there not in the Church of Scotland, a fupreme governing power over that Church , at lead Minifterially fupreme in governing ? Surely, he will fay , there ought to be fuch a power under Chrift, otherwife the Chucrh Church muft run into confuuon. Now, where will he feat this power, as in the fubjed: of it ? Certainly in National Aflemblies and their Commiffion, whofe Authority muft (land from time to time , though the perfons be changeable* Now , let him tell us , feing the Pope did arrogate (of old ; the fupreme Authority over thjs Church and all Christians therein (and he called it aifo Minifterial under Chrift) whe- ther it be Popery , in any reprefentative Atfembly or Com million , to take on them, for any time, the fupreme Minifterial governing of the Church under Chrift immediately ? PofTibly the Independent will fay fo, and that the Popedom is but changed, and not the Pope ; the Do- minator, but not the Domination ; and that in ftead of a (ingle Pope, there is a complex Pops of this and that tranfcendent Aflembly fee over the Church* But, will this man that pretends to be a Presby- terian avow, that becau/e it was Popery for the Pope to ufurp a go- verning power under Chrift, as he faid, over this Church of ScotUnd % (as he did over many moe with it ) therefore it is Popery in any men, or company of men, to have this fupreme governing power under Chrift ? It is not effential to papal ufurpation to be ftibjefted in oni (ingle perfon. When the Council of Corflafice had outed three fchifmatical Popes, did they not think that the papal Power redded in themfclves,as reprefentio? the Catholick Church > Lzt him tike heed that he bring not ali our General AfTemblies and Commiflions under the imputation of Popery, becaufe they had that fame governing fu- preme Power which the Pope claimed : and let him and his party, who falfly charge us with owning a C*fareo»papatHs , fee how they will clear themfelves of owning a Synodo-favatus. If a (ingle Pope was evil,how ftiould a comp'ex Pope be better > 2. It is untrue that he faith, that our Divines do only write againft the Popes Supremacy } as a high and infolent ufurpation immediately againft Chrift ; For, the contrary we heard before from Reverend Doctor Rtjnoidn His great ufurpations were immediately injurious to Chrift ; but in fome thing* he was only injurious to bim , in that he deprived Princes, Paftors and People of thefe priviltdges which Chrift allowed to them by his Word: And as others renamed their own privilcdges , So did the Prince refume his priviledges from the Pope,who was rcyetuxdarttm reus , and had busked h;mfdf up with the feathers of many Birds , every one of which recovered their own, and left him bare and naked. The King recovering h. ; s own right of Supremacy, in thepotcftativcoverfightof the Church of God in his Dominions, bath owned no Popery, but his own right allowed bim of H 2 God. God. Nor is the controverfie about Supremacy in Church-affairs oetwixt Chrift and the King , who hath devoutly yielded himfelf Chrifts Homager and Servant to follow his order* punctually j but be- tween the King ancj his even Subjects , M'mifters and ethers , which of them, under Chrift, ftiould have the governing Supremacy anent Chnrch-affairs. The Pope before robbed him of his Royal right of iupreme Superinrcndency over the Church in his own Dominions ; and now when he has recovered it from the Pope, high-fp'rited Church-men and their aifoftants cry out, it is Popery in him to keep it : but once put that fame power in their hands, then forfooth it (hall be no Popery at all. They would inveft themfelves of the power whereof they ftrive to deveft him; and yet he can fhew a better pa- tent for it then they : for,the Scripture calls him not them under God, Supreme without limitation of pcrfons orcaufes. 3. A$ to what is added out o^ZeppsrusJib.^. we aflent there may be an exorbitancy in the ufe of power by Princes,and a great fin in them is it to neglecl any good couofel ^penally of the beft skilled in managing iuch a truft, but it faith nothing againft their power. Yet,it is ftrange to fee the inconfiderate man citing the Bdgick Remonftrants for him ( as if they were fo great friends to the Scots Remonftrants ) he al- ledgetb,that they call this, ('that is, the Kings Supremacy, for of this all alongs hath he been fpsaking in that Section ) the verj heart and marrow of Tcptry, nhich being granted, ail his other ufurpatior.s nc- cejfariiy follow : %he words are cited from 25. ch, of their Apologj. And here the Apolog. makes himfelf very ridiculous, faying, that the Arminians there da call the civil MagiftrAtet Supremacy in Church* affair s y the very heart ana marrow of Popery* For the Arminians there are al! alongs difputing for the civil Magiftrates Supremacy in caufes Ecclefiaftical fand further then we can go with them ) and are dif- puting 3giinft the attributing of Church-authority to Miniilers,?. 295. excluding the Magiftrate , ( which opinion they labour to fix upon the Lejden-cen(urerso£ their Confeftion ) and fpeaking of Miniftersor Synods arrogating this Authority ( excluding the Magiftrate, as they conceive the Ltyden-cenfurers fo) they add, < Digna eft h Sec, They fay, that the fentence and opi- nion of the Cenfurers touching the Miniftcrs Authority (fecluding the Mjgiftrate ) is worthy to be pondered by all Kings, Princes and States ; Eft enim ippffimum Papatus corculum ac medulla cju£ falva Authoritas Regum, principum^rdinum , nil nip inanU umbra & ti- 1 -das fine re eft. And again they add, that this opinion of the Cen- furers ( $5 ) furers giving fo much Authority to their Synods excluding the Mi- giftrate , Continet illud ipfum, in quo fit a eft forma Papains ceu Pa- talis Hierarcbiajf &c. to autem conceffo cetera o?nnia qua 'Papajam ufurpAt t*m necejjario fimnt quam calor ex igne , &c. So that they clearly fpeak of the ufurpation of fupreme Church-power by Mini- fters ( all along ) and this they call corculum & medulla Papatus • but they do plainly difpute, that it is tfie Magiftrates right, and it is no Papacy in him to ufe ir, albeit it be fo in Minifters or their Meetings to ufurp it. What ignorance therefore or impudence is it , to alledge the Armenians as reproaching the Magiftrates Supremacy, which they argue for > Let us then leave to the King his own right , vi*„ that fummttm modertmen in rebus Rdigionis , and that foveraign archi- teSonick Power in thefe matters fubordinate to the Authority of lefusChrift within his own Dominions. It is neither Papacy nor favours of it, but the juft Princely right of all Kings ; God give all grace to ufe i: rightly. And a huge diftance there is between the Su- premacy the Pope claims > and this: for, his Supremacy which he claims n both extenfively and intenfively^ a great deal more then will be elaimed by any Chriftian Magiftrates, who although they challenge their own rights in fupervifion of the Churches within their own Dominions ; yet, have nothing to do with the Popes claim of beirg Head over all the Church, nor with his pretenfions of thefe powers which he arrogats, incompetent to any creature and proper only to Jefus Chrift. <5. It is a very great miftakc to think ( as the tsfpologift doth, pug. i860 that granting the Kings Supremacy-imports, that in til Minifterial alls , Minifters muft aft as his Servants and Commiffio- tiers ; or that he might ( if he pleafed ) in his ownperjon y alb thefe things himjelf -which Minifters do in the Church. His Supremacy in Church- affairs hath no fuch confequences flowing from ir , except in the erfpologifts weak fancy. There are many things to which the Kings juft Supremacy reacheth, fo: regulating or rectifying abufes in the fame , for which he cannot give CommiiTion to do them ; nor are the aclors fervants to him therein ; nor can he aft thefe things in his own perfon. The King gives not a Commiflion to the Phyfieian to cure fick perfons, ( albeit he may,according to the neceflity of the dif- eafed in fuch or in fuch a Town, the Phyfieian having skill of fuch dif- eafes, commiiiionate him hie & nunc to (hew and exert his skill ) but the Univerfity where be was graduate gives him Warrand, Authority 2nd CommiiTion to cure fick perfons who will come under his cure :.■ and (54) and if he, agaioft the rules of Arc, kill men wilfully, the King with ad- vice of a Colledge of Phyficians , may take order with him as. a mur- tberer ; yet , he is not properly /erving the King in that calling, ( al- beit remotely he Jcrves the King in preferving his Subjects ) nor can the King therefore take on him the office and part of the Phyfician. Agairyhe King by vcrtueof his Supremacy, may regulate perfonsen- tring in marriage, that they fhall not marry within iuch and fuch de- grees prohibited by divine Law , that they (hall not marry clancularly, and without notice given co any that will object ; and when they are married, he rmy by vertue of his power under penalties urge them to cohabite 9 he may reftrain the violence of one of the married parties to the other, and punifh it if offered ; he may punifti willful defertion and dilloyalty, &c* And yet, all that power infers not, thatperfons entring in marriage act in that ftateascommifiionatcd by the King, or as his Servants, (though he hath fupreme Power in regulating them fo far as their practices are notour, and of evil example amongft his people J Nor doth it import that he may ad: thefe conjugal duties which he doth by his fupreme power regulate, that deviations therein may not be examplary,fcandalous and infectious to his Subjects. 7. Much more might in this kind be faid : But ( in a word ) it is an abfurdtty of abfurditiesand a meer fancy without ground, to imagine, that the Kings fupreme regulation of all matters in his Kingdom, im- ports a neceiTity of his Commiflion to others to act in them, or a liber- ty for himfelf therein personally to act, Many things are there which the King may regulace by his Royal Supremacy , and yet cannot act in them particularly. 1 . There are fome things he hath no right by di- vine Law to act in them, yet the regulation of them, in order to pub- lick Peace and prevention of fcandalous confufions belongs to him : as for example, Conjugal duties of his Subjects , and alfo ccclefiaftical duties of Prcaching,miniftring Sacraments, &c % Thefe matters he may regulace,but cannot aft attibus clicitii l becaufe it is contrary to divine Law he fhould fo do. a. Some things again the fupreme Magiftrate is not qualified for the acting of them , as to do the part of the Phyfi- fician or the Advocate: k were fin in him to take upon him to do things God hath not given him gifts to enable for the doing of them ; and yet he hath a regulation of men in thefe callings ( with advice of the skilled ) to reprefs them from injuring his Subjects in perfon or goods. 3 . Some things are fo low and bafe f that albeit the King hath a fupreme Power to order theft who are employed in them to do them for the behoof and benefit of the Common- wealth ; yet it were a de- bating (55) debafing of the Ma jefty of his fhtion, to be actually employed in them, as be'ng dishonourable ; So that it may very eafily appear, that the -jfpohgt/l Is very abfurd in thirk : ng, that the Kings Supreme power of regulating allaflsirs in his Kingdom, imports either a necefffty of all who ads under him, their being ccmmifT?onat by hm as bis fer- van:?, or a liberty for himfelf todo their feveral aft-'ons, or that Church- men in acting according to the rules of Chrift, aft as the Kings Commiflioners or Servants properly ( though it benoihame nor fin either to ferve the King fo far as he ferves Chrifl ; or that he in his own peifon may do all things which they do : A thing that ne- ver any of our Kings arrogated by thtir Supremacy , and we are confi- dent will not arrogate : yet in palling away from this article, we .may move three or four qu-.ftions to itetsfpotogift, i. Wbether,albeit a Minifterhave his Commiflton from Chrjir quoad fab § ami am ope- ris , as to the fptbftance of his rtorl^ , he may not have Commitfiorf from the Magiflrate alio as his work is f'o or fo circumftantiated, and as he is to exercifehis CalHng -, hic&nnnc / may not the Ma- giftrat in any cafe adign a called Minifter a certain Ration to exercife his gift in it? 2. Whether doth he think, that all Miniftcrs are fo im- mediately called byChrift to exercife all ads of their function,? hat their power mayno way flow from men under Chrifl: • furely the Commif- fionersof the General AfTerably , as to the exception of their power, owned their power as flowing from the General Affembly , and did aft in their name and authority under Chrift. And fhew us the great abfurdity ofMiniflers afting, atleaft, hie & r.ttY>c y in name and au- thority of Chrifts vicegerent (or gods if ye will) fo far as the vice- gerent is fubordinate to the prncipal ? 5. Will he avow* that Mlni- fters quoad fttnttionem, are- not fubjeft to the Ma gift rate, as well as qmad mires % \% we heard Peter- Martyr frte to afTert it ? 4. Will he ftand to this which ht afTerts , thai fchrrft hath fo tjed together the keys of Dottrine and Difciplinejbat they cannot be feparated in per- (ons ? what then (hall become of the ruling Elder , who ha> h only the key of Difcipline, fas they fay ) and not the key of Doftrine ; who can cenfure and not teach? and C3n ordain a Minifter, not being a Minifter, nor hath a faculty to examine and to judge of his qualifica- tions ? 8. But we go on following the reftlefs /fpologift , pag. riPjr, 18S. healkdgeth, that by granting the King a Supremacy in or about Ec- elefiaftical sfFaitT, he gets proper to bring in all the tra[h 0/Rome, and to alter the whole train of Religion, as Jeroboam did, and to bting in anything that, m mil. Certainly the man is very much miftaken anent our fenfe of the Kings Supremacy j for wc do not give him there- by power to do what he will, in the matters of Religion and of Chrift ; but do fay,that he ought to be fubjed to Jefus Chrifr, and to his Law an J Orders, which he hath fee down in the Gofpel , from which if he vary in Religion, or the elTentials of Worfhip or Government > we are as ready to teflifie, to the laying down of our lives, as they are who feemmoft zealous: If there be any things in the circuraftantials of Wonliip and Government , belonging to Chriftian liberty,and unde- termined in the Word of God , we do therein attribute very much to the Chriftian Magiftrate, who is to ufe his power , for the edification of Gods Church, with confent of found Divines or Meetings of them ( which if he negled; as a neceflary mean of his information, he finneth highly ) but by this acknowledged Supremacy,to give the King power to do what he will in matters of Religion, or to bring in the whole body of Popery , or what be will ( as this man faith ) it came never in our minds, and wc abhor the thoughts thereof $ no Suprema- cy do we acknowledge in the King , but that which is minlfterially fubordinate to Jefus Chrift, not fo much as to bring in to the Church one ceremony, that may not be allowed by the general rules of the Word of God, concerning order f decency, edification, &c, And it is far from the truth that he aiTerts , . f W the granting Supremacy to the King anent Church- affair s , brings it within the compare of his Power , Authority and Calling,, to bring in all the trafi ut in ufe, (and ought to be) for the greatest advantage of Religion. a.Itisne- celTary, that in every Church there be under Chrift , fome in whom that Supreme Govecning-power (as to the matters of Religion^ is placed j fuch a Supreme Governing-power this mao will acknow- ledge to be in the Supreme Judicatories of the Church (end if he call it Miriifterial, fo will the Magiftrate call his, lie being theMini- fter of God for our good) Now,may not a Synod or meeting of Mini- fies fters and. others having this power , abufe ic as well as the Magiftrate may? May not an erring Aflembly or Meeting bring in evil things into the Church, whether fuperftkious Ceremonies, or Anabapcifme, or Doctrines of Sedition , c. or fome thing confining upon thefe ? An Aflembly hath no promife of infallibility more then the Migiftrate hath ; and although it may be laid, they are not fo likely to abufe their powcr,to the prejudice of Religion, as the Magiftrate ; yet , he ufing the means, which he cannot without fin negleft, may foraetimes ftand righter then an Affembly. As we may fee in Jeremiahs cafe, Jer. 2tf> the meeting of the Magiftrares is founder then that of the Priefts and Prophets, and refills their courfe againft the true Prophet of God. And in the primitive tiraes,had not fome Chriftian Emperors ufed their power againft erring Synods and Paftors ; what prejudice and hurc fhonild bave come to Religion and the Church of Chrift? It is too true, chat the Supremacy of Church-power, fubjeded either in an united multitude or in one perfon,may be abufed ; But, what warrand is there to take away or deny a juft power for the accidental abufe of it > 3. That be may appear fubtile, pag. 189. he makes a diftin&ion be- twixt the Magifirates fupreme Magijlratical- power, and hi* Sufre- ?nacy in Church-matters ; bj vert He of his Magiflratical-pewer , be appoint eth and determined What Religion (hail be prof e fed Within his Dominions : but , faith he , his Supremacy in Church-matters is afar other things for it giveth intrinficl^ and architetlonicj^power in Cbtirch-matters , and this agrecth only to the Lord fefus , Who is the alone Head of the Church, tsfrtf. The Magiftrates Supremacy in, or over Church- matters, is nothing eife but his Magiftratical- power exerted toward th3t objedl in a way competent to him. As a Magiftrate , it is incumbent to him to take care that Religion be planted in his Dominions where it is nor, to purge it from corruptions that have creeped in,to preferve ir,to pro- pagate it (fnis modts & mediis) in all wayes competent to him to do ; and the exercife of his Supremacy in Church- affairs is in fuch actions becoming him. 0, but (faith he) the Supremacy claimed is not the MagiftraticaU power, but an intrinficl^, architectonic]^ power in Cburcb-matters, Which only agrees t§ Chrift the alone Head of the Church. Anf> 1. If by intrinflck power in Church- matters be meant,a power, of giving inward influence of grace in the ufe of Church-ordinances; that is indeed Chrifts Prerogative ; neither the King nor any creature can claim fuch an intrinfick power of governing the Church* If by I intrinfick ( *s ) intrinfick power he mean that which Divines call Poteflas jurifdittio* ms tr. fore interiors , that wholly belongs to Minifters, and the Magi- ftrate upon no account oflcrs to meddle wich it,more then he doth with the preaching of the Gofpcl , or miniftration of Sacraments. If by intrinfick power in Church- matters , he means a power of perfonal acling in thefe things, which Divines call interior aTempli , or doing thefe official ads that are competent by Chrifts Word only to Paftors; the King hath no power at ail (let be fupreraef ower) in a&mg in thefe facred Adminiftrations, as Preaching, miaiftring Sacraments, &c. al- though he may in his Dominions have a chief hand in calling Paftors, and may direct them to do their duties according to tie Word, and correct and cenfure them fin his way) when they are either ntgligcnr, erroneous,or of an evil converfation. But,we do not at all give to the King power to do the proper elicite alls of Paftors ; nor hath the Oath of Supremacy any fuch fenfe ; to all fuch a3s his power is meer- \y ebjcftive'j £c cleft aft teal, and pole ft as nonfpiritualisjetctrcafpi* r it t$ali a. As for archite&onick power , it is certain his power is not abfolutefy architedonxk as Chrifts is, but fubordinately and limited by the Will and Laws of Chrift : fuch architeftonick power reformed Divines do no: grudge to give the fupreme Magiftrate, as Parens, Rom. 13 . and others. Such a fubordinate architedtonick power , as to Church-affairs , muft be in fome in every Church , that contefts be notendlefs. And however Synods may mince the matter, and fay their power is but Mrnifterial ; yet fure (ts they fpeak of the matter) it is a fupreme governing power uoder Chrift , and Magiftrates will alfo fay, that in refped of him their power is Minifterial. And gladly would w«3 know, why a fubordinate architectonick power in the Chri* ftian Magiftrate is an ufurpation againft Chrift , ( the fupreme Magi- ftrate being the fupreme Minifter of God for our good J more then the fame power in a General Aflfcmbly is an ufurpation againft Chrift, 9. This fupreme poteftative care and fupcrvifton over the things of Religion, we afilrt to be the right of all Soveraign powers, although none can ufe this power rightly , but fuch as have light and grace from Chrift : even an infidel Magiftrate hath this right in atta primo , and jus ad r$m ; he hath a right of chief govet ning, although he hath not jus in re y nor in all ufe can-do , till he have grace to ufe it. Neither is there any weight at all in the exceptions of the Apologift^. 1S9, 190. that thereupon it fhould follow, that all M 'agiftr at cs every where fhonld be Church member /, (and none to be Aiagi(trates hut Chnrch- mtmbers} or that they fhould all be CbHrcb-officers as Minifters- are] and ceAvt a Chtercb-power and Ccmmijjlcx to ttkers as tktir (trvanu. Weownnoneofthefeinconfequences ; Butaflerrs, i. that an infidel Magiftrate hath as much Magifiratica! power to be Supreme, in ordering matters of Religion in his Dominions, as a Chriftian Ma- giftrate ha:h, only the Chriftian hath grace to ufe bis power arighr, which the other wants ; but it is common to all Soveraign Magi* ftratts to be y as to ail caufes f ft f rente , and to be Mir.iftcrs cf god for our good Without rffintlion , I Pet. 2. 13. Rom. I3.4. Tiberius Ca[ar or Nero had as good right to govern Chr;ftians under them in the matters of Religion, as any Chriftian King or Empercr firce have had; but they had not- grace from Chrift for tbeaclualexercifeof their juft power. And as to that objection , that naman can have Church -power or Jurifdiclion, but he who is a Church- member (fuch as infidel Magiftrates are cot) the learned Rivetjn dtcalog, fag, 2 cp. faich well as to that point/in thefc words, Non in/cite diftinguunt^&c* And in that whole Paragraph , he allows the diftinclion of the Mem- bers of the Church in, i. Membra per veriffimam uniontm, by molt true union ; in which manner all believers are members cf the Church, and they only. 2. Membra fer externam agglutmationem^ by out- ward agglutination , fuch as hypocrites are- And , 5. Members by facial v national ace joyeer and authority. And fo (faith he) infidel Kirgs (under whofe Dominion the Church is ) are and may be called Members, and eminent Members of the Church of God. As (he faith) Saul was ths Head of Gods pcoplejalthough he was an impious man: and .Augufl. faich of him, contra UterasVctYhrA , cap. 4%. Non habebat inntcentiam , & tamers habebat fa»Etitatem t non vita fu* [ed unclioY.u ; i. e. vecationis & muntris* How well the Apo- logift and his party will like thefe confideratiflns of Reverend Rhct, I know cot , nor cares much ; but would rather fay , that though an infidel Magistrate be not actually and formally a Church-member in all the relations to complete fern therein j yet , he hath a- power in Church- matters: and when God gi ves him grace to be a Church- rncrnu£r squally, corr.pieatly and in all.Chriftian refped^ he is at li- berty to ufe that power fully For Gbdi-glory : So that an infidel Ma- giftrate may have the fupreme power over Chriftians in Chriflian matters,//? aUrn primv, stad by reafon of his calling, aloeic for the rime he wane grace to ufe it a* he might, being a Member of f be Church by profclTion or real unior. ro it. It i$tefTen*id tothe Office of the Ma- giftrate ^ ro have a potcftitire'care and Oii^edHon cf- Religion srsd the matters of God 5 yea.PjgimJhad^eahiTekelcRed it; albdtttiey erred I 2 iu ( Co ) in the object, ard took that for Religion which was not- And though the Magistrate be not an actual Member of the Church of Chrift by avowed profeflion ; yet, his Calling leads him fo fir to act as a Mem- ber ,topromove the intereits of the Kingdom of Chnft • by his fpecial vocation he U thus far ingagcd as a Member , and to aft as fuch. It is a very great miftake to think it is confequent upon our Doctrine , that the Magistrate /hould not be owned as a Magift/ate^ if he be no Church- wtmber bj profeflion or real union. We muft own an infi- del Magiftrate , as having a jus and power in Chrifthn Church-affairs, by reafon of his calling , albeit as yet he cmbraceth not the profeflion of Chnfthn Religionjand is not a Church-member. Yeche is a Nurfe- father of Chrifts Church dejare, and the fupreme Minifter of God for our good ( of all f$rts and kinds ) and in fo far the Church (hould claim a Gbnefs and neernefs to him as a chief Member ; let God in his own time make h'm a profelTed and rcal Member. l* As to the Magiitrates being a C 'hurch- officer as he is a Magi* fir ate or a cbitf Church- officer , commiffion.*ting all others Officers of the Church: We fay, i. that he is indeed a Church- officer (atleaft objectively , his official power being imployed about Church-affairs, and if formally fotne of his afts do extend to any matters of Religion, may be after confidered ) albeit the ordinary forms of fpeech have appropriated fuch a ftile only to thefe , who do atlibm elicitis fervc Ctiriftin Church-adminiftrations, and in theTa «*■*> tm* Ek*ah (nek us are civil Governors , &c» io. TheMagiftratcas aMsgiftrate, is no Church-officer, if here- by be meant a perfon employed in the formal adminiftration of divine Ordinances, Preaching, miniftrarion of Sacraments, exercife of Difcip- line, aVtibus elicitis ; ycc as the Churches Nurf-father andMiniftec of God for good to us ( fpiritual and eternal, as well as outward and temporal ) he may well becalleJ a Church- officer in exercife where he hath a Church in his Dominions , and hath a will and grace from Chrift to employ hirafelf as a fervant to him , in his mediatory King- dom, to edifie his Church and people, and to help them to eternal life in a way competent to him. Neither hath it any weight to fay, if the Magiftrate as a M*g' f ftrate, be a Church officer ( in the fenfe we fpeakof) then allM*giftr*tes{vcn Heathens,havethis office in cr to- ward the Church, yea Children fVomtn^ (\* ho may be Magi fir ate s by fucceffian) cr that Magifirates cannot be^hm ch-efficer t ,bec aufe they are not mentioned in the Gofpel as fttch , nor the name, qualification, ordination, or fc\?r^ of fuch an Officer Jet dovpn^ or that if thiy be chief Church officers, alt others derive their power from them, and afl as their Commjf oners : For, to all this we fay , i. It is true , neither Children nor Women, nor Pagans cm be Church -officers, to aft in the interior a Templi , cr in the proper adminifiratior.s of the ordi- nances of God, *r Preacbixg t mhiftring S*cramcr,ts , &c. But if they can be Magiftrates, they have a fundamental right to the Official prcwer of Governing and edifying the Church , aj Tiurfe fathers, in wayes and means competent to them to ufe ; and when God gives them grace, they may ufc that right a&ually. 2. That fore ofrea- foning wh ch he ufeth fo ofr, Q If the Alagiftrate as fuch be a Church- officer, cr chief Church-officer, then every Magi fir ate is fuch becaufe y a and tali ad de omni valet confequentiaT^ is very unfure ; If it be meant of an Officer or Governor in atlu fecundo or putting forth his power to Govern , ( albeit we grant that the fundamental right to be adual Governor of the Church , in his own W2y , agreeth to every Magiftrate as a Magiftrate, though the power b: not brought to exercife, but by the light and grace of CbriftJ Pag3n Magiftrares have the power, but- through their ignorarce or corrupiion , are under fu(per> U2) fufpcnfion and rtftraint of the.txcrcife of their ptwer (as to the Church of Chrift) pot eft a j nan dee ft fed tmtnm voluntas^* Rivet , in T>ec< i>ag*209. faith ; yea, if Children may beMsgiftrates^hey have the power in attu prino , albtir there is a reftraint through na&urai dtfed, tobeadually fo employed, as there is alfo this reltraint to- ward civil things. As for Women, though they be forbidden to fprak in the Church, or to have a minifterial Authority in the admini- ftration of Ordinances,yet if they be Magiftrates, that governing pow- er that is competent to the Magiftrate toward the Church of God by his c ffictys not to be denyed them : The Presbyterians in England wil- lingly took the Oath of Supremacy , when Queen Slizaketh did Reign there. 3. There was no necefllty , that Chrift fhouid appoint fuch Church- officers in the GofpeI,or fpeaK of their ordination, qualificati- ons or names ; he only by his pofitive precepts, appoints new Officers to labour in the actual administration of his Gofpel-ordinances, *#/- bus eiicitu : He needed not to appoint Magiftrates. By the Law of na- ture which is GodsLaw,and by the written Law of the Old Teftamenr, the Kingly office and his Official power for the Churches good , is fet forth, by David, PJal. 2. 10, 11, 12. and£/. 49. 2;. both which pjiTages relate to the Gofpel, and their official care of Religion, was of old exemplified in the godly Kings offudah, as well in thefe of them who were no Prophets, as in others alfo ; yea, even in the NewTeftatnent, their po wer as to Churcbmatters is hinted at, the King is fet forth as Supreme ( without reftriclion to perfons oc matters, thcMinifterof God to us for good, without exception ) and while the intendment of his Office is pointed out, not only to be peace and honeftyjbutgodlinefsj Rom. 13. 4. 1 Tet. 2. 13. 1 Tim. 2. 2. yea, the reformed Divines abroad have not doubted to account the civil Magiftrate an Officer appointed under Chrift , as he is head of the Church : 2? eza, Confef* cap. j. art. 1. & 23. and Smctnusde Magiftratu y pag % 556, 557, 668, accounts them adverfaries and Anabaptifts who deny this, that Magiftrates zre inter efficid Ecclc* /r*V affertiflg,thar,/£0>». 12. and 1 Cor. 12. where the Apoftlefpeaks of the Church and Officers fet therein, he means by Rulers and Go- vernors , the civil Magiftrates, as well as the ruling Elders. 4. It is an odious criminatioPj that is continually harped upon by this man, as if by acknowledging the Kings Supremacy, all Dodlors and Paftors were made Vicars and Commiffioners to the King, and had their power in their callings derived from him. The Belgick Rcmonftrants go per* hsps too far this way, but wedifownfucha Tenet; And avows, that all (6l ) all Paftors and Teachers of the Church of Chrift, being called accord ■ ing to the rule of his Word, have their corrmiffion ar.d power , as to the fub fiance of their Aiinifterj and ejjcntial parts of it t andtbt Dottrine, andSacramexts, and Dijcipiine Which they ere to aimtr.i- fier.fr om Chrift onlj. Though ordinary Minifters be not immediately called to the Office, but by the intervention of men to apply the power to their perfons,and to inflate them in the power,* yet, the pow- er it felf flows neither from the Magiftrate nor from any rren , (by wbofc intervention they are called ) nor are they dependent or commiflionat as Vicars to any man or men , as to the fubftar.es of their work, which is put in their hand by Chrilr, whofe fervants only they are therein ; yet, orthodox D.vines have not,nor will deny, that in regard of the regulation of exercife of the Ministerial work, and of external order and cir cum dances in doing ir,or in regard of the quality andmar,ner ofecdefiaftical A-fb, or placing and timing the employ- ments ofMinifter?, there is a fubordinacion or fubjrdion of the Mi« ntfter to the Nhgiftratc : The King cannot ordain a Miniftcr , he is or- dained and feparated for the Gofpel, by thefe to whom Crriithath in his Word appointed for that work ; So, the Minifter hath the fub- ftanceof bis Calling from Chrift, and is by him commifiionated to Preach ; bur, yet the King may give fuch a one called by Chrilr, commiflion to go hie & nunc, at fuch a tirze, to fuch and fuch a place in his Dominions ard Preach; he is commiflionared by Chr*ft,as to the fubftance of his Calling, and by the King as to thecircurr.ftances. As good Jehofopbat gave comraiflion to the Leviu f to go through his Cities to Preach ; yet they had (he inlVtution of their Calling from God, as to the fubftance of ic, but hecommiffionstes them to apply their pains in doing that which they had calling from God to do, in application to this or that place. Neither is there any abfurdity in it,to fay with PcterMtrtjr^s we heard,-W, com. c/a/,^ t cap.\] t that Mi- niiters quoad fun clioxem s irz fubje&to the Magistrate and fubcrdinue to him: or to fay with Rivet \n c Decalog. pap 209. that the Mini- fter doth his Minifterial ads, A4. although timau;h(WCAi45, Tin M*fjftr4$*$qnr dic'ul ( 6 7) . d cial cognition, is onlj in relation to bis W*t pratHice, As * Judge t9 authorize thefe LaVvet With his cctftive power, not to determine truth in an ecclefiaflical rraj, undir pain of 'Church cerfures. Km we fay, the Magiftrates taking judicial cognition of a Minifters falfe do&rine isnotoniy in relation fo his own pracTce of his ufing his coaclive power, ( the ufe of his judgement of difcretion were enough for this} but it n in relation primarily to the perfons guiltinefs or no guiJtir.efs, whom he muft try judicially, and find guilty in judgemenr,and by judi- cial procefs, before he can puniQa him , he mud in curia judge of the mans fac% whether contrary to the Law or not ; and alfo , whether hebeguilcyofthefadorrror, 3nd To make application of the Law to h\m for punifhing him , be the cife herefie , fedition or whatever elfe. And albeit in matters of do<5hine, tht Magistrate is indeed bound to tnzkz ufe of Church-men and their meetings, for counfel and direction to find out that the doctrine taught (if it be hot already no- tour) iscortrary to Gods Word and the Laws of the Land ratifying the true do&rine or appointing it • yet he rauft ufe a judicial power,be- fore he ufe his punidifngani coaclive power; andin fo doing,doth not determine truth in an ecdefiaftical way, but judgeth perfons varying from truth, that hath been determined by Gods Word and confent of his Church : And albeit he cannot inflid Church cenfures, yet may he appoint ecckfiaRicks to do their duties in inflicting them, and punifh in his own way their deficiency or pcrvcrfion in managing fuch cenfurcs. Anentthis, Parens, Rom. 13 p.ig. 344, faith well , that itbelong- eth to the Msgiftnte ]»dicare dcReltgione,non tanrttm apprehenfivc vel ai{cretive % fed definitive mo do idfaciat ordine, per debit a media QjrjHxtanormfitK convenienttm : and how he Hiou'd exercifc a puni- tive power, without a judical, is aftrargething, unlefs men will make of him a meer (lave to the judgement or ecclefiafticks (to whom only the judicial cogoifance of matters of doftrine is given) or a meer exe- cutioner of their decrees acd diclates; a judgement of difcretion in or- where is there any precept or prefiJent for this ? what need is there then of Church- officers for Church matter •s % if civil Magiftrates may do all} and fo the examples of decliners of the Kings Council are brought- in. And every where almofr, learned Voe- tius ( although rooftly without citation cf his words ) is brought on the ftage, and we are referred to him. t/fnf, I. (tfp) *AnJ. i. We arc not to look to what ficnefa every Magiftrate hatfr, fthere are degrees of that,) but to his calling and duty. Some Mi- nisters are none of the fazeft. for all thefc matters of publick Govern- ment of the Church, or to be Judges in matters of Herefie ; and fome fupreme Magiftrate* have been found fitter then many of thefe. Every fupreme Magiftrate is not a very dt perfon to be a Judge of Common Pleas , or a Lord of Seflion ; ftiall he not therefore have a Supremacy in civil matters ? He hath a calling , it is his duty to fuperintend in all thefe affiirs , and ordinarily wants not competency of habitual fitnefs, which is to be helped by his learned Council of affiftants in Govern- ment. No man indeed fhould be a Magiftrate, exerciling that power, that by himfelf and his Council may not , in fome meafure, be able to know his duty > both as to Church and State ; and the more intricate the matters of either fort be, he hath more need of theafliftan.ee of Counfel,but the Authority is in himfelf. 2. If the Afolog. fee not precedents in the Old Teflament of this exercifed power of the Magiftrate, as to Church- matters, and precepts implyed both in the Old and New , in the delineation and description of the Kings Office , he fees not far ; But who is fo blind as they who will not fee? 3, It is an impertinent queftion to ask,what need is there of Church- efficers for Church-matters , if the King may do all} Whoever aiTerted that the King might do all ? From the adminiftrations of the interior a Templi, Preaching, mintftring Sacrament*, &c t the King is cxprefiy excluded, and doth not arrogate the fame. And have not Church-officers wo;k enough in doing for fouls in their charges in pri- vate and publick? and in giving counfel and afliftance to the Magi- ftrate, acquainting him with the mind of God fo far as they know it ; albeit they exclude him not from his fupreme fupervifion, and he leav- ing to them the immediate perfonaladminiftration of woiks properly paftoral ? As for Voeiius , who is ad naufeam over and over again cited, that learned man deferved commendation by his defperata caufa papatus , and fome other Writings ; and it had been good for him to have fparcd his writing of Church- policy, efpcc'ally sgainft the policy of the Church of England , which he understands little. He bath in his hte Writings wronged the Reformed Churches, inclined in fe- veral things to the Independent ; and fhews himfelf (by falling on the Church- of England) an impertinent Tolypragmon . as he hath al- fo in his Letters (yet extant) provoking the Proceftant Umverfitics of this Nation to write 3gainft his own ftue of Vtrechu His tcft mo- ries r/ics in muter of Pol cy , (o often pointed at by this Apolog. are not much to be valued. 14. Much ado d;th the Apolog. make, ^£.192,193. about Mi- niflcrs being innr.ediately under Chrift in the difcharge of xhtir mi- nift trial Funtlion } and nit under the MagiftrAt's as bis Commiffn- xers, and ailing in his Name and Authority 9 which ( he faith ) if imported b) the Oath of the Kings Supremacy. But,it Lad been well he had explained his meaning ancnt that immediattnefs of all Ma- tters under Chiift : for, the Scriptures cited by him^hough they fpeak of their calling and power from Chrift $ yet , fay not that all have im- mediate Commiflion from Chrift, as he faith. Apoftles indeed had their immediate Call and Commiflion from Chrift, ard were imme- diately fubordinate to him in their Adminiftraiions , (o that they were countable to none but him. But, it is hoped he will not fay that of ordinary M Inifters, who are fet in the Church by the interven- tion of men, imployed according to the Rules of Chrift in that matter. It is true, the minifterial power fas Parens faith) quoad {ubflanti am % is from Chrift and him only ; it is his Ordinance, and not mans; the power floweth not from man, but from Chrift immediately $ and that way a Miniftcr ads not in the name of any , or as his Commftioner, but only of Chrift : Yet , ( as the farm? Pareut faith , Row. 1 3 .) a Mmifter may depend upon, and is fubjccl; to men ratione vocations*, direclioHts ^-cenfura : men cail others to the Miniftry under Chrift, and according to his mind, they may direct them in theexercifeofit, and have power to cenfure them if they do wrong , and call them to an account. What ordinary Miniftcr will deny , that he hath his cal- ling from the Church under Chrift ? ( and how much doth this difer from a Commiflion? Commit thou the Work to faithful menjvbo may teach others^ fai J Paul to Timothy) Or, what Minifter will deny that he ftiould receive inftru&lons ( according to Chrifts mindj from men who commit the Word to him ? or, that he is accountable to, and cen- furable by them , if he tnnfgrefs Chrifts Laws ? Were there not Commiflioners of the General Affcrably, who acled by their Authority under Chrift ? Some fort of mediate dependence upon men (accord- ing to the rule of Chrift ) muft be acknowledged by all ordinary Mi- nifters : Now all the debate is, on whom they fhould depend , and to whom they fhould be countable on earth • wc exclude not the Church and the Rulers thereof, but this man excludes the M3gifti ate. Al- though we do not love to fay , that a Miniftct prcachcth or miniftreth Sacraments in the name of the Magtftrate , or as cemmiflioned by him for for the {ubftancc of his wotk; nor yet that he doth fo in name of any other Minfters that called him, or as their Commiflior.ers ; Yet , we doubt not to fay, that no ordinary Mimfter is fo immediately fubor- dinate to Chrift, that he is not accountable to the Church and to the Magiftrate aifo, in their feveral vocations for his adminiftrations; nor that he ihould receive no inductions (however much according to Chrifts mind; from them. And albeit the bitter and reproachful man twite the Magiftrate wich the title of Civil "Pope, ( driving to deveft him of his Right, and to make the Minifters the Popes complete heirs) yer,I think, he could not make good account for himfclf, if he keep not "his Authority over Minifters to bring them to an account when they debord: Nor, is there any abfurdity to fay, that Minifters who are called by men (according to Chrifts will) have dependence on them under him, as to the regulation of the exercife of their Authority, and astorefponfiblenefs in their actings : yea, a Mimite'f called by the Church , may without orlence be faid to be authorized and commiflio- na:ed by the Migiftrate for exercife of his calling, hie & nunc, and in application to fuch or fuch fubj.cts , when he is by the Magistrate ap- posed to exerce his power which he hath from Chrift, for edification of fuch or fuch parts of his people. Neither will it therefore follow, that in relation to the fubftance of the minifterial work, the King is their Lord and Mailer, who may give them infractions as he pleafeth, feing they muft cleave to the only rule of Chrifts will, and do nothing againft it for any creatures pleafure. But ftrange it is , that this man cannot endure to hear of the fubjection of Minifters to the Magiftrate in their Adminiftrations ; yet, p*g< i93« he afferts, That the Magi- ftrate in hi* adminiftrations iifxbjeft to the Minifters , and that \hs Aiinifters are above him ) and he is to obey them, as kavirg rule over him ; and he muff befukjett to their rebukes andcenfttres, even in his mtgiftrat'tcal Adminiftrations , if there be m&lever Ration and [cau- dal in the fame. I do not fureiy find our reformed Divines fpcaking of the Magiftrates fubjection to the Minifters fo highly as this man doth : It is true , Chnft is Lord over Kings and all men by his Word, theSc:pter of his Kingdom hath and exercifeth a fpiritual Empire over Kings, and they are his Subjects : Bur,as a man is not the Subject of the Kings Herauld that comes to him with the Kings Mandate, but he is only the Kings Subject ; his fuboidination is not to the Herauld himfelf,buc to the King whofe fcrvant he is : So, Mirifters being only Heraulds,fent out with Proclamations by the great King, neither Kings nor othmnre to be looked upon as properly their 5ubject$,becaufc the empire* empire, lordlhip and dominion over the Church, and over Kings with the Church , is only in Chrift:, and not in them who arc but Chnfts he- raulds or errand- bearers, (n$n tibi fed Chrifio^iy the Magiftrate fay totheMinifter ) the obedience is to be given as to Chrift and to his Word: That watching over and guiding theChurch,for which Minifters are faid to be over her in an improper fenfc ( the Superiority proper- ly being Chtilb; imports not her proper fubjedion to them , or that flie is fubjecl to them , more then a great Princes Heir is or may be called the Subject of his Pedagogue or Phyfician , whom his father hath fent to attend him. But as to this knot, how (hail the Minifter be countable in Church-adminiftrations to the Magiftrate, if he be over the Magiftrate in thefe adminiftrations , and the Magiftrate fub- jccl to him ? Shall the Superior be countable to his own Subject or be commiffionate from him ? A nf. The King is not the Minifters fubje even when the Meeting is in and about Ecclefiaftical affairs. They agree alfo in this, that when Church and State do coallefce into one body materially ( as it is with us under our Chriftian Prince ) the Church quoad exerci- tium pote$atis, Thefe words I like not to EngHrh. 10. But this (hall be only faid, that a King is in no good taking, if firft extra- judicially he be reprefented by a clamouring party, as either an enemy or neglective of the Gofpel- intcrefts; and fo a Meeting be- ing gathered againft his will , he (hall be therein declared fuch (which they muft do to juftifie their Meeting ) albeit he be a friend, favourer and protector of the truth indeed, only can fee no need of extraordinary convocations of his Subjects. Hardly will this JpoLor any man,(hew us a meeting of any Church-aflernbly in a Kingdom, conveencd againft a Princes will; but in end it was found to be againft his Perfon and Au- thority : it is the ordinary way of people or ce engaged in diforders,tcr proceed from evil to wotfe, and tothink Setter* (ceieribusfuxt tusn* da * d* ; but| Quid t° infoelicius cttijam effe malo necefie eft} It is a mi- ferable thing to be (infully engaged to maintain one fault by another, and one atfront to God* Ordinance by a greater. True it is, were the cafe fuch as was that of the primitive Chriftians, when there was no ground to doubt of the enimity of the perfecutingEmperors againft the Gofpel andPrqfetfors thereof; Chriftian Paltors might,for their mutu- al edificition,their mutual confirmation in faith and ho!ineiV,and for rt> drtfling abufes contrary to the Gofpel, meet as they might upon their penl,and without asking their leave which were clearly necdiefs : But, tvhen a King is an orthodox Chriftian and a favourer of Religion* though Church-men by their correfpondencies may reprefent to him, the nteeflity of National Meetings extraordinary , and petition for them (as for other Meetings for exercife of Gofpel-ordinances,it can- not be fuppofed that he favours Religion, i( he ftiouid hinder thefe) but to meet without his leave asked and given, no fober Divines will acknowledge it right- Nor fhould the extraordinary cafe of the Church, conveening in Synods againft the Pagan Magiftrates mind , be broughc to juftifie fuch Meetings inordinary cafes under a Chriftian M3gUtrate,more then they who yield fomething to be done by the Ma- gistrate^ to Church-matters, in the very corrupt and degenerate ftate of the Church, will allow the fame to be ordinarily done by him in the right and healthful condition of a constitute Church. 2. It is not true that the Church (hould be in a remedilefs condition^ if fhe fliould want the remedy of thefe extraordinary Synods whereof we fpeak now (theconvocating whereof we attribute to the fupreme Chriftian Magiftrates in their Dominions) for, fuch Synods are not ncceiiary^neither tdeffc, nor ad bene e§c £cclefta > although conducible ad melius ejfe. When powers of the world are enemies or fmall friends to the Gofpel , the Church may be , and hath been under the wife and watchful Providence of God, preferved by other means ; as by faithful preaching the Word by one aad the fame Spirit, according to one and the fame rule , by mutual correfponderjeies and communi- catory Letters,from Pallors to Paftors, and Churches to Churches, for maintaining communion in one faith, and mutual ftrengthning one an- other againft abufes and errors. It is weli known , that for the firft three hundred years after Chnft • there was no general oecumenical Af- fembly of the Church ; yet , Gods Church was not then in a remedi- lefs condition, but he preferved it under the enimity of Pagan perfe- cutors and oppofitions of Hereticks. Neither is there (after the Apo- ftolital Synod (as it is called J Alls 15. which was anno Chrifti, 51.) any any inftance to be given of a particular or provincial Synod amongtt Chriftian PaftorSj for the fpace of one hundred ancttourty feven years afcer,until! the Roman Synod under Vi&or B.ftiop of Rome, aa^i^S. And for the whole fpac« of above one hundred years after.there are on- ly reckoned (before the Council of Nice) twenty or thirty provincial Synods, in all the feveral parts of the world where Chriftianity took place ; many of which Synods were very private, being held in crj$* tu and in fecret places for fear of perfection, and confining rooft part of a few Bilhopscorrefponding together under the crofs, and fome- times held for no great advantage to the Church ; yet, all that time God preferved his Church without the ufe , or frequent ufe of fuch Affemblies. And doth not the harmony of the Reformed Churches Confeffions (hew, that God keeps them in a good agreement in the faich of the main Gofpel-trutbs neceflary for Salvation and for the beeingof a Church, albeit bis Providence hath not allowed them the toeans of a common Aflembly > 21. But next, from the Magiftrat's power of calling Affe-mblies, let his power be looked upon , as to thzcwflitutiox, tilings ani dijjotv- i»l of the Aficmblj : This man makes it , i. unlawful for the Magi- giftratc to name the Members of a Church- aflembly, but they muft all be delegate from the Churches , and none of them chofen by him. a. AtTerts his own or his Commiflioners prefence in a nationalAffemb- !y,to be unneceffary. 3 . That if he come,he muft have no voice declfive in the Aflembly, becaufe he is not delegue by fome Churches in the Countrey. 4« That he muft not prefcribe no matter? or caufes to be treated of in the Aflfembly, but give them free leave to difpate, decide and determine as they will ; of all things coming within thecoropafs of Religion. 5 . That he may not dtiTolve their Meeting , fo leng as they pleafe to fit* 6. That their orders muft be binding on all the Members of the Church , as tocenfure ecclefiafiical , in cafe of con- traveeningi confent the King or confent he not.- See ts4$ol*g* pag. iW>i96,\6 7 . 22. Tothefirft, when there is no Chriftian King to take care of the Church of Chrift , as we put it out of queftion, tl at Churches for their mutual confirmation and entertaining communion , may affemble in fynodical meetings , without fo much as asking leave of the Magi- ftrate ( which were a thing needlefs and hurtful to them, he being fup- pofed a perfecutor of thrir whole way ) So, there is in fuch a conditi- on a necefllty of delegation of perfohs, the whole bodies not being able to meet or concur in ading 3 and none being obiieged by the ads of the fa (So) thefe Synods , but fuch as conferred to them by rhemfelves or their del; gates 5 and none of the acts of fuch Synods , having the force of Church -canons, fo as to fubject any tocenfure, bnt only the con- fenters: But when a Church fpreads thorough a Kingdom, grows into a national fiame, and is cherifhed under the wings of the Sove- raign Chriftian Magtltrate , who bath the fupreme fupervifion of her, there is no neceflity of particular Churches delegating all the members that doconftitute a Synod: Bur, the King convocating the Synod, may nominate and defign theconftituent members, they being fuch, as by vcrtue of their office, may meddle in Church determinations, and who by their abilities and integrity, arc feenof ail others, fitteftfor fuch work j for, why fhould not the Churches Nurfe-fathcr, defign thefe perfoas , who fhould give her good milk , and nominate them, who by vertue of their office and abilities, are fitted to advifeand affift him in procuring her good ? True it is, he may cede fo much in his right, as to permit the designation and delegation of perfons, who are to meet about Church- matters, and to determine according to Gods mind, what is meet to be injoyned to fubjecls (as he doth per- mit Cities and Shires to delegate their Commiflioners to Parliament, to repiefent griveances, to give advice anent redreffes, and to prepare for making Laws wholefome for the Common-wealth, which doth noc any way encroach upon his Soverajgnty.) But there is no neceflity ly- ing on h>m,by vertue of any divine Law,fo to do ; if there be any fuch Law, let it be produced} and it will be yielded unto* We know a a diftinclion is made , between theftateof the Church not fettled or conftitutcd in point of Government, and the ftateof the Church fettled and conftitutcd, as if in the former cafe, theMagiftratemighs do more then in the latter, and nominate the Members of an Affembly, in that cafe, which he cannot do in this. But befides tbsr, this were enough to juftifie the Magift rat's nomination of conftituent members of an Affembly , in the cafe our Church is in funfettled enough God knows) wc can fee no reafon , why in the meft fettled conftitution of the Church, the foveraignMagiftrate may not nominate and call unto him,a competent number of fit perfons,who by their cal* lings and abilities and integrity,are like to give him moft faithful co.un* fel, in managing that great truft which God hath given him toward his Church 5 Babet itiam ecclefta fuum vulgus , & optima qtitquc pauciflimu (emfer pUcuere • There is greater or as great danger, that in thefe delegations given to fome by particular Churches , the plura- lity may incline to fend none of the beft nor moft learned , godly and fober, fober, as there is i that a cohfcientious Prince fhould nominate fucb. The alterably of Divines at London, in the Confeflion of Faith emitted by thero,allows a Synod fo called,lawfu! to a!! effe&s, chap. $i.art. 2. Ic is true, our Aflembly, Anno , 1647. ta ^ e on them toexpone this article, as meant only concerning the Magi/trAtes power in con* vocAting Sjnods by nominating the mtmbers constituting the fame, in the unfettledfttte of the Church. But, why he fhould not retaine that fame power at other times, no folid nor fufficient reafon can be given; nor can it be evidenced, that he goeth beyond his bounds ; if, having the chief fuperv/fion of the Churches good within his own Dominions, he do in the fear of God and a holy care, to have the beft inftru&ion and dire&ion in his duty, nominate and call together Minifters moft approven for gifts and in- tegrity, to declare unto him the mind of God, which he fhould fol- low in governing his people, and to aflifl: him with their bcftcounfels, that he may by his authority command all things to be done in the houfe of the God of Heaven, according to the will of the God of Hea- ven : And it is as like, that he with his wife Council , may pitch upon menofgreatcft integrity and abilities, as that they ftiall be chofen when the election is committed to popular meetings; or the weak- er or unfouader plurality of Presbyters , where ruling Elders are half the number. 2. It is an overlaying, to fay Churches are robbed of their juft priviledge, if they may not have power to delegate whom they will to Synods ; I would gladly know , where there is any par- ticular rule for fuch priviledge under the Chriftian Magiftrate ; I hope the Libeller will think, he hath little reafon to allcdge Taul and BarnabAS delegation, Alls 15. from the Church of Antioch ; for, befide, that that is only one example, which makes no rule, they we£e not fixed members of that Church (fuch as now is alledged dele- gates muft be) it was below Paul (at leaft) tobefo, neither was BAmabat a fixed member there : It was their charitable duty to that Church, to be willing to carry the reference of the cafe of confeience that troubled Chriftians there, to the then much regarded Cfeurch at ^erufalem^bzciuk of the prefence of che Apoftles there as yet,and be- caufe from that Church the Truth had proceeded to theirs) for obtain- ing their resolution, to end the controversies But,as we hear not that the matter was tranfafted by the delegates of that Church,fo we can- cot look upon the eminent carriers of the reference to the Apoftles, Elders and Church at JerufAlem % as appearing there in the quality of Yoycing delegates , both for the reafon before hinted at , and becaufe M that (82) that P*ul and 'Bdrftah^s having had much diiTention and difputatlon at Jntitcb with thele who were of the wrong fide , as 2. verf* ap» pears, it ihould not fcem congruous to the ending of the controverfie, had they at JtrufMem been admitted to fit as deciding Judges, Again, lee him tell us if the Church of England was robbed of her pnviledge. when the Parliament there called an Aflembly of Divines for advice, particularly nominating them > and mixing in many others with them who could pretend to no official power in the Church. If it be faid the ftate of that Church was then unfettled , and fo more might be permitted to the MagLtrate then otherwife ; we fay, what- ever unfetlement was in the State at that time, or whoever were the culpable caufes thereof 5 yet, had that Church for many years before, been looked upon as eminent aroongft the reformed Churches, and noc as covftitmndtt but cenftttuta ; and if any corruptions had crept in, why rhould not the remedy been firft fought from her felf , before fuch an extraordinary courfe ( if it was extraordinary ) had been ta- ken ? But, tr thefe who convocated that Synod, had (hewed a fuffici- cient right to magiftratical power and authority without the King, the convocation of a Synod in fuch a manner was no fault , nor is it to be thought a fault, in the conftitute ftate of a Church fo to do : Neither can this mans great mailer Vtetins , nor himfelf either, fhow that it was the practice of the Church in all ages, to delegate to Synods fuch as they thought fit \ or that the Magiftrates, who did convocate Synod* in all ages ( fince there were any Chriftian Magiftrates ) either by cxprefTe mandate or tacite approbation,did not defign the conftituent members, either by name or by their offices and places in the Church ; And this latter is all which the Act of our late Parliament, concerning the Synod, grants unto the King; yea ? grants it with this moderation, that a delegation of a great part of the members of the Synod , is per- mitted to minifterial meetings for exercife. And this (hall be afferced, that it hath been the conftant practice of all ages (fince there were Chriftian Emperors and Kings , untill the Pope got up above them ) that Chriftian Emperors and Kings did convocate them ; it is clear,. all arcumenical Aflemblies were convocated by Emperors , and Na- tional Synods wereconveened by tht Kings and Prince* of thefe Na- tions where they were held, ( albeit for diocefan or letter meetings, they kaveing allowed them by their Laws ) did ufually permit Biihops and Presbyters, to hold thefe meetings in an ordinary courfe, without more particular intermedling in them, they carrying them- fclves as became. But the convocation of thefe greater Aflemblies, even <8S > even in themoft fettled ftateof the Church, Princes keeped in tfceir own hands, and had right fo to do; neither can ic be proven, that condiment members of Synods,were alwayes delegated by theChurch- es , and not defigned by ths Magiftrate. Of the ordinary power of Princes in convocating Synods,See gerhardde Magiftratu, pag. 597. Farew, 13. of the Romans, fag. 1345. And we fhall clofe this with the faying of Tilen. ortkod. firft difputation of Councils. S. 39. Certum tft> congregations conciliorum , turn mandatum turn aftum ad humanum ordinem perti nere • Hoc ergo opus qui (ufcipit fine an* thoritate illius cui ordinii hujtu tuendi cur a incumbit , u terminos a Deopofitos non fine fctlere movet ; which words, haying weight and truth in them, are worthy to be noticed. Bat this man is fo far tranfported againft the Magiftrat's power in convocating Synods, and in nominating any of the members condi- ment, that he afferts , pag. 195. That upon that ground, tbe con- stituent members Jboutd vote not in the name of Chrift , nor of the Church , hut in name of the Magiftrate vfro did fo conveen them, ana the meeting (hould not be a pure Church -meeting % but either wholly political or politico- eccle ft sfticat, Anf If this reafoning be good, the Synod of divines it London, (from whom we received our models of Faith, Worfhipand Government) afted not in the name of Chrift, but in name of the Magiftrate, and was but a po- litical meeting,or at beft a mixed one. 2. This reafoning, will altoge- ther exclude the Magiftrat's authority, in convocating Synods againft the common fenfc of Proteftants writing againft Papifts , who give faim authority to convocate Synods , whatever power the Church mayufe, when the Magiftrate is either not Chriftian, or wanting in his duty. 3. The members of a Synod convocated by the Magi- ftrate,do indeed meet in his name (that is,by his authority, as the pra- feci of humane order ) but 10 the fearch of truth and treating of ex> ciefiaftical caufes,expounding Chrifts mind minifterialfyiOr ordering his Houfe according to his mind, or correcting abufes againft his Ordinan- ces, they do according to their offices » aft in Chrifts name and au- thority , waiting on the direclion of his Spirit , looking to the rule of his Word, aiming at his Glory, without partial, private and carnal affe&ions. A Synod may very well aft and meet in the name of Chrift, albeit by the Magiftrat's authority they do meet ; Andfome* times alfo,albeit the Church delegate all the conftituent members, and ufe that (fo called ) intrinfical power to con veen the members ; it maycometopafie, they are not met in the name of Chrift , nor do M a aft r 8 4 ; aft in his Name, being mifcamed by their corruptions. 4. ¥ntruc it is, thtt delegates to a Synod do aft in name of the Church thAt fends them ( as this man iaich ) they act in Chnfts name only , according to that official power he hath given them. As a Minifter chofen by a people to be their Paftor, doth not therefore preach in their name who d d choofe hirn,buc only in Chnfts name; So,delegates to an AfTeuibly, albeit they have that ex-raordimry call ( io to term it in fome fenfc, becaufe the meeting is extraordinary ; fuperadded to their ordinary official power, that they may in cor junction wnh others , exert the fame for the Churches behoof, yet that eledion or donation of them for that end, makes them not to aft in the name and authority of th f who fenrthem (the Churches J but they aft and vote in the name of Chrift only. And fo, fuppofe the Members confticuent of a Synod to be dcligned by the Magtftrate , by wbofe Authority they arc conveened ; yet, (being conveenedj as to the fubftancc of their work, and their actings about fpiritual things, they ad only in the name of Chnft, vv'iofe matters ifrefe are, and whofe mind th y mud fearch and follow, ho ding foi th the light both to the Nurfe- father of the Church (who called them to aft there ) for his direction and afliftance in his duty toward tht CHurch , and to the whole Church , for the good of which they are gather d together; So their meeting is not political meerly or rmxtly , but ecclefiaftical , as to the matters treated and the ends of it. 24. But, to go on, the Apologift will neither have the King nor hit Commiffioners prefence nectffarj in a national Ajftmblj : anent which he fauh feveral things , and (till the impertinent raedler Voetius is ( ad naufeam) caft up to us ; a man whom the States of the Low-countries may in th ir time notice, as undermining their juft magiftratical Power. But, as to this mans particulars on this purpofe, 1. He faith there is no Law of C cdfor this. Anf. When he (hill produce a Law of God for a national Synod under the Gofpel, a Law for the Chriftian Magi- ftrat's prefence in it fhall be prod ad ; but we may juftly fay , that the fame Law of God which makes him prafettut humani orainis in re ece left aft tea, and that gives a Supremacy to him in governing perfons and matters under his dominion, makes it right necelTary that he fhould be upon the head of his people in thefe great and general confluences of his Subjefts,to attend that neither Church nor State receive any de- triment. 2. He is too impertinent to alledge Synods in the primitive times held Without the prefence of the Magiftrate : If he fpeak of the primitive times of the Church under perfection, it is nothing to the (8S ) the purpofe now, when the queftion is anent the times when Magi- (traces have come in to be Chriftians and Nurfe- fathers of the Church ; If he mean, that Synods were hdd in the primitive times after Magi- strates were brought to the faith without their prefence, he fpeaks un- tru y ; for, we have ready inftances of both general and national Sy- nods, where Kings ©r their Commiflioners did fit j as Cor.ftAxtine the great in the Synod of 2{jce ; Martian in the Council of Chatcedon, who appointed Commifiioners for him when his necetfary affairs drew him away ; TheoAofitts the younger had his Commifiioner Cindidi*- nus , in'the great Council of Ephs,us: Many other Emperors we might name , who were prefent by themfelves or their Commiffioners in general Council* ; and many Kings of The Magiftrate, as a Magiftrate, qua- lified by his Chriftianity for exercificg his duty toward the Church of God, is as to his calling thus exerted fr&ciftittm tnembrum Eccltfia % as the Church is an external political Society ( as our beft Divines do not doubt to call him) and in tliefe great and extraordinary national Meetings of the Churches, whereof he is in his way Governor, fas Mr. Perkins doubteth not to call him , Revtl. 3.7.) the Soveraign Magiftrate hath right to be President, and not only to be there to de- fend the Council or Aflembly with his power, but to order the actions thereof, not fuffering any thing to te done paffionately or damou- roufly , but fetting them awork to fearch the ground of every thing t With a befitting compofure of fpirit : providing alfo, that they who meet may be free to acl without rear or terror of any man , and with- out all partial and finiftruous refpe&s ; and taking care that error and wrong be avoided in all the proceeding, and that things in and concern- ing the Church, be done according to Gods mind ; reftraining alfo im- pertinent digreflions and confufed proceedings, judging and pronounce- ing according to what they fee alledged, with approbation and aflent of the Council , fubferibing and confirming with his Royal aflent the things agreed to; and finally, in cafes of mifcarriage, to put end to the Council , and transfer matters to the judgement of others to be refumed and re-examined. All this is within the compafs of the Ma- giftrates powcr,as a Member and a Prefident of the Council. And al- though they will call him political Prefident only, yet who can fee what (8 7 ) what an ecclefiaftical Prefident may do more then he may do by his Office, txcept it be to open and dofe the Meeting by prayer to God, and under him to order the Meeting. And we do think it convenient end d cent , that under the fupreme Ruier there (hould be fuch eccie- fiaftick Prefidenrs named by him,men of piety and prudeace, and good experience for ordering the actions of the Affembly : as Hofius Bifhop ©f Cordoba in Spain y was in the great Council of Nice Prefident, not by election of the Aflembly,but by deGgnation of the Emperor for his known lingular piety and learning. But , we abhor the AfoL afler- tion, that Chriftian Princes are no conftituent Members in the Chri- ftian Synods of their Kingdoms • for, they being by Office Prefidsnts for fuch effects as we have named , and Nurfe-fathers of the Church, who can deny them to be Memben? and who can fuffr it, that the pooreft and molt ignorant landward Ruling-elder fhould be a confti- tuent of the Aflembly, and a grave Jud^e in parity of power with the moft reverend Minifter in the meeting, even in deciding controverfies of Religion ; and yet the Prince ( if he be there) muft be only a cour- teous fpectator of the proceedings of fuch grave definitive Judges, and have no more to do , but to protect them while they do what they will toward the Church, and to himfelf alfo, and toward his Subjects, prefcribmg to them what they fhould believe , and what they (hould do ia divine worship and in converfation , and (kicking tbem with whatcenfures, and for what theypleafe? In the mean time, he U ameer cipher, and muft not by any thing he doth, antevert the fage fentences of fuch Judges ( the plurality whereof , isfurethe weakeft, ifnonheworft) but humbly follow and lackey them, lending them his Sword to all purpofes they pieafe , as he would efcape the fal- ling of their fpiritual Sword upon birofeif, and then it is known What will follow. 25. But we muft cleave to this, that in ecclefiaftical meetings of Synods National, the Magiftrate is a conftituent member and a judge,, vi officii 1 neither do we in this depart from the opinion of founded Froteftants, nay not from the opinion of them who feem oppofite enough to Epifcopal Government. Only look to Matter ?arher % ltb.%. depolit* ecclef, cap. 39c, 391. where he fai h, fi qui> &c. If*nj wiidenf to Mgiftrttes the poWer ef judging in CAU/cseccleJi- ftical, per me abfurdi audiant , let them lie accounted abfurd men :• And a little after , having cited fome fentences of reformed Divines, fides ( faith he) reformatas ecctejias, &c. Thcafeeth the reform* ed Churches do ack^t^lcdge the Magiftrate to be judge in the Sjnod. An& (88) Ahdthcn, lcaft any fliouldfay, that the Reformed acknowledge the Supreme Magiftrate Judge only, as to prefervarion of order in the Synod, not in the decifion of matters debated , he anfwers, that he is with the Sjnodcenjuntl Judge, even as to the mutters debated ', andaiTerts, that the contr over fie between the Remonfir Ants And the Reformed, is not whether the Magiftrate be a judge in the Synod, but whether he bzfolus Judex y only Judge : For, 71ogermAn,the Remon- ftrants adverfary, acknowledged the Magi fir Ate to be fudge, fed non (olus Judex,verum ut pars Ecclefi*. ; And he addcth , p*g. 391. Si qui Autem funt , &c. If there be any who will not acknowledge the MAgiftrate Judge , quoad Ecdefiaftica , no not in a Synod , as they Agree with Bellarmine and the Papiftsjo they are fplendidly refuted by Whitaker, lib* deconciL cap, 3. arg, 3. and he fends his Reader to ffhitatyr, to fee Imper uteres ftatuiQe , judicafle, decrevtftc in Con- ciliis. Now,how is it poflible he fhould be a Judge> if not a Member coaftituent, as this man will not at all have him to be ? Parker, an Independent, is more favourable to the Kings juft Supremacy, then this man is. 5. It is very evil reafoned by him and his great Teacher too, the famous Veetius (of whom he learneth much of his anti-magiftra- tical Clergy ) that if the Magiftrat's prefence be needful in national AtTemblies, he muft not be abfentfrom leffer AtTemblies ; for if he or his Commiflioners beprefent in the great concourfe of a national Synod, where Laws and Canons are made for regulating all inferior and leiTer Affemblies , and they are to be accountable for their roale- adminiftration, contrary to thefe fet rules , there is no great need of his prefence in leiTer AlTemblies. Were it a wife confequence to fay, becaufe the King or his Commiflioner , muft be prefent in Parliament, where Laws are made to direct all inferior Officers of juftice ; that therefore he or his fpecial Corrjmiffionerjfhould be of neceflicy prefent in all Sherif courts or Burrough-conm,or Courts of Juftices of Peace, throughout the Realm ? It is fuppofed, thefe Courts have warrand to ad by his Laws, and are accountable for the legality of their ad- miniftrations { and thus he may be judged , interpretatively and vir- tually, to be prefent with them ) So it is as unwife a confequence to fay, becaufe the King or his CommilTioner muft be prefent in a Na- tional Aflembly, that therefore he muft be prefent in ali letter AlTem- bhes, which arc regulated by the Canons agreed to in the National Aflembly. And yet, it were nothing abfurd fas this man faith it is) if the King ftiouid in every Church Aflembly (evenleflerj through- out the Land, have fome prudent man to truft with infpe&ion of proceedings proceedings of Meetings , that they might neither wrong Reli- gion, nor I is Authority , ror the poblck Peace: And it is like, that courfe had prevented much mifchief , which hath in former tiroes brcn ken forth. But to proceed,the Apologift^ pag t i$6> is peremptory,^** though the King or his Qommijfioncr be prefent in a National tsfflembly, he [houid not have fo much as one voict 'toith the reft of the Cemmif- fioners in the Afrmbly, becaufe he it not ( forfooth) delegated by any Church in the Count re y , and becaufe, if he have }#ff r *ge *s & Ma* giflrate 9 all Magiftraies even Heathen , fycntdhave fuffragesin Synods • yea, that if that be granted to him, ( he faith ) all the alls of the Synod fheuld be civil alls, and no Church aits , being done by ho Church Officer, &c. A*f. i. Who will not think it ft very fine popular device, that not only Lords, but the meaneft ruftical Elder, ('that is no Minifter whofe lips (hould keep knowledge, at whofe mouth the Laws fhould be asked, nor none of thefe who have the concional powe of interpreting the mind of Ctirift ) (hould have a decifive voice in all religious matters and caufes • While the Soveraign Magiftrate, who is the great Nurfe-father of the Church , and the Minifter of God for ail our good, fpiritual and temporal (inwaycs and means fit for him to ufe)muft in thefe Meetings ftand as a humane fpcdaror, and as a meer cipher , having nothing to do there, but to pedee the fage determinations , not only of Lords or Gentlerr en , or Minifters, but of Clowns, ( if they (hall happen to be chofen Elder*, as often they are and may be ) and to lend th m his Sword to ftrick when and whom, and in what caufv theypleafc; refervmg to him- feif no more but a difcretive judgement , ( as much is due to the common executioner at Edinburgh^ as to his own adioas > and plead- ing that if i is diic e:ive judgement , fubmit not to their decre- tive judgement , they will firft fubjed him to excommunication for the error of his difcretivc judgement ? And then what fhould follow, 'Buchannan told us above. 2. Whereas he faith, if the K nghave any voice in an Aflembly,*// Magift rates, as Magiftrate^fhouldhavc it, and/oTagansal/o: We are confident in this, that all Magiftra- tes, even Pagans, have a right to voice and fudge in Chriftiao Aflem- blies ; but they who are Pagans, are under a fufpenfion and reftraint of their right, ( through their infidelity ) and cannot have the ex- ercife of it for the benefit of Gods Church, fo long as they are in that condition; they are much like Minifters fufpended from theexercife of their office , who when the fufpenfion is taken off, are at liberty to N ufe (90) ufetc 3. Where he faith , that if power In Synods he granted to tit Ki*& of a facifive voice ^r if he be the fuprewepower^att others in the Syvod being but bu Counjelters and Advifers ) the alls muft be civil atlr ( as frvccedingfrom a civil f over ) and not Church alls , Icing thej are done bj one who is neither (as fitch ) a Church officer nor Church- member , let be a Church-judicature. This defer veth fome consideration : Concerning the power of Princes in Synods, there are is in ; thc Reformed Churches; fome thinking tha: thepowwrof deciJing 3nd dtfiningih i\t matters of controverfre brought before Synods, refidesonly in thcSoverargn Magiftrate, and thai Church men are to be only bis Counfe'lers, Advifers, and by their inte|rpreta£!oa of the mind.'oF.Gpd , Preparers of the matter of the fynodicaJ Decree, tp which the P. ihee by his affent gives Authority, d\ otherw4fe* alUheir iritis could not give to the aft without his ZtoiKpifiu 2. "Some think, that though the Magiftrate in a Synod be not the only Judge of matters treated or, yet he is a conjunct Judge with others: fo Mr. Parser and others fay. 3. Some think he is no Judge at all in a Synod, but that the delegated Members from particu- lar Churches are the only Judge? , and the Msgiftrate hath no more to do, but to defead them in their a flings, or to execute their fenrences by his coa&ive power on the Subject, if he in his difcretive judgement approve the fame ; and if not, they have a way for cenfuring him before his Subjsfls , for non-fubmiflion to their fentences : And what the confequence of that (hall be, who may not conjecture ? The hft of thefc three opinions (although moft common amongfi: high-fpirited Presbyters ) we judge as injurious to the Magiftrate t as any th ng that Papifts have taught againft them. For , no Papift is fo unreasonable as to fay, that Princes being rational and chnftian crea- tures , (hould in a brutj/h blindnefs , follow all the Decrees of all Sy- nods without examination , and ftrike fuppofed offenders with their hand and fword,where they cannot with thtir eyes fee their guiltinefs : for,at leaft in matters of fad, Papifts do confefs, that not only inferior Synods , but a general Synod and the Pope too may erre, ( and there- fore, as to matters of that nature, they cannot require a fimple obedi- ence, without difcretion and confidering matters ) neither from Prince nor people; neither in thefe matters do tb?y require this, albeit in matters of faith , the claim ojf the Pope and a?curaeniek Synods rifeth higher, not permitting any pcrfons (Magiftrates or others ) to walk by their own difcretive judgement in matters wherein they thick them- felves perfwaded the Church cannot erre in her dire&ion or prefcrfp- tion. (91) tion< As to the fecond of tbefe opinions , that givcth to the King a concomitant, joynt, judicial fuffrage in the matters of the Church, to- gether with the Synod; althosgh he have no particular delegation from any Church, (for, what particular Church can give delegation to him,who is in his way Governor of all ?) is not fo far from the right : But, the firft opinion feems to come nearer to the- truth, neither is ic indeed any derogation to Church- officers, ("who are employed aUibvt elicitis about the holy things of God; for their priviiedge of rainifte- rial, doctrinal declaring of the mind of Gcd, is fully refer ved to them inallecclciiaftical Affairs, and the immediate and perfona! aftings of all the agenda in the Church, is fully acknowledged tofce theirs 5 only the Magiftrat** fuperintending and archite&onick authority, in all pub- lick tranfadions in Church and State,is referved to him ; not to weaken theChurch-officers,but in all things toftrengtfeen rheir hands according to Gods will and pleafure. Neither doth his influence of power in the Synod, make the ads thereof meeriy civil ; for his power fas it is not formally and in exercife ecckiisftical , but rather about ecclefiaftlca! things ) is not civil neither, fpeakirg accurately ; for it is neither about civil things as the objed, nor only by civil means doth he move toward that objed ; but partly by thefe , partly putting Church-rulers to ufc fpiritual means which defcend from the ordination of Chrift. And it is not true, that theMagiftratc, as a Chriftian MagiQrate, is no Church-member or Church officer^r Church- judge ; or that he hath nodeeifive voice in Attemblies. How (hall he pttniAi (or enjoyn to bepuniQisdj difobedience to Church ads , if in them he be not at all a deciding Judge ? And where can he be fo more fitly, then in the- Af- fembly and with the fame ? 4. The ApoUgtf will not have the Magiftrate to prefcribe aay matters or caufes to be treated of by any ArTembly,but£ ive them their fftllltfartj todifpute , decide and determine anentaH matters which they do Account to concern Religion ^ without any limitation : yea, faith he i f*g» 196. they mu(t have liberty todifpute the Kings Pre- rogative^Wtdgrd f though falfelyj to be aH Vfurpation upon Chri/Is Prsregative* But,is this illimited liberty to be granted taall AfTern^ lies national whenever they meet? May not Magiftrates convocate Synods upon the emergency of particular herefie* or diforders , and take the faithful refolurion of the fervants of God in thefe, without laying open all the matters of Religion to come under difpute at the Syrrod t Shall Religion,*nd Church,and Srate beaJwayes 3eft in fuch an uncertain and variable condition , that any party in a Synod ftall N z have have liberty to queftion a'l things,formerly fettled upin better grounds then chefe upon which they labour to anfettle tbem? Shall everySynod convcencd have free fcopc to alter our Proteftant Religion fettled by fo many Liwsaod to introduce, if not Popery yec principles of Sepa- ration and Anabapttfme , and to difpute down Princes Prerogatives, and cry up ( as this man doth ) the liberties of any minor part of the people , to combine and rife in Arms againft all vifible Powers in the Land,when they think they havecaufe ? May not the Kings Majefty by his power, reftrain the fury of thefe who would cuhmta kUhv» or bring in novelties either againft Religion or the peace of the civil ftate or juft power of the Government, albeit fome would bring pretentions from rfie Word of God , which will never be wanting to reftlefs fpirits, as they were not to Sathan in bis difpute againft Chr ft. Should the King lay the reins upon the n#ck of every Synod, to let them ftnke at the root of Religion ( if fuch a fpiric move amongft them; or at his juft Laws or Privileges , and fay nothing for fear of prelimiting their libettv ? Was there ever, thefe many years upward, any AiTembly in Scotland^ but was prelimiced in all the Members of it , by f worn en- gagements laid upon all the Commiflioners ? which if according to the Word of God , is difputable. But, it is like this Remonftrator hath gotten his lelTon from the Bclgick Remonftrants, who required that as a neceflary condition of theconftituent Members Gf a Synod, which they would allow » that all the Members of it (hould have pic- nary liberty to call all the things of Religion in queftion, and be loofed from all Confeflions of Faith of all Churches whatfoever. j. The Apologifi denyeth liberty to the King to difiolvc any Aflembiy or Synod , pag. 195. he will h*ve them tofitf§ long as they wit, notrvitkflanding o( the Kings inhibition ; and fo we (hall have fempiternal Synods if men will , as well as fome aimed at fuch Parlia- ments. But,it is ftrange that Proteftants, who give power to the So- veraign Magiftrate to call Synods , will not allow him power of dif- folving tie fame , when he judges them to mar the work they were called to go about. As the Soveraign Magiftrate may very lawfully drive a Mimfter from his Pulpit , if he openly teach Hercfies contrary to the eftablifbed Do&rine , or pcrtucb the publiik Peace by feditious inftigations of the people to rebellion, and may draw him from the horns of the AItar> (which fliould be no (helter for wickednefs ) So he may diflipate a heretical or feditious Meeting , calling themfelves a Synod , commanding them to rife , and ufing his coadive power upon them if they difobey j as fome of the antient Emperors have done with (91 ) with Pfeudo-fynods. And the wofu), dreadful confequences of an Af- fcrob'y of this Church fitting againft the command of Authority, may teach us no: to imitate fuch an example ; which as it had no warrand from Gods Word , fo was teftified againft by Gods Providence , in a /cries of dreadful ftrokes upon a (infill Na:ioo. 26. Bur,the i^jF#/. p^.196, 197. counts it a sreat and intolerable encroachment upon the Church, that no all } matter or caufe, [hould be treated of in the tA^mbly , but flail be allowed , approve* and confirmed by his M.ijefty or his Commtjfioner , prefent in the nati- onal Synod : And that no Church C*non (hould have any eifecl^ force or validity , but what (bail be app> overt and confirmed by h?m or his Commijjioner, &c. q^'nf. 1, Is it no encroachment upon the Magi- ftrat's official and poteftative care of Religion, which God allows him, as keeper of both tables of the Law, for Church-men to take on them without and againft his will, to debate anent whac th?y pleafe in their meetings ? It belongs to his Office to ftop and cu* off impertinences in their debates, and not permit them to run ou* upon whac mat- ters they will, which prove ( in the debating J either prejudicial to Religion by Law eftabl'fhed, or pernicious to, orperturbative of the ftaceof the Common-wealth, or p^ace thereof. 2. A great noife he makes here and every where , anent Synods, Church-judicato- ries, &c t their priviledges, and that they are utterly now deftroyed, while they are only made a company of naen conveened to give ad* vice, as he faith : Buc , if they wereconveened meerly for advice, they would not be conveened under the notion of a Synod, em- powered to make a&s , orders and ordinances, ai the Ad laith , fuch work is not for mecr advifers, and their advice ( if nothing more were allowed to them ) might beotberwife taken by the King , then Sy- nodically. But the King calls them to exerc their official power, as Mimfterg of Chrift , in interpreting Chrifts mind and teaching his Church by wholefome Canons, and redrafting abufes represented to them by Chrifts difciphne, the immediate and perfonal exercifs where- of is committed to them ; only, he claims thefupervifion of their aas in fome extraordinary cafes of great corruption in the Church,and in the cafe of herefies and abufes manifeftly repugnant to Gods Word fand their authority abides invariably the fame in other cafes) ordering of the ferviceof God and divine adminiftr3tions , in a way beft futing decency, order, edification, and according to the general rales of the holy Sctipture, without any derogation from Chrifts inftitu- tion in the fubftance of it , neither adding a new Worfhip , nor altering any thing of the worfhipand order Chnft hath appointed, nor taking away any thing from it. Thefe and fome other matters ecclefiaftical may be dealt in by the archite&onical power , in a direct way without tranfgreffion of any order of Chrift : And the common faying, Rex eft perfoxa mixt*,m*y have a tolerable exposition, with- out injury to Chnft, or any of his Ordinances or Officers appointed by him, for perfonaladminiftration of things belonging to the order of the fpiritual miniftery. And it cannot bait feera a right ftrange thing tons, thar, v, hile men will exclude the Magiftrate from his potefta- O tive ( 9* ) \ tive care and chargeof ecclefiaftical affiirs , and not allow him fo much asafutfiaseioSynods, ( nocwichftaading of his being the Churches Nurfe-father} yet they will admit of numbers of meer lay-menfdouble the number to the Minifters as the courfe wis laid ) to decide and determine n>c only anent matters of fad and difcipline to be ufed againlt offenders, but of nutters of Faith and interpretation of holy Scripture , by Canon making : And yet are theje men ( though termed Elders of the Church ) Prophets , to whom the fpirits of pro* phets /hould be fubjetl > are they Priefts , from whofe month the Law fhouldbe fought, and whofe lips fbould keep knowledge 1 fbould thej who are not by calling , concional teachers , be Sy nodical teachers ? and not only have equal power, with Minift trial teachers , ( which is pleaded for amoogft us ) but more power, in regard of their equal or greater number twice over, as was ordained by the Acts for Pref- bytery in England^ whofc example our Church-elders were like to follow quickly : There feeraeth to be in this forae iniquity in dealing againft theChriftian Magiftrate, to plead againft his fufFrage , as to making Canons, concerning Faith or Worfhip in Synods upon grounds that he hath not the paftoral teaching power , and yet, to admit the fufTrages of the lay-elder ("even to the over- voting of Minifters of the Gofpeljwho cannot fhew half fo much right in any part of thcChurch- government,as the Magiftrate, thcNurfe-father of the Church can do» 27. But that this tedious purfuit of the Apohgift in this matter mayatlaft end , he hath yet four or five particulars to add, for completing his nineteen confederations ,• fo luxuriant is his fancy, or elfe fo fophiftica!, that often he maketh one thing to appear to be two or three, injudicioufly cutting affundcr connexed purpofes, but ic concerned him in a weak caufe, to make a mufter of all tag and rag, under fliew of reifon to amufe the people ; whereas an argument or two well profecuted, could have comprehended Efficiently the whole marrow of the matter. Yet, hemoftbe followed, leaft any thing not touched friould be triumphed in, as notanfwered. 1. He tells us,that whoever acknowledged the Kings Supremacy, p. 89»that they behoved to acknowledge f hat the Church in the Apoftles limes andfome centuries aj terras very imperfetl in its conftitution, wanting thie Supreme Governor t or elfe that Nero and Caligula, and the like perfec/ttors were Church-governors , and Would have been Acknowledged asfuch by the Apoftles ; nothing whereof can withfhew vfreafon be affirmed. Anf Albeit the Church in the Apoftles times, and after in times of perfecution ,' was perfect in its internal con- tautionj (99) fticution, and for all a&s neceffary to be clicitc by her and her officer*; for the good of Souls in that condition cf the times , yet that the Churchthen wanted fomc of that good condition fcaliir psrfeclon or not ) which her Lord intended to her,by bringing in the powers of the World to be her Nurfe-fathcrs, according to his prormfe, it can- not be denyed nor will this man deny , that the Church then, was the worfe by wanting them,unlefTe he abfurdly think, we are no better by having thercuCercainly any addition of good to theChurch is a de- gree of her perfcclion (albeit before flic might be eflentiaJiy perfe&,ac lead in all her officers and admimftration of ordinances within the Church,perfea as to her then cftatej who will affirnyhat the Cf-unh is in no better condition by getting in her Nurfe-fatherr, deilgned her of God, then (he was before ? and it is hoped, a degree of better con- dition then formerly will be jadged fome meafure of more perfe&ion. 2. Nero, Caligula, and the like, during their ignorance and infi- delity and gracelefnefs, were through their own fault under fufpen* lion of theexercife of their governing power toward Gods Church, which they had dejure • and we doubt not, but the Apoftles, 7aul ^ni Peter, both calling them Supreme-powers , without limitation to perfons nrcaufes, acknowledged alio what power they had to- ward the Church alfo under them ; and if they fhould ceme to have grace to ufe it, would never have denyed the actual exercifeoftbe Magiftratical power in the matters of God, as far as we concede the fame. N^xt he faith, p*g. 198 That whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy , or acknowledged his Majefties Supremacy, as to things ecclefiaflic}^ , mufl (ay , that the Apoftles and primitive Church walked not regularly , becaufe they derived no potyer from the Magxflrate , who then wit ,in governing the Church- and fofay, that necejftty put them to thu % ( becaufe the Magiftrate was then paganifh ) is alledged to be a poor defence,t rob the Magiflrate of hit power, or el(e it mufi befaid t it ts a priviledge only of the ChyU fiian Magiflrate to have this Supremacy, andfo not a right annexed to the CroWn* Anf, The Apoftles and primitive Church walked re- gularly doing thefe things, in the Government of the Church, for her propagation, prefervation and purgation,wbich they had warrand from Clirift to do , either by extraordinary or ordinary commiflion, although they wanted the help of the Churches Nurfe-fathers for the time ; but had they been brought in, they would have attribute to them as much as we do, ar.d the Church did give them as much as ive do, when Gods time of giving their prociifed help came : As for O a what (ioo) what he talks of denvatfoo of all Church- power from the Magiftrate; it is a calumny when this opinion is imputed to us, albeit we afcribe much to him in the regulation thereof, and fupcrvifion according to Chrifts mind, as before hath been faid. Neither fas he faith) did thac primitive Church rob the Magiftrate out of necefiicy • it was no rob- bery to ufe what intrinfical power ftie had from Chrift, without de- pendance on thefe whofe own fault put them in an incapacity of exer- ciling the fupcrintendcncy Chrift allowed them. I(ji$£nan faith, that extraordinary necefficies make many things, even io ciyils, lawful for a people; which he will not have to be robberies of the Magiftrat's po wer,«or yet to be ufed ordinarily ; but of this before. The Pagan Magistrates then had right to do all ift Church matters , the excrcife whereof we do allow to Chriftian Magiftrates, the fufpenfion of the exercife of their power being taken off by the grace of God. As to the argument he fubjoyns , that this fuf rente Government in £hurch-aff4irs } agreetb neither to the Magi/irate as * Chriftian {for fo all Christians jhould have it ) nor to the Magiftrate as a Aiagi- first e (for fo all Magistrates Jhould have it) therefore it agreetb not to them as Chriftian Magi ft rates : It is very falfe and fophiftical rcafoning. For,i . thus he might prove that the Chriftian Magiftrate is no Nurfe-father of the Church, becaufe he is not fo as a Chriftian ( for thea all Chriftians fhould be Nurfe* fathers of the Church ) nor as a M igiftrate, f for fo all Magiftrates,even Pjgans,fhouid be fuch ) there- fore it agreeth not to him to be Nurfe-father as a Chriftian Magiftrate. It is alfo like this reafoning , Pster is not a man as he hath a foul only, nor is a man as he hath a body only ; £rgo y he is no man as he hath a foul and body cenjoyned. It is fallacious reafoning negatively from fuch divided reduplicative propofitions, to infer a negative conjunct propofition. 2. If we fpeak of the a&ive exercife or proxime power of cxercifingthis Supremacy,the Magiftrate neither hath it as a Chri- ftian only, nor as a Magiftrate only, but jointly as both ; his Chriftia- nity makes him capable in his vocation to ferve God,and is prefuppofed to his actual Supremacy and the exercife of it , as to Church-ma tters> and his magiftratical Power joined with Chriftianity , puts him in full capacity of acting his Supremacy as to Church-matters ; bis actual exercife of the power is founded upon his fpecial vocation as a Magi- ftrate , joined with his common vocation as a Chriftian. As for Voe* tius % faying, that duo/'ubjetla & frincifiaformalia i non pofj'unt, &c* that two fubjeds and two formal principles, which are not one nor united perfe^nnot be the ground of a formal effect that is ont ferfe ; it holds not, where there is a fubordmation of the one principle to the other, to qualifie for the exercife of the ad or producing the eflfeft. As to that he faith, if one man be both a Conful and a Father, he can- not be faid to have confular power over the Citizens as Conful-pater, nor fatherly power over his fon as Tater-ccn/ul ; that is true, but comes not up to this cafe ; for, fatherly power is neither r nbfervient to confular, to qualifie for the ads thereof, nor is confular Power fubor- dinate to the fatherly,to qualifie for the ads thereof. But, in our cafe we fay, Chriftianity ferves t© qualifie the Magiftrace for exercife of his Supremacy, as to Church- affairs, the foundation of the power lying in his magiftratica! Office ; and fo he raay be very weii faid co ad, and produce the eflfcd of his power, neither as a Chriftian only, nor Magi- ftrate only, but as a Chriftian Magiftrate. 28. Bucthe tsfpolog. further addeth,p^. 199. that by granting the* Kiog this Supremacy, a deor is opened to the utter tefirutlion and overthrow of all Church* judicatories : For (faith hej by their judge mentVtho tender the Oath , the King u the fount ah cf all Church* porter y andVvkoever executetb any of it, executeth it cuhU Cornmif- fiener y and he may imploj Vtbom hi Veill in tbefe matters y ( perhaps n* Church -officers At alight meer civil men) and jo handle all Church' matters in civil Courts \ and (he faithj that the Kingdoth indeed give civil perfons , Vtbo are no Church- officer t t ComnAffion to depofe, excommunicate, &c. Anf. 1. Ic is falfe that it is the judgement of thefe who tender the Oath,that the King is the fountain of all Church- power, and that all who execute it do ic as his Commiflioners. Who of us have faid fo , as he ailedgeth ? Nay , is ic not ingenuoufly con- fefled by all who rightly nnderftand the matter, ti at whatever power of regulation and fupervifion of perfons in acting Church- power,thc King hath (and cannot be denyed to him) yer, he is not the fountain of any Church- power from whom it is derived ? Who will fay, that power of Preachiag,miniftring Sacraments, &c* excommu- nicating offenders, abfolving the penitent, ordaining or degrading Mi- nifters, &c* are derived from the King as the fountain ? or that thefe who do fuch things, do them by vertue of Commiffion from him ac- cording to the fubftance of the ads , albeit he may fo difpofe of Mi- nifters, as to commit to them a power to do thefe things which Chrift warrands them to do, in application to fuch or fuch parts of his King- dom ; as a Phyfician, who hath not his Dodorat , or faculty from the King, may be commiflionate by him to exercife himfelf in fuch or fuch part of. the Kingdom , where dilcafes of which he hath fpecial skill do * moft. ( 102 ) mod abound ? # 2. That tbe Acl: of the High Commifllon (as he calls \z) g iveth civil perfons Who are no Church- officers y powtr to depofe Miwftcrs or excommunicate offenders^ untrueitetd the Act there is no mention of excommunication ; neither is power given them to depoft Miniftirsfcut to appoint them to be depofed y wz, by fuch as that power is competent to, who are to be anfwerable totheMagiftratefor their neglect in doing what Law injoins them. 3. As for the door opened (as he faith) for dcftrufHon of all Cburch-judicatories by tbe Kings Supremacy ( if k be acknowledged ) and for t ran/a tli*£ all Qhurch* matters by civil men • Ic doth not at all follow upon his Supremacy, that he (hould deflroy all Church-judicatories, and transfer Church- caufes to civil Courts ; more then it doth follow upon bis Supremacy, that he may make ufe of any civil raea , not ordained according to the lules of Chrift,to Preach or minifter Sacrament!, fetting afide all thefe ordained by the Church ; the Kings Supremacy,as to Church- matters, gives him not power to do what he will in them, but to regulate them according to the mind of Chrift , and preferving the eflcntial economy and government of his Houfe entire. Neither doubt we, but the fu- preme Magiftrate ftiould fin highly againft Chnft,if in Church-matters he (hould not make ufe of the Office-bearers of Chrifls houfe , to acl according to their callings, whether fevcrally or jointly, in ordinary or extraordinary Meetings (as there is caufc) unlefle extreme and gene- ral corruption did neceffitate fome extraordinary courfes to be taken by him , which even chemfelves allow. The King is not at liberty to do any thing in Chrifls affairs againft his mind; fuch as is the laying afide all Church- officers and Judicatures, and transferring the manage ing of all Church-affairs to civil men or civil Courts. As to what he addcth next, p. 199* chat they who acknowledge this Supremacy as to Church- affairs , muft grant power to the King to eretl new Court s y having no war rand in the Werd, and Which Were not in the times of the Apoftles or primitive times ( ms the high or grand Commijfion , as he calleth it ) Wherein civil perfons meddle With Church- cenf ures % and (^hurch perfons with civil matters andcenfures $ and that to yield to this, wire to condemn the Apoftles for not leaving patterns of fuch Courts , and to deftroj all Church- pewtr. And he aflerts, Presbyterians maintain, tbatnojudicatursistobeacknow* ledged as a Court of Chrift: , that hath not fbrifts warrand* Anf* i» No judicious Presbyterian will deny power to Princes to appoint Courts, for executing their own civil Laws touching rccfeGaftical matters $ neither is that Coromiflion (which he fees out to be fo high and (i03) and grand ) any other than a civil Court fet up , fur the eafeof other Courts, to expedite the execution of Laws touching matters ecckfw aftical : not needs there any particular warrand to be given to Magi- ftratcs in Chrifts Word for fuch Courts, feing it is no Church Court (albeit ereded for execution of civil Laws about Church matters) And though fome Church-men be affumed to affift in it , it is not therefore a Church Court (the lawfulnefs of their affiftance to the Prince upon his demand , may be cleared elfewhere ) nor do civil men therein exe- cute Cburch-cenfureSj but appoint rhem to be executed (bythefeto whom it is competent fo to do) according to the Laws. 1: was not the calling of the Apoftles to leave patterns of civil Judicatories con- verfant about Church- affairs, in order to civil punifhment ; no wonder they nor the primitive Church ( wanting Chriftian Magiftrates ) left no pattern of fuch Judicatories ; but that reftrains not the Chriftian Magiftrate, now when Church and Common- wealth hath coaltfced into one body,to take fuch prudeutial wayes of executing his ownLaws as he feetb fit : Yea, are there not feveral Church Courts which Pref- byterians ufe rather from prudence then divine inftitu'ion , example whereof the Apoftles did not leave behind them ? Where did they leave the pattern of Commiffion of a Church in a Nation , to watch over all in intervals of Affemb'.ies ? Or,where did they leave a pattern of a, national Church or a national fet Aflembly > Y xz\\y, the Apo/og.pag. 19?, aco. thuts up all his weakreafonings againft the Kings Supremacy in matters eeclefiaftick, with this, that yielding this Supremacy will infer the lawfulnefs of appealing from a Church-judicatory to the Magiftrate , Which he things viry dbfurd^ centrarj tJ the mind of our Afiemblies and without approved example* Anf* There is indeed a great bufinefs made about appeals from Church- aflemblies to the fupreme Magiftrate : it is acknowledged lawful to de- cline them when they meddle with things impertinent for them ; and lawful to complain upon them to the Soveraign Magiftrate, when the plaintif accounts their fentences grievous or unjuft. But, it is denyed that any formal appeal can be made from the hightft Church -judica- tory (which is faid to have the fupreme jurifdiction ecclefiafticalj unto the Magiftrate ; for , all appellations muft be from the inferiour to the fuperior in the fame kind,as they fay : and a general Aflembly in a Na- tion , having none fuperior to it in the fame kind , cannot be appealed from to the Magiftrate ( whatever complaint may be made to him by fnffcrers upjuftty) yet he cannot (as their Ailernbdies fuperior ) judge the (uftnefs of the complaint , bo: only may command whe fame to be refumed returned and re-examined again ef new t that lie may be fatisEed anent the equity of their proceedings: But by no means muftheby himfclf or his delegates , take on him to recognofce the fentence, far- leflc to repeal it, it muft ftand in force till they repeal ic themfeives becaufe they are fupresne in their own way, afweli as he is in his* and he muft not take a judicial cognifance of their fentences ec- clefiaftical , more then they may of his civil fentences ; nay, in ordine ad ffirititalU, and fub rations [candali much more mediing with Princes affairs is arrogated by Church-men , then they will permit to him in their affairs in or dint adtemporalia 9 and for preferviqg publick peace. But as to this matter, it is not much to be regarded, whether the application of a perfon injured by a Synod, made to the Magiftrate, be called a complaint or an appellation , if power be left to the Su- preme Magiftrate to provide againft the injury , and to right the in- nocent perfon,which he cannot do (in cafe Church- men will be obfti- nate in their partiality or will not refume and re-examine the matter, or doing fo, will not mend it) unleffe he recognofce the matter judici« ally, by himfelf or his delegates ; his Supreme power of fuperinten- dency over the Church , leads him to take cognition of complaints againft Affemblies , made to him by fuch as may be wronged by partial heady courfes. 2. It is not ('if we will believe that grave Divne Tareus, Rim. 13, pag. i\6.) unfit even to appeal to the Magiftrate, from the Affembly * for he denys, thztptteftas architctfa. tiica & tccIeJlaflicaexterHaJifferUHt toto genere, they Are ( faith he) fufordinate, and the appeal is from the inferior to thefuperior in the fame kind (atleafi virtually and eminently) nothing is more re- quired to an appeal, then that the Judge or Judicatory, to which the appeal is made, comprehend in the capacity ©fits objed the matters in which the appeal is made, and have a Jurifdiftion concerning them : But it is not required,that the Judicatory to which the appeal is made, be formally and wholly of the fame kind that the Judicatory is, from which the appeal is made. The Soveraign Magiftrate is neither for- mally the civil Magiftrate (a title that hath given fome ground of miftake* ) nor the eccleliaftick power, as to all the formal and pro- per acls of it, but having an arehitettonick^powcr , fupervifionary to both, appeals may ly to him in either fort of matters and he is bound to give relief to his opprcfled fubjefts either way : As when a great Prince commits to an Archiceclor or Mafter of work , the building of afair palace to him, diverfe forts of men , Barrow-men, Mafons, Sklaiters Sklaiters, Wrights are all imployed about the work ; the Maftcr-of- work doth cone of all their works, Yet he Jookah to the right order- ing of all, that they may contribute together for erecting the (lately palace ,• and if controverfie fall out amongft any fort of the work-men, they rmy appeal to the Matter- of- work, and he m that he is flattered or puft up with words expiring his power above meafure ( fuch is the ordinary language of factious perfons ) or that the Church is debafed or de- prelTed, and rendred (laves to the King in the matters of God, «^r. we fhail fay thefe are not words of truth, but of palTion : we do not fub- jecl Chrifts Religion to man that (hall die and return to his duft, nor to mans pleaiure and arbitrement. If any powers above us fhould (which God avert, and we ought not to furraife it of them without ground,) attempt change of our true Religion, by Gods mercy efta- blirhed amongft us, and ratifyed in Par. 1. K. fames 6. Though we will not fay , that we are fo ftout- hearted as fome beliicofe Brethren, to raife tumults or raze the foundations of the publick Peace, and con- ftitution of the Common- wealth and regiment thereof; yet, would we refolvc in the ftrength of Chrills grace, to reft ft unto b to* deriving agxinftjin and to death ,and in dying feal alitheTruthsof theProteftanc Religion with our blood. Odious and falfe imputations are hid upon us, as if in acknowledgiag the Kings Supremacy as to ecdcftaftical Af- fairs, we were erecTing a new Papacy in his perfon ; and forretimes we are accufed of Popery , fometimes of Eraftianifm and Arminianifm. But , they who fay fo do indeed approach nearer to the Papifts in wronging the King, then we do totheEraftian or Arminian : they plead the caufe againll Cbriftian Princes which r Bellarmir.e^ Stafleton and other ] efuites do, ard almoft with the very fame arguments ; and cannot wafh their hands of Popery in this point, the only difference between them and Papifts herein being,that what right the Papifts take P a from ( io8 J from the King, they give it to their own Bifliops ( efpecially their chief B ihop, whom they judge infallible; but thefe with whom we have to do, robbing the King of his nght,will take it to themfclves without any pretence of infallibility in ufing it. We do neither with the Eraftian and Arminian , miko the fupreme Magiftrate the fountain of Church- po^er^s if it were wholly derived from him, or as if Cfeurch-men did aft no:hing in the exterior adminift ration of divine ordinances of Wor- fhipor Government ecclefiaftical, but by Commiffion from him, as to the fubftance of their work. Nor do we p with the Papift, make the King ameer defender of the Church and executor of her pleafure* we give not to the fupreme Magiftrate the paftoral power of Preach- ing,miniftring Sacraraent?,?xerciiing'Difciplme, ordaining or degrading Minifters 5 fuch power is neither* is hiGQj nor derived from him. We give him not power to coin new forms of Worfhip out of his own heart ( not according to Gods mind ) nor to prefcrlbe new Doctrines to be believed or profeffed , nor to injoin any thing to be believed or profetfed, or to be praclifed as Worfhip to God, which God hath not prefcribed ; nor to do any thing againft the Word of God , either as to Faith, Worfhip or Government. The power we allow him is to convocate Synods of fuch,as by their gifts and office are fitceft to fearch and declare Gods mind anent Gods matters, to make Laws and Canons by their confent, which may bind his Subject by his and their Autho- rity , to bring Minifters and others to an account , if they tranfgrefle his Laws made anent the Ordinances of God ; to coerce in/urious abufes of Djfcipline by Church- officers, and reduce them to their du- ties • to appoinc vifitors of Churches and of Minifters, to try their faichfulnefs , diligence and the right managing of God* Ordinances, to put all by his Authority to do their duties , to procure the decent and orderly performance of divine Worftiip and Government ecclefi- aftical, according to the general rules of the Word. In all which we judge it is his duty to take alongs the counfel and faithful direction of Synods and rainifterial Meetings,if the Church be in any tolerable good eftate • otherwife on all hands it is agreed , he may do much without them , and is not to ceafe from his duty in taking care of the Church, though others do forget theirs. And it is obfervable^ that for all the high clamours of giving too much to the King , as to ecclefiaftick Af- fairs ; yet, we grant no more &o him,while he is about the confervation of Religion and the Church, then they themfelves ordinarily grant him injthe purgation of the Church, when it is in the degenerated and anfettled condition, in that cafe they do with both hands yield to him wit** ( i°p ) what we plead to be his ordinary due. Let him convocate Synods, appoint Cognitors of ecclefiaftick caufes, delegate Vifitors of Churches, reprefs or redrefs enormities in the actings of Church- men, drive away by his fvvord grievous wolves chat devour and deftroy the flock,relieve the innocently opprefled by Church- men, imperially decree the profef- fion of the undoubted Truth of God and the pra&ice of his found Worfhip,give order for the unity, comlinefs and decency of the Church and of all Church-adminiftrations, according to the general rules of the Word and the like ; and in all this , he is nor judged by them to ufurp Chrifts Crown or Throne, But , when his power hath kt the Minifters in the Saddle , and brought the Church to any fettled conftitution in ic felf, if the Magiftrate (ball take on him to do any fuch thing, then they clamour infinitely that he ufurps Chrifts Throne, Crown, and Scepter j and will they (think ye ) fen J away thefe en* figns of Honour and Royalty to Chrift himfelf ? No j butallthefe, Crown > and Scepter , and Throne of Chrift ( as they love to fpeak) which they pluck from the King, they arrogate to thernfelves, and feac themfelves under this cloak in an uncoritroulable Soveraignty under Chrift ( which they mince with the name of Mimftry ) Now this way, as it looks too carnal and felfie-like; Salt hath in it much injury to the Magiftrate,who in point of confervation of Religion, is devefted of that power which is acknowledged to be due unto him , in point of Purgation and Reformation ; nor can we fee that any thing can be done by the Magiftrate,by venue of his magiftratical Power, in the one cafe fwhich is not ordinary) more then in the other which is ordinary : In the unufual cafe, he had no properly extraordinary power, but only a&ed his ordinary magiftratical Power , according to a lingular occa- fion> and in the progrefs of the confervation of Religion, he retains that fame ordinary power , yet ftiil wich the confent of the found Mi- niftery of the Church, Synods and Convocations thereof, which he cannot neglect without much fin. It is folly to feign any extraor- dinarinefsof a Call, which the Magiftrate may be fuppofed to have in the one cafe more then in the other. By this way cf yielding thefe and fuch things to the fuprcme Magiftrate, we neither deprive the Pa- ftorsof the Church of all ecclefiaftical Jurifdiclion , attributing (as Come do) the univerfai right thereof to the Magiftrate Nor do we exempt Minifters and Church-officers in the exercife of Church- government, from being under the poteftative care and (ttferinttn- dency of the Magiftrate , who hath a governing power over Ecclefi- *ft' i€ K s a fwell as others ^ and is aafwerabic to God for the fouls of people (no) people under him , and for the right adminiftration of his Ordinances, aiwtll as Minifters in their way are ; for, be is ike Minifttr ofgodfer our good, without limitation to civil good. Aod it were greatly to be wifaed, that all might know the due limits and bounds of their own callings ,. and that Magiftrates might have as little caufe to complain of C ■■jrch-mens invading their rights , as Church men have to complain of t,hc Migrates invading of their rights , while they claim that fu- pr*meinipe<&cn over the Church in their Dominions, which Gods Law alloweth unto them. There may be exceffes and faults on both fides, which are to be guarded againft. CHAP. III. Concerning the obligation of the Covenants tgainft Ipifcopacy and for Presbytery $ and that the Owners of the re- eflablijhed order of Epifcopacy , arefalfely and unjuftly charged with perjury. T He great accufation againft King, Parliament, People and all forts of Perfonsin the Land, infilled upon by this LibeUtr and the Apologiftjs, that all are fallen under the guilt of per- jury and Covenant- breaking with God, by owning this Go- vernment of Epifcopicy. This is the great argument for moving and commoving the people, who fearch not into the grounds of things : And verily .perjury is fuch a guiltincfs, that could it be as eafily proved, as it is confidently in this cafe afferted, it could not but move Chriftian hearts, and fuch in whom remains any fear of God , to confider their wayes, and quickly to defert fuch a courfe as involves them in fuch guiltlnefs againft God , and danger cf his dreadful wrath. But , it is hoped, that men who are rational will not tfcink, that the not perform* ing every vow or promiffory Oath is perjury • there may be much piety in not keeping of forne vows and oaths , and much impiety and wickednefs in keeping other vows and promiffory oaths. David, the man according to Gods heart, was no perjured man for not keeping the oath which he had raade,that he would deftroy Nazals family, i Sam. 25.22. 32.33. it was great piety te break that oath. Luther broke his oath and vow of a (ingle and continent life ; fo alfo did others of our Reformers ( although the matter vowed and fworn was in it felf lawful) and yet,who but Papifts will accufe them of perjury ? He r od $ Mattb, C I." ) . Matth, 14. 7. keeped his vow and his oath, but he was more smpious in keeping it, then in making it. And thefe men who did con jure themfelves to kill Paul , ^#.23.11, had not been perjured in re- nouncing that oatb,or in not doing what they were fworn unto. 1. It is a certain thing , that a promisor/ oath or vow concerning a thing unlawful, hath no binding force, and cannot be kept without doubling the fin ; a fio it was to make it , and a greater (in to keep it when it is made ; fuch an oath- obliegeth to nothing but to repentance for mak- ing it. 2» Ic is alfo certain, that though the matter of a vow or oath be in it felf lawful, (as a (ingle life is) yet, the vow or oath is not ob- ligatory, if it be intended to be perpetual, becaufe refpecl to the gifts of God and his calling muft overrule the keeping of fuch a vow, as at firft fuch a fuppofition rtiould have been included in the vow, and not an abfolute obligation taken on. A vow not oblieging may be either in that which is malum materially evil, or may be de bone malt. The matter of it may be good,yet it is not well made ; the matter may be good in it felf,and yet not good to us ( it not being within the com- pafs of our calling ) As if a private man fhould fwear to put a mnr- therer to death, it is good he fhould be put to deathi but not by a pri- vate hand, but by the hand of the Magiftrate. Or, the matter may be good or not evil in it felf to do, but of indifferent nature ; yet, the vowing to do it on my part,who have no gifts or calling for fuch work, or for whom it is not expedient to do it , or who have no ftreng h cr ability for it , is a vowing de bono or indiforenti mate ] and the obli- gation of fuch a vow is null. 3. It is alfo certain, that a promiflbry oath which was lawfully made,may ceafe to obliegc, it being loofed by a Suf erior,under whofc power the thing fworn to, is ,• or if it become impoffible (defatfo) to be performed,or if the performance prove im- peditiveof a greater goodtowhxh we were pre-oblieged , or if the ftate of matters fo alter, that the performance of the vow comes to be (info!. True it is, an affertory Oath concerning things prefent or pift , the matter of the Oath having paft into a neceflity and become immutable, therecanbenocefiation cf the obligation of fuch an Oath, nor can there be any defence sgijnft perjury", ( if rheOarh hath not been ac- cording to the matter as ic is J for either that i< ? afleVted under Oath, which is agreeable to the truth of the matter, and fo it is a ttik Oath, and ettrntH] muft (lard true; or elfe that which agrceth noc ro t v ie truth of the macter,and fo it is perjury eternally : But in a proffiiflbry Oath, , nothing is required more of the man that promifeth under an Oath, Oitb, Then that, fi« he have a fincere purpofe before God, to per- form what he promifeth under Oath. 2. That he do perform what he hath fworn, cejjtnte tegitima catt[a non fr*(tandi t or where there is not a lawful cauie lying in his way, impeding him to perform whac he hath promifed (as iome times undoubtedly there is^ as Phyfical irr> poffibility of doing what was promifed, or moral irapoffibility ( re- fulcing though not forefeenj and a nccefiny of breaking fome moral command of God, for keeping the Oath anent matters in their nature indifferent, or the inhibition of a Superior,under whofe power the mat- ter of the Oitb is fo , that it cannot be kept without injury to him, or the impeditivenefs of fome greater good whereto we are formerly pre- obliegcd. a. But to come clofer to the matter ; A heavy charge is laid againfl: all, who own the prefent Church-government, as if they were per- jured, and had broken Covenant with God in that point. And great clamoars arc raifed about this ; But unlefle the clamourers can prove, that the moderate Epi/copacj eftabhftied in governing this Church, with confent and concurrence of Presbyters , is contrary t* the Word of God, or that the Presbyterian parity of Minifters and Elders in go« verning the Church, is the only commanded form of Church Govern- ment, they will never be able to fatten the guilt of per jury upon the owners of Epifcopicy ; if they could prove the former ( anent which this Libeller and the Apoiogift attempts fome what, but we (hall af- terward have occafion to difcover their weaknefs) they might fay much as to the Utter ; nor indeed,can any thing efledually prove the latter, without full evidence of the former ; which cannot in hafte be given. 3. As to the Covenants, we fay. 1 . If it be found,that the eftablifhed Epifcopacy ofiSV#r/^*^isnot abjured in either the National or So- lemn League and Covenant , there can be no perjury in owning the fame. 2. Granting that the efhbiifhed Epifcopacy, were in cither or both of the Covenants abjured ; yet the owning of it , will not in- fer the guiltines of perjury, if either Epifcopicy befliewed to be the only lawful and neceffar j Government of the Church of Chrift , ac- cording to his Word • or if it be evidenced not to be unlawful, but a matter belonging to the Church of God, according to her Chriftian li- berty, to order and appoint as fhe feeth caufe ; cr a matter under the power of the Chriftian Magiftrate , todifpofeof, as part of the al-. ttidbteitcomonie of the Church, as he with advice of Gods Church ieetb convenient. This is fure,there can be no perjury in not keeping ao (i»3> M an unlawful Covenant ; and if it be evidenced, that Epifcopacy is the ncctiliry and perpetual Government of the Church by Apoftolical in- Hitution, the Covenants and Oaths abjuring the fame, cannot be ( info far ) lawful, or if fat leaft ) it can be evidenced , that Epifco- pacy is rot unlawful, or that it is a matter of Chriftian liberty , an Oath abjuring the fame perpetually cannot bat be unlawful, as laying bands upon the confeience which God hath not hid on , and being upon the matter an abjuration of part of the Churches Chriftlan B- berty,wherein we ought to ftand faft,and an undutifui limitation of the power of Rulers in Church and State, in matters wherein they have Lhetty from God to determine by their Statutes. 3. Suppofe that the Oath did abjure Epifcopacy , and were every wiy lawful yet there is no neceflity , that the owning of Epifcop*cy now fhould import theguikinefs of perjury; for thatquefoon remains, whether an Oath which was lawful to be taken, may not upon feme new emergent occafionsccafe to obliege, the emergencies being fuch as do render the keeping of the Oith or doing the thing fworn, un- lawful and finful ? That there are fuch cafes, rtndring the pciformance of fome lawful oaths finful and unlawful, no intelligent man will deny ; and fome occafion we may have in the progrefs to fpeak of thefet So that the Libeller and the Apologift y were concerned more ripely to have considered of the fe matters, before they fhould have fooutra- gioufly charged our facred Soveraign , the high Court of Parliament, the honourable Judges and Nobles of the Land , the Blfliops and Mi- nisters ; yca,and the generality of the people of this Land, with the horrible crime of perjury in this matter : For the Kings Msjefty, he he Stageth him, 2{apht. pag, 79. as a man, nhom neither confeience, heritor > nor hone fly ( thefe are bli words ) cttsld teach the conflancj o( the mofl mean and abjetl of his Subjefts • jgainft him and the Parlia- ment , he rageth furioufly, aflVrting, all that did any thing agairft the Presbytery and Covenant, to be either children of the Devil, ene* wies to allrighteoufneft^perverters ofthefiraight wayes cfGod^wbo have facrificed all confeience andreijon to ambition and covctuouf- xefSy or baft flatterer s> nbo know no higher concernment then to pleafe menjr of Gaiiio's indtff'erency^c, Napht. pag. 46* Out Nobles are fee forth by him , as men ef no confcience % honor nor honeftr, blinded, degeverAted perfonf) a&ing below men, aiming at nothing but a libtr* ty of greed] finning &c. Our honourable Judges, Lords of SelTion and Council, i^'polog, rag. 329. '334. are reprefented to the people, as men Angularly unfaithful) as before we heard : As for the Bifoops Q^ and ("4) . and other Minifters, he falls upon them with fuch Rabfhakeh-raii- ings, as perjured and perfidious men , all alongs thefe two Bookr, thac if the Devil had didated them 3 he could not have faid worfe, nor uttered more falfehood and untruth. As to the people of the Land, tApolog* pag, 329. He calls them the mofi perjured and /#. famout generation that ever flepped on the ground, a generation whofe Words and Oaths, are noe t$ h more credited , then the Words or Oaths of the worfl of Pagans : with fuch brave Elogies, he adorns his own Nation ; Yet> we muft believe him, when in the Title-p3ge of the Apology he faith, he writes for (atisfatlion of Strangers, and .will it not fatisfie them well, to have the Chriftian people of Scotland paralleled with the worft of the Heathens in perfidioufnef ? what Scot- tifli or Chriftian heart can endure to hear fuch National defamations, from the pen of a vile perfon,who hath renounced piety and refped to God, his King,his Countrey > in the maintenance of an unwarrantable Caufe ? 4. But as to the matter. 1. It is to be enquired , if the eftablifh- ed Epifcopacy be indted abjured in both the Covenants ? for, if it be not abjured in either of them, there is no perjury in owning it now : As to the former of thefe Covenants, viz,, the Natiora! Covenanr, that Epifcopacy was not thereby abjured, may be manifeft, if we ccn- fider, it That an Oath impofed by Authority upon other*, rrmftbe interpreted according to the declared [en/e of the impofer t which is conffient with the literal meaning of the words ; This is Co fure,that no judicious Divine will deny it ; for an Oath exaded or impofed by Authority, being for this end, to give him fecurity, and to fatisfie his mind anent the matters of the Oath, the taker of the Oath rouft not fenfe the fame as he pleafeth, but either not take it, or take it in the known and declared fenfe of the giver of the Oath ; that fenfe being confident with the letter of the Oath. 2. It is well known, that King fames and his Council, did impofe that Oath upon the Subs jeds, by Ad of Council, March 2. 1580. he and his Council, were Authors of it, and the authority thereof came from him. 3. It is alfo clear, that King James never did think , that by that Covenant he had abjured Epifcopacy , or had enjoyned his Subjects to abjure ir. This is fo clear, that it is flrange any inould deny it ; for,in his Parlia- ments and Ads thereof unrepealed , he had allowed the Government of the lawful Arch- bifliops and Bilhop?, (as the Ads of Parliament tall them, in the years 1572, 1573, 157PO And left any might miftake bis or his Cour.cils meaning, Casif Epifcopacy, which for ma- ny Ctis) ry years before i Iiad been exercifed in the Church, owned by Him, his Council and Psriiaments reprefenting the coledive body of the Land) he with bis Couecildid, Atsno, 1581. a little after the Cove- nant was prefented to the Aflembly at Gtafgow ,1581. ratifie the agreement made at Licth betwixt the Commiflioners of the State and Church, Anno* 1571. Where the Authority of Arcb-foftopr and Hi/bops was eftablifbed, and this he owned in the bufinefs of the Bifbop ofgiafgoVr, Montgomery i whom he would not have by any means troubled , upon account ef his accepting the Bifhoprick. And howfoever,hedidinhis Parliament,^«»^i592. give a legal allowance to Presbytery, and laid afide Epifcopacy, ( which he, his Council and Parliament had owned , not only before, but feveral years after the Covenant, as may be feen,Parl. Anno 1 5 $4. not thinking it perjury fo to do ) Yet, could neither he nor his Parliament nor his Councilj be brought to own Presbytery, or reje& Epifcopacy , as being bound to the one cr againft the other by that Oath : Yea, after he had given allowance by Law to the Presbytery, he found within very few years, caufe to repent, ( fuch were the courfes of high fpirited men,in manag- ing that Government) and in all his life after , he drove againft it, andftudied thefettingupof Epifcopacy, which at laft he did. By thefe things it may be clear , that not only King Jtmes the author of that Oath, and his Council minded no fuch thing as the abjuration of Epifcopacy r or tying themfelves by a perpetual Oath to Presbytery: But tha»: the body of the Land had no fuch fenfe of it in their taking there- of,feing their reprefentatives in Parliament, Anno, 1584. two or three years after the Covenant, Anno, 15 81. did openly difown thenew- fet-up jurifdiclions in the Church } and owned Epifcopacy. 4. Whac^ ever might be in thofe times or afterward the judgement of fome Mtnifters concerning the fenfe of the Oath ( as if it flood againft Epif- copacy ) or whatever was the judgement of any AlTembSy at that time concerning the neceffity of Presby tery>or unlawfulnefs of Epifco- pacy, thefe are not fo much to be locked on, as the fenfe of the impof- ers of the Oath (confident with the words of it ) qwfqtte efi opti- ma* /m interpres ; the judgement of Aflfemblies concerning Epifco- pacy or Presbytery, was a matter extrirfical to the Oath and to thp fenfe of the impofers of it : And moft improbable it is , that any dfe thefe ancient AiTcroblies did account Epifcopacy to be in the Cove- nant abjured; feing in ail their Ads againft Epifcopacy, they never alledge that ground , and in all their contefts with the. King , never plead that his owning of Bifhops was againft the Oath , which Q i could could they hacve aflferted upon any good ground, would have been a very ftrong (>lea. Neither is it like, that having fuch zeal they would have omitted it ; or if it had been ufed , is it likely that the diligent cbfervers of the paflTages of thefe times would not have recoried the fame? 5. By no art can ic be evinced or evidenced, that the words of that Oath, Confeflion or Covenant, do import the abjuration of Epif- copacy and f wearing to Fresbytery. There are two things alledgei in that Covenant, as importing thefe ; 1. That the Popes wicksd Hie- rarchy is abjured, 2. That the difcipline of the Church ^/Scotland is [worn to , that Vie (hall therein continue all the dayes of our lives. So ic is thought both Prelacy was abjured , and Presbytery was fworn to 1 that it Ihould be unalterably continued in : But neither of thefe two affertions have any truth in them. As to the former ; true it is,the Topes wicked Hierarchy is abjured in the Covenant,but that the Office of Epifcopacy,purged from Popifh corruptions and from dependance upon the Pope f(uch as istheRe- foraed Epifcopacy ) is therefore abjured , is moft inconfequent ; for, by the fame reafon it might be faid, that the Offices of a Presbyter and Deacon ( which are reckoned by the Council of Trent as parts of the Hierarchy, as well as the Office of a BilhopJ arc alfo abjured by the Covenant. For,thefe Offices ( as to their corruption and ftate of de- pendance upon the Pope ) were of his Hierarchy as well as the Office of Bifhops. And this Office being purged from Popifh corruption and dependance on the Pope, is not now more his Hierarchy , then is the Office of Presbyters and Deacons fo purged, which were fas well as it J parts of his corrupted Hierarchy. Neither can it fatisfie to tell us, (as the Apologift doth , pag % 396. ) that two parts of the Popes Hierarchy were only abjured in a certain refpeel: ( v *«. of corruption and dependance upon the Pope ) and not abfolutely ; but the third part ( viz,* Epifcopacy ) was abfolutely abjured, being wholly Popilh and Anticbriftian, and the very ufe of it being an abufe* For, 1. was the people acquainted with fuch diftinclions at the taking of the Co- venant, that when they abjured the Popes Hierarchy, two parts of it they did not abjure abfolutely, but only one part of it they abjured ab- folu ely , and the other two in a certain refpecl: ? Where were thefe lurking rayfteries of fuch difttn&ions at the taking of the Covenant ? Where are there any diltin&ive words in the Covenant to lead the poor people in thefe matters to fwear difcreetty and with knowledge } How ftrange is it now to tell them of different fenfes of the abjuration of that complex thing called Hierarchy > This man makes the Cove- nans (117) rant lookout wkh two foes under this term Hierarchy ^i the word in the abjuntion mull have two fenfes , thus ; we abjure tvro parts of the Hierarchy jn regard of corrupt dependence ok the Pope, and a third whether it depend on him or not, But,he mud either confefle, that this abjuration in the Covenant is a cover of two different fenfes, or elfe t!m all the three parts of the Hierarchy are fimp'y abjured ("which he dare not fay) or that all are abjured in one and the fame way, w*. in refpecl of corrupt dependence on the Pop?, which is that thmg we fay. 2. Neither is ittrue which he iflert*,tbat the Office of a Biihopand ufe of it is an abufe , or that it depends in hieing and operation en the P jpe,or that it cannot be feparate from corruption, or that it is an Of- fice not alio wed by Chnft. For,who can without greateft impuder.ee averr that the Reformed Bifhopsdodep:r.d/» beeing and opera upon the Pope , whom they renounce utterly, and from whom they have neither their calling , nor depend upon him in their adings there- in. The Apotogift telleth us , that Billnps depend upon the Pope m efle & operari , p3g. $9$* and therefore they mult altogether be ab- jured in the Covenant, becaufe the very ufe of them is an abufe, and it is not fo with the two other forts of Officers, Presbyters and Deacons. Bur, let us fee how mightily he proveththae Biftiops depend upon the Pore in beeing and operation, he proveth ir, becaufe the Pope acknow- ledveth th beeing and opeiation : Hoc Itbacus vctit t & magno merccnttir Atride. Surely the man deferved the Popes bidding for pleading fo ftrongly, as for his infallibility, fo for his fupremacy over the whole Bifhops of the Chriftian Church. But, who will btlieve h:m,who have any dnmme of understanding, .that the ancient Bifhops of the primitive Church, as Ignatius of Antioch, Simeon of Jerufalem, Anianus of Atexan* dria s thc immediate Schollars and Succefforsoftl c Apoftlesand Evan- gelifts in thefe Churches, had their dependarce in beeing and operation upon the Roman Pope , or that he had Supremacy over them ? Or, who would believe this of C)}rianJreneus % Auguflin t or of the other Aflncan Bifhops about his time, who in their Councils and AiTeroblies maintained ftoutly their independency from Rome ? And for the Bi- fhops fince the Reformation, a fenfible confutation can be given of the untruth of the aflertion , that they depend upon the Pope in beeing and operation ; for they are not called by him, nor inverted by him,nor depend upon his orders, nor regard at all his corrupt conftitutions, nor arc fubjedt to his direction Tior correction. How is it poffible then that m their beeing and operation they depend upon him ? And what better way is there to confute a rnan,difputing that there is no motion then to rife up and walk ? And there can be no better demonftration of the Protcftant Bfhops independency upon the Pope , then only to takeinfpeftionof the way of their entry and actings. Our ancient wife Parliaments, though they difcharge the Biihops of this Realm to ufeany jurifdi&ion by the Biihop of Rome s Authority, Par. i«K. fames 6. Aft 7. yet, they acknowledge lawful Archbi(bops andTSi- Jbopsyns they call them, Par. 3. K James6* Atttf. They cut off the corrupt dependence of the Bifhops upon the Pope, yet acknowledge lawful Archbiihops and Bifhops, who derived not their Authority from him, nor any way depended upon him. And further, whatbeldnefs isir, when fo many godly and learned men have from Scripture , given evidence of Apoftolical warrand for the Office of a Biihop ; and others have at leaft evinced the lawful- nefs of the Churches appointing fuch an infpeclor, conform to the ge- neral rules of Scripture , for more orderly guiding of the Houfe of God, ( though he be not of another order of Miniftry then thefe Chrift hath appointed,) What boldnefs is ic, upon no apparent fuffi- ciency of grounds, to pronounce the very Office and Employment , an aiuft (IIP) abufe >wa unlawful ? Surely the B:fhop^ can mew as good wsrrand for his infpe&ion of the Churches wirhin his precincl , as the Scots fu- perintendent at the Reformation could ; of whom John Knox in the Treatife before the Pfalm* book faith , he wot called cf god to be a Pa- fior over Shires, Cities and Cottntrey- fides • and as good warrand can they (hew for their employment, as the Commiflior.ers of the Ge- neral Affembly could do for their infpe&ion over the Church in inter- vals oi Afl'embltes ? Were their Offices abafes, becaufe a particular wirra%d in Scripture was not to be had for them? As for the Au- thority of the Adembly of Glafgcv, 1638. declaring, that the fenfc of the Covenant was to abjure Prelacy ; although we had and have 2reat refpe&s for feveral Members of that Adembly , fome of whom are aileep in the Lord , and others wreftlingin the way to their reft : yetmuftwe fay, that the generality of the Miniftry there conveencd were fitting under the guile of palpible perjury , having broken theit faith to the Bifhops, and concurring to pull thern down whom they had fvvorn to obey and maintain. The Oath was lawful- » having been taken in a lawful matter , as we (hall evidence it ; therefore their guil- t'mefs fo abiding upon them, what regard was to be had to their deter- minations of the fenfe of the Covenant? Neither indeed doth all which they alledge amount to any thing like a dcmorJlration to prove, that in the indention of the fir ft takers of the Covenant, Epifcopacy was abjured 5 for , no A is un- warrantably afnrmcd,as we have formerly fhewed. 3. Neither dothic fatisfie to fay, that the Hierarchy abjured in the Coven AY.t is not called the Popes, as if there were another Hierarchy lawful and net abjured, but it is abjured y as the refi of Popijh cor- ruptions owned by him, as Canonization of Stints , invocation tf them letting up Altars, &o not as if there were a lawful in vecati* cnofS«ints, worfiipixg images , &c. But, k would beconfidered, that every thing abjured : n the Covenant , as tbt Pole's , is nor bis in one and the fame fenfe ; for fome things are can never be clean fed from filthincfs , nor fo qualified as to be rightly done ; albeit other things called his may be corrupt- ed and purged from evils adhering to them. So, a lawful Hierarchy there may ^,that is, a holy government of Church-rulers , which is no way the Popes ; It is fuppofed , the Presbytery is sccounted a holy Order of Church Rulers and government , (for the abetters of it, will not call it unholy ) therefore a Hierarchy fure it was,and yet not the Popes Hierarchy ; M . Calvin in his an/Wer to Card, Sadolets Let- ter to the Genevians, proftffeth his ready [ubmiffion to a Hierarchy that^ill acknowledge Chrift , and ftroncunceth them Worthy of ail curfeSy who will not [ttbmit to *f,talem nobis Hier3rch!aro, &c. Sure- ly he was of the mind, that there might be a godly Hierarchy, which (hould not be the Popes, nor Antichrifts : So that whatever abjurati- on there was in the Covenant of the Popes wicked Heirarchy ( all the parts whereof were equally add in like manner abjured,™"*, not (imply, but in regard of the adhering corruptions of the Offices and depend- ance on himlthat hinders not»but there may be a reformed godly Hier- archy ofBQiops, Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of God,hav- ing no corruption from,nor dependence upon the Pope ; neither is the term of Heirarchy to be {tumbled at ( although ignorant men do drive to caft reproach upon thefe who adhere to the Government of the Church as Hierarchickj) for it doth not import a dominraive or 'princely power in Church affairs, butmeerly a Sacred Order of Go- vernment and Rule, It is Hierodulia in refped of Chn{r,tnd an Hicr. arch] or Sao ed holy Order of government , in refpecl to the people : Nor rror can Presbyterians diflike, that their order (hall be called fo , feing they pretend that they are holy Ruler /and governors of the Lords people under Chrift ; So that it is hoped by this time, they will not fancy that the renouncing of the Popes wicked Hierarchy, is the re- nouncing of all Hierarchy, feing their own Government muft be either an Hierarchy^ e, an holy Order of Rulers or Governors, or the an unholy Order of fuch Governors (for there is no middle J and it is believed they will not Say fuch a blot upon their own way. 4. Buc next we muft- come to their fecond aiTertion,f * and if they can fubftantially prove, that the very fo:m of Presbyterial Government , which they contend for, was then 3pproven by the King and made by him and his Coun- cil the matter of the Oith which he prefcribrd , and reduced to practice in this Church, fo was fworn to by the Covenant , to be and to abide unalterably, they will fay very much ; but till they do that { wh'ch we are confident they can never do) chey muft give us leave to diflent from them anent the fenfe of the Oath, and to fcarch foe another fenfe that will be more rational , plain and obviou*. 5. Trueitis, that the difcipline of the Church of Scotland is by the Covenant fworn to be continued in, atleaft, alhhe dayes of the lives of the fvvearers ; But the queftion is , what is meant by that fworn difcipline 1 difcipline is a term very horocnimGus; For, i.k may Ggnifie nothing, but the doctrine of the Church , as received by Dilciples, d$tlrina atlive is difciplina paffive % as is ailcrted by Zar.- r^rupon the fourth Command ; and it is very ordinary , that the *doSr!n:s (122) doctrines of any Science or Art are called difcipline % (as moral dif- cipline, military difcipline, &cj but this is the moft laxs and large figmfication of the word difcipline ; yet will it trouble the Apologijt to lhew,that difcipline in the Covenant is taken in any other fenfe: foe in it, there are four words, the do tlrine, faith, religion and dij cip line of the Church of Scotland, the matter of all which , isfwomtobe continued in : now fure it is, the firft three import no different matters, but one and the fame thing is termed dotlrinc , as it is taught , fait h t as it is believed ; religion 9 \% it binds to God,and (we may add) difap- /#ft#»ti it is received by Difciples and hearers of that Doclrine of Faith and Religion. And we would gladly learn , by what argument the Apologijt can prove , that difcipline is a thing different in nature from all the former, more then one of them is different in nature from the other : it is but an athroifmus, a figurative heaping together of moe words of one (ignification ( though perhaps under different relati- ons or notions ) and how will he prove, that the difcipline fworn to is a diftindt thing from the do&rine ? (for difcipline in the general no- tion, is nothing clfe but doftrine,as it is received by Difciples ) Now, if doclrine and difcipline ( mentioned in the Covenant ) be materially one and the fame thing (as delivered, and as received) certainly Pref- byterial Government was , at the time of the making of the Cove- nant, no part ofthedoftrineofthe Church of Scotland, (expreffedin the finfeffion of Faith, owned by the Kings Majefty and States , and profejjed for a long time by King, State, and body of the Realm as the Covenant or Confefpon faith) for the contrary is moft evidently true, «/i*» that it is not expreffed in the Confeffion of Faith ( regifiratcd in Parliament) nor was before that Covenant owned any time, (let be a long time) by King,State,and the whole body of the Land. And fo the Presbyterian form,not being then the dodrine of the Church, it could not be the difcipline , in the fenfe wherein now we fpeak of difcipline* 2. Difcipline is fometimes taken for the xehole policy of the Churchy ftanding in an order and form of [piritnal government , to be cxer» cifed by Officers of Gods appointment : And thus it comprehendeth both the corrective and cenfuring part of Church-ordtr ( in rela- tion to delinquent Officers or Members ) the exoufiafticj^ part con- cerning power given to Minifters by ordination , and the diataclicl^ part of Church order in a&s and conftitutions concerning variable things about the ordinances of Worfhip, or effential Government of the Houfe of God ; and alfo the whole effential and invariable order of Difcipline and Government, which God hath in his Houfe appoint- ( 123 ) ed, and which no creature can alter. Now, it canfiot be faid, that ail things contained thus under the name of Discipline or 'Policj , were fworn to be continued in invariably ; nor that the whole policy of the Church of Scotland that was then in beeing and exercife , ( whatever it was) was fworn to be perpetually continued in : for, then ic ftould follow, that not only all the matters contained in the tw$ Boeks of ?e~ licjfcut alfo all other ecdefiaftkal Ordinances and A&s, which at that time were in force (and are contained under the name of Difcipline ) were fworn to be unalterable for ever. But, how abford this is ( al- though it be maintained by the Writer of the Book s entituled , 8ng~ lifbpcpifh Ceremonies , part 4. ch,%. pag. 41. c£r. ) any man may fee ,• for fo , nor only had the Oath been unlawful , as abridging the Churches Chnftian liberty, in altering variable Church- conftitutions according as times require, and as is feen to be moft for edification ; but the Oath had been contrary to the Confrfion of Faith cftabliflied in Parliament , 'Par. 1. K. fames 6. ch. 21. where theConfeflion averreth , not one form of Policy can be appointed for all ages, times and places, &c. Yea, contrary to the Churches own profeflion of her liberty this way, as may be feen, i,*Bookjof Difcipline, ch. 7. where there is liberty allowed by the Church to abrogatecclefiaftical St a- tutes not agreeing with the time , or abufed by the people. And if all ecclefiaft ol Statutes then in force , were fworn to be continued in, as the Difcipline of the Church of Scotland, then fhould it have been perjury to alter any of thefe afterward} and this Church hath been (many years (incc , yea even when Presbytery was at the height ) per- jured ; For , not only doth the fecond Bock of Difcipline alter feve- ra! things allowed in the firft Book, ( many inftances whereof are eafi- \y g«ven ) but the Church in after-times varied ia fome of her confti- tutions from both thefe Books, and abrogated fome Church- cor ft itu- tions that were in force at the time of the Covenant , upon very good grounds ; and this was done even when Presbytery was retained. So that it cannot reafonably be faid, that all which in thefe times came un- der the name of Policy and Difcipline , the whole matter of the two Books of Difcipline, with all Church conftitutions then in force, was fworn to be continued in for ever , without any alteration or variation from rhemt But,the truth, as to this matter is, (Yuppofing that by Dif- cipline is meant the policy or order of Government of the Church; that when the obedience of difcipline of the Church of Scotland *a* (*orn to be continued #»,the meaning of the fwearers was, to bind themfefves to continue in obedience of the effentiat and utter lyneceffarj policy R 2 of of the Church (as it is called in the firfi Botk^ of Policy , Chap. 9.) thacDifciplineof the Church of Scotland being part of the gofpei, and commanded in the gofpel-dollnne, is certainly invariable,^ was fworn to be kept invariably, viz. That the. Word be preached, the Sa- craments truly aJminiftrcd, pub lick.fr ay er offered to God, that offen- ce* be corrected and punifhed by thefe to Whom god hath committed the admimflration of thefe things^ without thefe and the likj (it is faid in chat Chapter) there can be no face of a Church. And certain it is, the ("wearers did bind themfelves perpetually to that Difcipiine exer- cikd in the Church of Scotland^ being pare of the Gofpel. Bur, as to alterable conftitutions and orders of the Church ( contained alfo under the name of Difcipiine) it was no part of the fwearers inten- tion to bind chemfelves to the perpetual obfervation of what Church- orders or ordinances were ch^n exiftent or in force, fo that they (hould n^ver admit the abrogation of them; it was not their mind to cutoff for ever the Churches liberty,to alter conftitutions concerning variable matters is fiie might fee it fitted for her condition , and for pubh'ck or- der and edification. And whatever was the external mode or form of Church-government ( by Presbyterian parity,or by the infpedion and fuperintendence of fome one Presbyter over others in feveral precincts and bounds J at the fwearing of the Covenant, as we arc not much concerned to inquire , albeit furcly the epifcopal Government at that time was the only Government of the Church,acknowledged by King, Council,impofers of the Ouh,andby the Parliaments, not only at char time but afterward ; and whacevet Acts were made > or Declarations given againftitin fome Atfemblies at that time, ( or in that one at Dundee) yet , fure it is by the Hiftory, that ( as to exercife) Epifco- pacy continued in the Land, and there was no exercife of the new Pref- by teries for fome years after the Covenant. So , whatever the mode or form of the Government was then actually exifting or in ufe at the /wearing of the Covenant (Presbycerialor Epifcopal) it is clear, that theimpofersof the Oath ( the King and his Council) minded not to tyethcmfelvesorocherstotheoncorotherform, as neceflary by di- vine Law,looking upon both as depending on variable conftitutions and ordininces, according as the exigence of cime and edification of the Church , and peace of both Church and State might requite. And it were too abfurd to fay, thac the takers of the Oath did talbut have now become not fo. And (n fo doing, the fwearer keeps his oath, whereby he en- gaged himfelf to obey the Laws of the Kingdom , and to continue in that obedience , however fame Laws be changed, and be doobey fome Laws contra-y to thefe which at fiift he began to obey at the time of his fwearing. It is even fo in the matter we are now upon; they who did at firfl fwear continuing in obedience to the difciplioe of the Church of Scot- landed no qutftion bind chemfelves for tver,to own and adhere to the etfential neceffary difcipline and policy of the Church, which as to the rule of it,is pirt of the everlafting Gofpel (and through Gods grace>we do to this day continue in obedience to that difcipline,and will admit na variation in it ) And wichalljthe f wearers did bind themfelves to con- linui tifwe in obedience of the difcipline of the Churcb,then according to her particular conftitutions and ordinances, that were meet for the edifica- tion of the Church for that time,fo long as good ordinances expedient for the time flood in force unrepealed, the fwearers of the Oath, were bound to obedience to them ; but they did not fwear,that they fliould never be abrogated, nor that if thefe being abrogated, other conftituti- ons rrter for edification of the Church , and more conducing to ber good, fhould be in after time? enacted , they would not obey thefe new conftitutions, they being not contrarianctotheeflential difcip- line, nor to the Word of God : Yea, they who fworc that Oath , to obey and continue in obedience to the difcipline of the Church of Scot I 'and , were bound by vertue of their Oath, to obey the future con- ftitutions or the Church ( being agreeable, and not contrary to Gods Word) as well as they did the former ( fuppofed to be antiquitated ) and thus they continue obedience to the difcipline of the Church of Scotland) although not obeying thefe fame individual conftitutions, that were theo in force at the time of taking the Oath. And there is good ground to a(iert,that (upon fuppofition of the indifferency of the various formes of Epifcopal infpeclion, or Presbyterian parity in Go- verning the Churcbjwhich (hall be eafily reduced into a pofition,unlefs men will produce a divine Command , of perpetual obligation for the one or the other, which may prove fomewhat laborious to do ) the fwearers of that Oath, did not, nor do fo ftand fixed by the obligation of that Oath, to one of thefe formes of circumftantial difcipline, as to exclude the other for ever , whatever ecdcfiafticaJ conftitutions were for the one or the other,at the time of the enjoy ning and taking of the Oath. And if it (hall be evinced, ( as it may be ) that the ufe of any of thefe forms, is matter of Chnftian liberty, (atleaft) the fubmit- ters to the prefent eftablifhed Government of Epifcopacy , may have very good grounds of pleading , that they do mod truly keep that Co- venant, ( for thej continue in obedience to the difcipline of the Church •/"Scotland, n*¥ht^contr*ry , but cottfonnnt to the Word) and others who refufe fubmiflion are really the Covenant breakers , becaufe they continue not in the obedience of the difcipline of the Church of Scot- /^w^noweftabtofhed, which is nor contrary, but confonanc to the Word of God, and fubfervient to the ejfentUi difcipline commanded by the Word. 6. The Minifters who difpute with the Doctors of tAberdeen % doingenuoufly confefs , that neither was Presbytery fworn to , nor Epifcopacy abjured in that old Covenant; for they labour much to pcrfwade 0*7) perAvade the Doftors to fubfcribe the Covenant, with that which was called the explanation; afTuring them, that by their [ubfenbing the Covenant, tbej fhould not be fallen for , as abjuring Epfcopacy, ( as the Dotlors thought ) they affure them , that notwithfland- ing their [bearing and fubferibing the Covenant , their liberty re- mained intire to voice for Epi/copacy in sin A§cmbly\ they declare plainly, that by the words of the Covenant , every mans judgement u left free as to this, and that the Covenant doth not determine, whe- ther Epifcopacy and Pearth Articles be agai*ft the Covenant or not, and that they may voice and reafon freely concerning them , without prejudge, no twit branding their Oath i See the anfwers of the Mini- fters to the Doctors demand. 4, 5, 6. 10. 14, And the Apolog, is driven to hard fhifts , pag, 593. while he brings in the Minifters giving affurance to the Doctors only, that Epifcopacy and Pearth Ar- ticles were not abjured in the explanation fubjoyned to the Cove- nant,upon foroe words of which applicatory explanation , forbearing thepraftife of all novations already introduced into the W or /hip of Cod, or approbation of the corruptions of fublicl^ Government of the Church, till they be tried and allowed in A ffembties, 6cc Tola* hour by all means lawful , to recover the purity and liberty of the Cofpel, as it waseftablifhed and profeffed, before the fore [aid nevati* ons : The Doctors apprehended , that in fubferibing the Covenant, they ftiould be brought to affert , that Epifcopacy was a corruption of Church-govemmenc,and contrary to the purity and liberty of theGof- fpeli the recovering of which,they were required to /wear they ftiould endeavour : The Afolo£ t affirms,^** it was upon this claufe % that the debate betwixt the Dottors and Minifters did ari\e % and that the Mi- nifters gave them only fecurity , that by that claufe they Were not oh lie ged again ft epifcopacy: But affirms, that they never faid that it Vvas not abjured , in the negative Confejfion or the Tfytional Covenant ; but only ,t hat it Was not abjured fpecificafly nor ex $re fly, in the latter part of the Covenant, Vthicb was additional to the old ne- gative Confejfion. Anf True it is, the debate betwixt the Doctors and the Minifters, began upon that claufe in the addition, but it pro- ceeded a greater length , even touching the old negative Confeflion • for they complain in their duplies , pag, 93. That they were urged to fwear and, fubfcribe againft their confeiences , to Presbyte- rial Government , as unalterable , under the notion of the difcip' line of the Church of Scotland ; neither wa* it rneerly upon the ac- count of the additional claufe 3 that the Poftors declined the fubicrip- tion > tlcn, though that fame gave them ground enough to refufe, they be- ing for Epifcopacy in their judgement ; feing in that claufe, where- in they were to promife forbearance of their approbation thereof, they were to brand it pofitively as a corruption: The Apolcg. psg. 393 dothtxponc thtle corruptions of the publkk Government of the Church there mentioned , to be meant of Prelacy, and if it was fa, winch yec ( the Minifters decline to fay fo ) fure no perlwafion could move the Doctors, io long as they were in the judgement for Epifcopacy, to brand it under their hand as a corruption: Bur, the Doctors do ingenuoufly profefs , that even as to the old Confettiop, laying afide the addition, they would have refufed their fubferipcien to the fame,unlefs the meaning of feme parts of it , touching matters of Ecclcinftical policy were cleared, to the fatisfaction of their minds. See Duply, fag, 48, 49, 51. So that their re fu fa 1 was both of the bulk of the old Covenant, and of the addition : and the Apolog* dcth exceedingly much wrong the Minifters, who reafoned with the Doctors,while he bringeth them in to argue fo weakly and fophiftical- iy,to infnare and not to fatisfie their brethren ; for, how could this fa- ti the Doctors were not inferior to them in their Logicks and Theologicks , as the iffueofthedifputefheweth, albeit fomewhat below them in their po- licicks, for which, they were not much the worfe : and the Aptlog. his talking of the prudent contrivement of that claufe in the addition, concerning the Appending of their approbation of thefe particulars untill they were tried in free AiTemblies, is but vain ; men had r.*ed to look, that in fuch weighty matters, their prudence may be from above, and not t* Cetdti t* catclva. Was there ever a more iirarge thing then this, that fuch as were perfwaded , that they had eternally abjured Epifcopacy in the fiift part of the Covenant , without ary rcfeiv cr f 12? ) orfubmifliontoany Aflembly ; yet in the fecondpart, firouWonfy Avear the forbearing the approbation thereof, till tried and allowed n free Aillmblies and Parliaments? Was it not very pcffible, that free AtTemblies and Parliaments might upon try al have allowed Epifcop2- cy ? for they are net exempted from error, nor from owning thar, if it be an error, and what then Should have been the cafe of the fwcarers of the Covenant, who were convinced , that in the firft part Epifco- pacy was abjured ? For, upon fuch a poffible determination of a free Affecabi'y or Parliament, they befeoved either to own Epifcopacy , ac- cording to the mind of the AfTembly and Parliament ; thus they had been perjured, and had done contrary to their confeiences, or elfe their fubmiflion and reference to thefe Aflemblies and Parliament?, was but ameer mocking the World, under Oath: Was it notltrange at one and the fame time, to perfwade men , that they ftiould be free to vote for Epifcopacy in an Afiembly, notwithftanding of their fub- fcription to the whole complex Covenant , and yet to afYert, that the firft part of the Covenant did abjure Epifcopacy ? This Apologifl utters contradictions , while be alTcrts, that Epifcopacy was certainly abjured in the old Covenant, and yet that men fwearing the Covenant bad a full and free liberty if they pleafed, to vote for Epifcopacy in the AlTemb'y. Was it notaftrange thing, that a multitude of people fliould fwear a Covenant, and yet refer the giving the fenfe of it to a future contingent Judicatory ; anent the right conflitution whereof, they could not be fure, farlefs, that they (hould not give a wrong fentecce, and whofe grounds of procedure were never to be notified to the tenth man that took the Covenant , that they might ufe a difcre* tive judgement thereupon > Was there ever fuch a thing as thi c ,to ab- jure the forbearance of the approbation of Epifcopacy,as a corrupter, and yet t ifubmit the matter to a tryal and allowance of a free Aflem- biy ? A man who under Oath,aiTcrts Epifcopacy to be a corruption, as this Apolog. expones that daufe,muft not only forbear bis approbstlon thereof for a time, but for ever, and rouft net refer it to be determined upon by any AtTembly; for,all corruption is iin 5 and it were fenfelefs to fay we fhall forbear the approbation of fin, till it be tried and allowed by the General Affcmbly. Finaily,it would be enquired,To the determi- nation of what Aflemblies and Parliaments the tryal and allowance of thefe corruptions is referred ? If it be faid to the firft that might come, that was to lay too much weight upon the fentence of any particular mating : and who knows, but aferwards lawful AiTemblies and Par- liaments may come, whacfi will not difallow, but allow of Epifcopacy, S wbof- ( i3<> ) whofe judgement the Covenanters iliould follow , having referred the matter to them. 7. Now, as to the Solemn League and Covenant, the queftion \s, whecher the prefenc Epifcopacy fettled in Scotland ( u e. the infpcfti- onof one Presbyter under the name of a Bifliop, in a certain precinct or bounds over other Presbyters,with whofe common confent and con- currence in Synods and in other meetings he rules the Church; be cont- rary to that Covenant, or therein abjured. It is clear enough ( if we will believe the Presbyterians of £«g/W,who plead under the name of Timorcus, eptft. dedic. S, 25. and,/>*£. 16. and, 14. ) all Prelacy was not abjured by the Covenant ; for, they declare thcmfelvesto be ready to fubmit to the primitive Epifcopacy ; i. e* to the prefidency of a grave Minifter in a certain precinct , allowed to his infpeclion , fothat nothing was done in ordination and jurifdiftion without him: yea, they avow, that the Covenant was not intended again (I all *? re lacy or injptclion and epifcopacy of Mmiflers over others , but only againfta ctmmfpecies of it that had grown up in England. And they afferr, that the Parliament of England ( with confent of their Brethren of Scotland or their Comroiflioncrs , whofe faithfulnefs in the matter was approven by the General Affembly of Scotland) intended not to fwcar the extirpation of all forts of Prelacy in the Covenant, bat only of that complex frame mentioned in the Covenant ; Mr. Vynes, Mr. G Maker , Mr. 'Baxter , able Schollars, and whofe praife is in the Churches of Chrift,are fully of this mind : yea , the moft part of the Affembly of Divines ( if they be not belyed by Reverend Cataker who was one of them) were reconcileable enough to a well, moderated and qualified Prelacy in the Church. Yea, Mr. Croft on % pa%. 70, 78. profeiTeth,itaf 'Prelacy in the genuine acception, is undoubtedly a fair flower, not at all to be rooted up r allowing alfo a fuperintendent over Presbyters, (as an epifcopal Government of divine institution, though he would fain make this Superintendency right infignificanc and uie- lefs, and fuch as is no where to be found for the Churches edificati n) And he aflerts , that the Prelacy vowed to be rooted our,is only a par- tscular complex (pedes of it , to which it id exprefy reflrihled in the Covenant (the honour of which reftriftion is given to Dr. Featly, then a Member of the Affembly , and was occafioned by the over- hot pr effing of fome, that Prelacy in general fhould be (worn to be extir- pated) Now, the Covenant it felf reftricling the abjuration of Pre- lacy to a certain complex /pedes of it, fas thefe learned Presbyterians fay) and the Parliament of England , with confent of the Commif- fioners ( ifi ) (ioners of Scotland, agreeing, that not all forts of Prelacy were fwora againft in the Covenant , but only that certain complex ipccks therein mentioned: it muft either be cleared , that the Prelacy of Scotland is that certain complex fpecies mentioned in the Covenant, or elfe the Covenant dothnotftrikeagainftit. Certainly, the epifcopal Prefi- dency fettled in Scotland, being a governing of the Church with fand not without ) the joint concurrence of Presbyters in Synods and iefier Meetings, cannot be the Prelacy abjured in the Covenant : for, that hath in the complexion of it governing Chancellors , Commi^aries Deant, &c. excluding ordinary meetings of Presbyters, by whofe con- currence the Church may be governed,or not including the fame. We know not fuch governing Chancellors or Commiflaries intermedling in Church-government in this Church, fince the Reformation , albeit we have had Bifaops. Such as own them, m*y juftifie them , and perhaps are able to do it with fatisfadion. Nor know we what influence Archdeacons , nutans , Deans and Chapters have (according to our Laws cither of Church or State ) in the Church- government, other- wife then as they are < Preskjters % jointly concurring with the Bifhops and other their Brethren in Synods and ether Meetings, for governing the Church: if any Presbyters bear thefe names , whether upon ac- count of enjoying the Rents due of old to fuch places, or upon account of fpecial afliftance they may gire to the Biflhop , to take notice of mifdemeanors to be corrected at the Synod ,• or upon account of a precedency in order unto others (which may be g the fenfe and giofs of the impofcrs of it in Scotland had been only to be looked unto 5 but, ic being a Covenant of three national Churches and Kingdoms, which ( if Mr. R. may be believed, in his Treatife aga.nit liberty of Confcience , pag. 304.) do by that Covenant become o*c ecclefiafiical body , what reafon can be given, thu the Scots fenfing of ic (that Church and Nuion being the far minor part) fhould rather be looked upon then the ftnfe of England and Irel*nd t the far major part of that (fo called j ecclefiafiical body ? In all embodyed Societies, the fenfe and fentence of the major mull overfway the minor, and is to be accounted the fentence of the whole ; and alth jugh the Church and Kingdom of Scotland were the imme- diate impoiers of the Oith upon the people here ; yet , feing they did it not as abittaded from , but as parts of that great ecelefiafticai body, {(0 called) their fenfe and glofs on the Article is not r o regardable by any member of that great Society^ the fenfe of the maj r partjwhich legally is to be accounted the fenfe of the whole united body. And w« may add alfo,that the Scots Coramiflloners, confentiog to the fenfe of the Parlianvnt of EngUni with their Aflembly touching that Article, fas TimorcHs faith, and he ought not to be difcrediced in fuch a mat- ter of publick fad; and theie Coramiftioners being approvenby the General Affembly here in their a<5t:begrm* ^the maintenance ana owning °f Pres ^' ' vernment of the Church of .Scotland , is n.rntoin the Covenant ; the other is , t'-at there is an wter inconfifiency tetvtxt Presb)Urj andatljort of Spifcopacy, 10 Astothefora-erofthcfe,thereisao word in thatiuft Article of the Covenant, engaging to raiin: am or endeavour the prefervacion of the Presbytcnal form of Government, ufed and received in the Church of Scotland* The words are, We f?aU endeavour the prefer* vationof the reformed Religion , in the Cixrcb of Scotland , in t DotJrme i Worfhip , 'Dtfcip line and Government , a gain ft ow com- mon enemict : Many Independents did cake th;s Covenant , iod forae had hand in the framing of it , and took t themleives ; yet, did not hold themfeives bound by the formal wtris, r. > in«j- e Prefer- vation of Presbyterian Government in Scotland, whxhacc rdi their principles, was no part of reformed Rei:g>on $ they accounted the form of the Scots Presbytery, a rag of Popery, and if when they faw their time, difpued agu-.ft it, as contrary to Word of God; however Presbyterians thought that Goverr.r to be a part of reformed Religion in Scotland^ yet did not other? think fo, who fwore the Covenant, neither indeed did rbe form 1 1 words of the firft Article, import the fwearing of the Prefbytenan form of Scotland j but only the endeavouring to preferve the reformed 1 gion in Scotland^ in Doclrine, Worfhip, Difcipline and Government, againft the common Enemies. The Oath did not import an alTertion, that the Presbyterian Government in Scotland , was part of the re- formed Religion , and fo to be preferved ; but only , that there was fomewhat of Religion \n Scotland, in Doctrine, &c. rcf- rmed, and thit was fworn to be preferved , but not, that the w meof the Ptfsbyterial Government , was part oft 1 e rf formed ilehgion th re ; for, had chat parr of the promflbry Oath imported an aflertion, that thePr j sc ; r'orme ufed in Scotland, was indeed part of the re- form dR.tl.gion, tbc Independents (who were of a contrary pfrfwa- lion ) would never have been induced to fwear a thing,fo much a* their consciences and known principles, they would never have lifcrtdJ facte (i34) fuch a thing , nor promifed to prefervc that which they thought fin- ful; they only fwore to maintain that, which wis indeed reformed Rtttgion in Scotland^ and the words bear no more 5 -and they had been enfaared , to do againft their confeiences and principles , if they had been brought under an Oath, to own and maintain that Presby- terialform which they accounted no reformation, but a reli& of de- formation. Agiin,if the Ouh doth import an alTertion, that the Pref- bytenal form in Scotland was part of the reformed Religion, the Par- liament of England and AlTembly of Divines taking that Oath t did prehmitethemfelvts in the fearch after the right form of Govern- ment .* for, that which is part of the reformed Religion in ScotUnd y muftbefoin England Mo, and all the World over ; and fo, if in the Ouh any fuch aflertion be implied, thatPresbyterial Government in Scotland was pare of the reformed Religion, it ought (if this alTertion was with knowledge ) been owned to be fo in England , as being ac- cording to the Word of God ( as every part of truly reformed Reli- gion is) but chat the Parliament of England had no fuch perfwa- lions concerning the form of Presbytery in Scotland ^ appears not only by their holding fo many Divines about the fcarch of the Go- vernment ( to know what was according to Gods mind ) fo many years after the taking of the Covenant; but alfo , by their pro- feffions in the declaration to the Scots Commiflioners, Anno, 1647. March 4. Where they profefs, fag* 30. that they could never find, that Presbytery ts made neceffary by any Divine right % and pag. 5 J# they charge them for thinking , there m no other lawful Church (jo- vtrnment^but that Which they call Church Government : they charge }bsmalfo y Vsith mi/interpreting the Article of the Covenant concern- ing Church-government , pag. 61. Thus we may fee, that in the firftArtcle of the Covenant, there is no aiTtrtion imported, thatPref- byterial Government in Scotland , was part of the reformed Religion there, nor any engagement ( looking to the formal words of the Co* venant) for preserving that particular form of Presby terial Govern- ment in Scotland, ( which it is certain , many that took the Oath in Britain , thought not they were bound to prefervc by the Oath, but rather bound to ruine, as a part of popery, and as a way contrary to t^e Word of God J for the Oath only bound them $ to freferve reformed Religion in Scotland, in Government^ &c. and marry who took the Covenanr, accounted that Government no part of reform- ed Religion. And although a Presbyterian will fay,that it was fo,and will averr , that the then exiftent Government of the Church o( Scot- land ( 13 J.) A*«^ was notourly Presbyterian ^d therefore when the reformed Religion in Scotland is fvvorn to be preferved in point of Govcrn- menf, it will ncceffarily follow, that both char particular form of Go- vernment is acknowledged reformed, and is fworn to be maintained. A Presbyterian will indeed aflert all this, ( becaufe it is according to his mind) but, whatever cither was the Churches Government at that time, or the fenfe of Presby terians concerning that part of the Article of the Covenant, it makes nothing to the purpofe, when we are upon the confideration of the forma! words of the Covenant , and inqui; e- ing whether by force of the oath fas it is worded ) there was any af- fertion, that the Church-government of Scotland was part of the re- formed Religion ; or any engagement t3ken on by the fwearers of that Covenant ( by force and Yertue of the furmil words of the Covenant and their fenfe,) to maintain that particular form of Government , as part of the reformed Religion. Let any read the words over and over again, they (hall not find in them any fecuriry for the Presbyterian Go- vernment of Scotland , nor any engagement to maintain the fame , as part of the reformed Religion ; but only an engagement to maintain the Reformed Religion in Scotland , in thefe particulars mentioned • i.e. Whatever fhould be found indeed reformed. But, the determi- nation of this was too ioofely left to the various conceits of the fwearers j and it is like , fome fechrian hand might have acled too much in wording the Article in this manner , that room might be left fas it came to pafs afterward ) to endeavour the rooting out of Pref- bytery in Scotland^ in ftcad of preferving it, ii. But next, were it granted, that Presbyterian Gevernment in Scotland is fwern to be maintained by Covenant • yet, that there may be no complyance at all of that Government with any fort of Epifco- pacy , is fooner faid then proven. The Ayolog. and others will have an utter and irreconciliable inconfiftence to be betwixt Epifcopacy and Presbytery , conceiving epifcopal infpeclion to be a meer &nd abfolutc Monarch] over Minifler s y «rd a full dominative powered that there can be no anftocratical Government of Mir.ifters of the Church, where there is any fuch infpe&ion or epifcopal prtfidencv, both which we utterly deny ; and the Biftaops will both cordially declaim, and in their pradice difown fuch a fancied meer monarchical and dominative power over their Brethren '.whatever infpe&ion or presidency they have crdinu & folitia gratia ; yet , they prefervc the minifterial honour of their Brethren, and do a& (and are bound to acl ) fociaMy and frater- nally, with concurrence of their Brethren in all Church- adminiftra- tions of Government; whatever pci^er they have by their place to flop extravagancies and diforder?, for guarding pubiick peace, unity ar.d order < f the Church, ( it is to be wifned , they may feldom or never have occafion of ufing fuch power ) yet they arc at moft, but tan- quim Confutes in Senatu , which great Calvin diiallowed not in the primitive Bidiops : And Mr. 'Bez.a is full and piain,afferting, that the Epifcopacy of one Minifter above others, is no way again/} ^Divine and Apcfiolical inftitution, nor to be abolipjed f that it was not rafh- ly or proudly brought into the Church of God , that it was undeniably of great u(e to the Church of Cjod , fo long as *Bi(heys were good and holy, that he and all the ref or mid will acknowledge % ar.d give all reve- rence to Archbifoops and Hi/bops doing their duties, as unto faithful Pafiors •, that it is arrogancy to jeeufe all them vrho are this day cal» ed Arthbi(bopS and Bifhops of tyranny , that the Office rightly manag . ed y u irrep,ehenfible, heartily wijhing } that the Church 0/ England,^/ long enjoy that favour of (jod % to have 'Bifhops continued there y faith- full Payors and witness ofChrifi^as fevtral of them have been in this age : See his own words apud Saraviam % pag. 207. 233. 235. 231. 240. 242. 251, 252* 182. 262. where Schollars may read,and it werebuttroublefpmetotranflate. Surely Tttza was no unfriend to Presbytery , and yet he thought, there might be a confiftency be- tween fome fort of Epifcopacy and Presbytery, as there was in the Primitive times ,• Ignatius Biftiop of Antiock, Cornelius Bifhopof Rome, Cyprian Bifhop of Carthage, and other ancient Bifhops, had their Presbyteries (confifting of teaching Paftors ) which were called their Senate, Council and Afleflbrs in Government, with whom they maintained a fweet harmony, giving them their due honour, as they did alfo receive due honour from them : And if mens paflions might permit, there might be a godly confociation and mix- ture of thefe formes, in the cxercife of Government for the Church- es edification. 1 2. But it is fit,that we now proceed to fpeak of the next point pro^ pofed anent the Covenants ; for, giving and not granting, the prefent Epifcopal infpe&ion eftablifhed in this Church , hid been abjured by one or both Covenants; yet, will not the owning of the Epifcopal Government, come under the guiltinefs of perjury, unlefs it be evi- denced, that that Oath ( as to that part ) was lawful : for it is no perjury, tocaft off the obligation of an unlawful Oath; an unlawful Oath binds to nothing but to repentance for making ir, the (in is doubled if it be keeped. Now if it can be evinced, that Epifcopacy is the f*J7> the Government of the Church,neceiTary and perpetual by apoftollcal or divine inftitution exprefled in the Word of God, the oath abjuring it was finful,and cafting off the band of that oath is no perjury. Yea, if it can be evinced , that Epifcopacy is in it felf lawful , and a matter of the Churches chriftian liberty , and no way contrary to the Word of God , an oath perpetually abjuring the fame muft needs be a finful oath (info far,) and is not to be keeped, bat to be repented of,as (hall appear. As to the former of thefe two, there are in the Churches of God, opinions concerning Epifcopacy diametrically oppofice ; foras rigid Presbyterians crying out, that all fort of Epifcopacy and fuperior infpedion or authority of Minifters over Minifters, is morally evil, contrary to the Word of God and forbidden by it : which if it could be proved , we were at a point anent the perpetual obligation of the ^Covenant againft it ; for , then there (hould be a double bar againft it, both that of the Law of God and of our own oath fuptradded* Others upon the other hand do avow, that Epifcopacy is not only law? ful,but neceffary,by divine and apoftolical inftitution ; and fo muft fay, that the contrary wiy of Government by Presbyters in full parity of power,is morally evil and inhibited, as being againft Chrifts inftitution. If this can be foundly proven, we muft cleave to the inftitution of Chrift and his Apoftles,and caft off the obligation of the oath abjuring Epifcopacy , accounting that it obliegeth us to nothing but to repen- tance for iinful fwearing it. But , the fearch of the grounds of thefe contrary opinions muft be referred to that HW^wherein we (hall fpeak of Epifcopacy and Presbytery. But , 2. if it can be evinced < which we hope (hall be ) that at leift Epifcopacy is not againft any Word of God , but a matter of indirTerency and chriftian liberty ; the oath, fo far as it perpetually abjures the fame (if it do fo) cannot be juftified as lawful , nor held as oblieging , it laying on a fnaring band upon the conscience which God hath not laid on, and fettering and deftroying in that point the chriftian Iiberty f which God hath allowed to his Church and People. 13. The Apologifi ( with the Author of Napbtaii ) though very peremptory in atf.rting the unlawfulnefs of Epifcopacy, antecedently to the fupervenient abjuration of it by the Covenant ( the grounds of his confidence (hall in due place be tryedj yet will play himfelf a little with the Author of the Scafonab/e Cafe^nd granting that Epifcopacy is not forbidden in the Word , but of indifferent nature, yet aflercethi that it may be the matter of the abjuration, if it be found inexpedient ; he,p*g. 272. and the Author of Napht.ftg. 303. snd,p*£.y4. ( De * T hi (138) ing men that rriake lyes their refuge) do belye the Seafonabie Cafe foully, as if the Writer of it had aforced, i. that an oath hath no force in matters morally good , and that as tothefc it is fuperlluous, and may be difpenfed with and renounced : this Napht, involving him- felf in vain words , imputes to chat Writer. T.ie Writer of that C4/e never wrote, never thought any fuch thing as this perfon imputes tohim,out of the forge of his own wicked heartjbe knoweth as well as he doth, that a matter commanded by God, may come under a Vow and a promiflory Oith, and then the obligation upon a man is double, both by divine Command and by force of his own Oith, binding him to obedience. Indeed, the writer of the Cafe had once and 3gain averted, ( which he will ftand to ) that if Epifcopacy be in it felt unlawful, ( Gods Word declaring it f o ) then whether a Covenant had been made againft it or not, it is to be difowned ( for what is uslawful cannot be allowed, be it f worn againft or notj^jf. 23. 27. But (although the two lyarsraife their imputation upon there words only) he never wrote nor thought , that necetfiry duties may not be the matter of a lawful Oath, or chat an Oath in thefe matters, may be difpenfed with or renounced ( as is alledged by the Apotog. pag. 364. 372. and by Napht. pag. 54. j he knowech who faid it, Pf. 11?. 106. / hwe fVeorrt and will perform it, that I wilt keep thj righteous judgement*! and knoweth that it is even needful, that we engage our hearts to God in neceflary duties, and take on voluntary bands to fill our fickle fpirits in his obedience; and he knoweth thac no creature can abfolve from,or difpenfe With any Oath : But again,the^A maketh a loud fye in im- puting to the writer of the Crf/^that he will have no Oath to be taken anent matters indifferent, or lawful in their nature (though notne- ceffary ) and fo imputes to him , the taking away 111 that part of the worfhip of God that ftands in fwearingby bis Name : becaufe (as he alledgeth ) the S. C. faith , that in moral duties , it is unne- ceffary to (wear, and that a man may not fwear in things indifferent : and all will acknowledge , that matters finful arc not to be fworn to i But,as in the former he uttered untruth, fo in this,he utters a new un- truth , and he is defied to (hew any one word in all that writing , that faith a man may not fwear in things indirferent.There is no word ja it all that hath appearance of carrying fuch a fenfe, let any read it when they HifftU The writer knoweth well^that the matter of a promiflory Oath or Vow, may fomctimes be res precept a, fometimes res non pracepta % ftdpcrmiJJ* nojiro arbilrio. As there may be a lawful Ofjh or Vow in (i*9) in matters neceffary , by Divine precept; So, there may be a lawful Vow or promiffory Oith, in matters not commanded, but left by God to our own arbitrement ; if a Chriftian find , that the ufe of things of indifferent nature, iscccafionativeof fin tobimfeif, or of fcandal to others, in fuch or fuch circumftance?,or that the ufc of them ^inexpedient , and ordinarily leads him to fomeabufe, he may bind uphimfelf by Oath or Vow from the ufe of things fo inexpedient* yet, not by a Vow or Oath intended to bind perpetually againftthe ufe of thefe indifferent things, in all circumftances and occurrences whatfoever ; and albeit the prefent inexpediency ihould ceafe,and pro- vidence order To, that afterward the ufe of the indifferent thing be more expedient then the forbearance of the ufe of if. Expediencies -and inexpediencies in the ufe of things indifferent, may vary according to circumftances and occafions ; that which may be this year expedient, may another year be inexpedient (under other occurrences of provi- dence,) and fo alfo, upon the contrary. No queftion, Timothy, i Tim. 5.23, reckoned it expedient for him to be fo abftemious as he was, and finding fuch a way for the time to be for his fouls health, or fitting him forfpiritual exercifes of the fervice of God , he might engage to do what he did : Bur, when he found that Way hurtful to him, and hindering him in the Lords fervice, then it became inexpe- dient to keep the courfe he had kept; and it was expedient upon Pauls admonition, to change that way of his diet that weakned him in his work and fervice to God ; nor was it levity nor inconftancy toalter his way ( that which was before expedient, becoming now inexpedient. .) Nor, if he had engaged himfelf by Oath to his former courfe, had it been perjury to defert it (the expediency of fuch a courfe ceafing,iand his Oath only binding to fuch a mean as a mean to an end,which ceaf? eth to bind when the expediency doth really ceafe , and when the ufe of the indifferent thing is contrary to the end and impeditive of it. It is well known, our Protcftant Divines (though tbey arc not againft all promiffory Oaths and Vows, touching things indifferent ; yet they are againft fuch VowSyimerided for perpetual obligation. Calvin, lib. q.lnftit.cap. 13* S. 4. 5. fpeaksofthi* matter judicioufly, // ( faith he ) a man fee himfelf inclined to 4 certain vice , [0 tb At he cannot moderate himfelf in a thing other wife not evil % but incontinently be fides into that which isresfiy evil , nihil abfurdi faciet, &c, be (hall do no abfurd things fi ad aliqaod tempus ( ». b. ) ejus rei ufum fibi votop*secidat,ad aliquod tempus poteft renunciareiili rei votoadhibi- to. He thinks it lawful to make a vow anent thofe indifferent things, T 2 for (i4o) for fome time , but will not have people to halter themfelves ot their con fciences by Oaths and Vows, in fuch matters, intended to be of perpetual obligation, even though the inexpendency of the ufe of thefe res nan mala, ftiould ceafe : So, the profeflbrs of L«jden % difp. 20. de juramento, Thef. 43. 46. We think it aot lawful ( fay they ) for any man , fibi ant aliis abfolme per votum inttrdU cere 9 u[h earnm rerum^ quern Chriftus liberumejfe voluit • albeit a$ they add, Thef. 44, 45, 46. in a certain refpedit is lawful , fi w- mirum eorttm n[ns aliis fm urns fit fcandalo, ant ceflurus nobis in It- centiam carnis : And this ( fay they ) doth not prejudge Chriftian liberty ; and when thefe caufes do ceafe,f#w etiam vti bttj»s voti cef- fat. bo that albeit things indifferent may , in cafe of inexpedience of them, be the matter of an abjuring oath or vow during that cafe of in- expediency jyet* judicious Proteftants do not think,that a vow,intended for perpe-ual obligation to forbear things indifferent (even although it fhould come to pifs, that the forbearance of the ufe (hould come to be inexpedient , and the ufe expedient ) is lawful ; or that fuch an oath or vow is perpetually and in all cafes binding. But , the applica- tion of thefe things ro the matter of Epifcopacy ( fuppofed to be per- petually abjured) muft be put off to that Head, wherein the grounds of afferting Epifcopacy to be unlawful are to be tryed 5 and if they be found weak , it muft fubfift as lawful , and the oath perpetually ab- juring it cannot be lawful* 14. But now, thirdly, fuppofing that in both Covenants Epifcopacy was tbjttredflzzand lawfully abjured $ the third queftion remainethj Whether in no cafe the obligation and binding force of a lawful pro- milTory oath may ceafe ^ for, if the oath in any cafe may ceafe to bind* there is no perjury in not doing (in that cafe) what was fworn to be done ; for, perjury is only the breaking of a lawful oath, and of a lawful oath that continues in force , and the obligation whereof ceaf- cth not* 1 5 . That a promiffory oath lawfully made, may fometimes ceafe to obhege, fo that the not keeping of it is no perjury • in that cafe, no judicious man will deny. Not to mention other cafes, there are three cafes remarkible to be applyed to our purpofe; the firft is this, If the matter of a promiffory oath or vow be under the power of a Supe- rior, he may , by bis authority interpofed , make void the oath by his diffenting from it : the matter of the oath being put under his power by God 5 if he diffent from it> it ceafeth to bind the inferior. This if 530ft agreeable with reafon 9 that do deed of an inferior per fen or fub- (MO je<$ (liould prejudge the right of the Superior, nor take from him any power allowed unto hira by God in any thing ; and ic agreeth well with that common equity which ail Divines acknowledge to be in that Law of God, Numb. 30. 4. A vow or promifTory oath being an en- gagement to God s made of things which are in the power of the maker of it to do, ( by fupply of divine aflGftance ) no man can bind himfelf by vow to do that which is in the power of another ( his Superior) to allow the doing of it or not ; unlefs it be under a condition, that he to whofe power it belongs fhall be pleafed with the vow, and not gain- fay orgain-ftand it. For , one that is fub;ed to a Superior hach not power of himfelf to do what he will, (quantum ad id in quo eft fug- icftui ) in fo far as concernetb the matter wherein he is fubjed and de- pendent upon the will of another. Proteftant Divines with full con- sent yield, that the analogy of that Law, Numb. 30. 4. and the com- mon equity of if, extends to all Superiors, in the matters wherein they are fupertor , afwdl as to parents and husbands, in the matters where- in they hive power. See Zanchitu in precept. 3 , p. 61 5 . Rivet on the Decalogue, p*£» pi« Sjncpf, L'jd. p. 227. Diodate on Numb. 30. 3. Perkins, Sender f. and many others : Bur,aot to be tedious, Dr. Ames ftiall fpeak for them all, lib. 4 deconfeient. pag. 304, 305. In omni juramento de eis rebus qu&Superiorispoteftdtifubjiciunturfubin* teHigitur (jiipfi placutrit) dttmr irritatio juramenti aiiquando per Super iores ft in iUa ip[a materia fint Superiores circa quod foramen* turn verfatur ; fie parentes t mtrtti, doming principes irrita pronun- cure pofjunt juramenta, &c AH agree in this, that oaths or pro- mifes in matters fubjed to Superiors.are alway es (alv jure Superior is y and may be by them void if they confent not. And therefore, it being fuppofed, that the epifcopal form of Government is not unlawful { as will after be evidenced, be try al of the wcakneis of the grounds where- upon it is aliened fo to be ) and being under the power of the Prince, as keeper of both Tables of the Law, to determine of it as makes moft for the good of Religion ; any oath abjuring the fame , mud alwayes be underftood/rf^o jure Super ioris^nd ft ip(i placuerit. It is to be remembred,that Epi fcopacy is fuppofed to be a matter not Hnlawfal, ( which in the following Chapter is to be cleared) and upon this fuppofition, as the Writer pleadeth the ceffation of the obligation of the oath in the mentioned cafes • So , the Apolog. argueth for the ftanding obligation thereof* If any of our Brethren, or of the people of God, after fearch into the Word of God, do find the derivation of epifcopal Authority from divine or tfoflohcal inftitution^t are not to BKJudg prejudge their thoughts, nor yet to prelimice our felves in receiving further light upon that fubjed: j only, whoever have ciearatid fatii- fying grounds of that derivation of Epifcopacy from divine and apo- ftolical inftitution, ("which hath been the judgement of the moft emi- nent Teachers and Martyrs of the primitive Church in the purell times, as may be feen in Ignatius and Cyprians Epifties, and alfo of the moft learned and godly men in our own rimes) they can the more eafily lay afide the obligation of the Covenants , if they be found to ftrike againft Epifcopacy. But, becaufe the moft part of pleaders for the (landing obligation of the oath, do plead for ir, not upon a rational or fcriptural conviction, that Presbytery is neceffaryand Epifcopacy un- lawful , but meerly becaufe an oath was taken about thefe ; whereas in the mean time, they find no grounds to fway their minds to own the one or the other as a divine inftitution: for, who candoubr, that the moft of the fubferivers of the Covenants had no perfwafion on their fpiiits,that Presbytery was the Ordinance of God> or Epifcopacy con- trary thereunto ? The Parliament of England in their 'Declaration, 1647* March 2t doprofefs, after 'the fitting of their tsfjfembty feve- ral years in fearching thefe matters , that they could never find a di* vine right for T res by terial government • and challengeth the Scots Commifftoners that they thought there Was no other government but that Which they called Church-government. So it is clear, that the great Reprefentative of the plurality of thefe Nations , and even that fame Reprefentative that took the Covenant therafelves and impofed it upon others , were not at all of the mind that Presbytery was a di- vine Ordinance. And , to fpeak of the people of Scot/and , there is none that knows them who will not acknowledge, that the tenth per- fon i'wearing the Covenant, had no rational grounds to account the one Government an Ordinance of God, the other not ; but they went on as they were led , and to this day moft of fcruplers have nothing to fay, but the ftiort word perjury ; and this is the great argument which their Teachers buz into their ears , becaufe they are not capable of ma- naging other arguments ; and upon all oecafions, they furiouflycaft the dirt of this perjury in the faces of their oppofites, who walk in dutiful obedience taGod and the King, whereas yuft apologies may be made for fuch, and their furious aecufers may be juftly branded as per- jured perfons, for their fchifm, fedition , rebellion and g rofs loofene fs and profanity. Under pretence of keeping one Arricle of the Cove- nant, and that not rightly fenfed , they are moft guilty of the breach of many of them. But, to come to the matter upon the former con- siderations; r i43 ^ fiierations , efpecialiy feirg mar.y will acknowledge the bmf*keft of Epifcopscy, which will not acknowledge the necelfiry thereof ( the like may be faid of Presbytery; we have in the confederations of looting the Covenant-obligation as for or againft >ny of tbefe forme?, cfeofen tofpeakof C3ch of them, as in themfelves lawful, and as of an indifferent nature, and not binding the confeier.-ce,™ mater it to either fide, to ailow and di- allow abfolutely. And upon this fuppofition,the Apolog. ingagesm thedifpute , fei the (landing obligation of the Covenants: So then, let us fee what hisanfwers are ro the fir ft cafe, propofed; fhe fum of hisanfwers cometh to this,that the place. Nurr.b. 30. 4. Which fpt*k*th of the intereft of domeflic\_(uperiors, in di;tiv~ ing the vows oft heir inferiors , doethnot concern Civil Magift rates • or if it do , we h*A the confent of a fufpeieet civil Authority to our Ottks, without tbt King, or that the Church isfuthoritj confenting % h*d been enough without him : Yea, he affirm*, that the pi aa ,Numb. 30. 4. were it granted, to comprehend Magiflr ate s and teople y pia^ eth nothing again ft the Covenanters , hut vfrf much/or them^feing thij had the unalterable confent , as is imagined tacit crexprejfe , of both the Kings jkt Father and the Son. Tedieu* it were. to fet down all bis words,b ut what be faith in his replies,is fully taken off by thefe following confederations. 1. That although relation betwixt Princes and Subjects, Children and Parents, &c is not of that fame fpeciflcal manner, nor equally in - diffolvible; yee,fo long as we continue under tVeGovernmeat of Prin- ces 2nd &hgiirt*ale$ , we are every way as fhi&ly oblieged by the fifth Command , to pay all our duties to them with thankfulnefs , and to obey them in things which God hath given them power ro command, as we are bound to do our relational duties to our natural Parents, in things we are fubjeft to them. i- Although the rnmes of Pnrces and Magiftrates and Subjects, be note&preif-d in this Ttxr, Nmnb. 30 4.- literally ; yet the ^ApoL fhould knOw,-tfet tobtr can fcy rational confluence be deduced from Gods W' r J, is Gods Word as wePl as what is more exprefty uttered, mult a funt i* (kern Scriptur* ef&A von dicuntur • the Scripture is not n be ftrsitned iK ?he fenfe ofit,arrd this Apolog. doing fo in this place, fhouJd b?wue*Pfjiomo[o^?mg with the Sofiniansy whoaffirm,tbar. becat>lc Rii^'ir^l Magiftrates, are not cxpreiTy 'mentioned in the fifth Cornrrfir^,. that therefore", irwasnotthe Lnv-givers intention to ^'♦bffjfc therein, orbyvertue of that Law, to all ow T them any &A 3. The 044J 5. ThtApolog. without ground, flights the argument taken here from the analogy and parity of reafon, which is fo well and evident- ly grounded by the Law of Nature and Reafon, teaching us that point of righteoufnefs , commanded in the fifth Command , to give the Magiltrate his due honour and obedience in things wherein we are fubjeel to him>as well as to give due refpecls to Parents and Husbands : Neither is there any Divine of found judgement, but doth acknow- ledge the ftrength of the Analogical argument from this place, al- beit this man proudly lifts up his horn againft them all , as before we havefhewed. 4. Although all due refpecls according to our Laws and cuftoms,ar\: to be given to the honourable and high Court of Parliament , and it is treafonable any way to diminirh the authority which that great Courc hath allowed to them, by our Kings and Laws 5 yet, that they fhould be fharers in the Supream Sovereignty, ( as this man loves to fpeak in a foolifh folecifme , who can conceive of a Soveraignty not Su- fcream ) as they do not claim it chemfelves , accounting and calling the King their Sovereign Lord, even in their Parliamentary capacity* and while they arc acting as fuch : So, it is without ground to atferr, that they by themfelves and feparated from the King , have power to make Laws, for impofing Oaths upon Subjects ; never was there any Law, or practice of any fuch thing in this Kingdom, from its firft foun - dation : and although this man would flatteringly attribute this power to the Parliament, without the King , which hedenystothe King without the Parliament : Yet , when Parliaments do crofs his party, he gives them that fame meafurc of difrefpeel, that he gives to the King ; crying up the S*hjetts liberty, and driving to fet the htels of the State, above both head and fhoulders, feditioufly ftirringup the dregs of the people , both againft King and Parliament. It is to no purpofe, that he alledgeth the Parliaments legijlative power to prove their timing in the Soveraignty ; and his proofs are too weak to evince their legiflative power , as feparate from the King ( which if he prove not, he faith nothing to his purpofe ) that the Parliament is faid, toftatute and ordain with their Sovereign Lord, as it proves no feperate power without him , to bind the Subjects with Statutes ( fuppofe, that w«re the ufual and commendable ftile of that Court ) So it is untrue, that it is the allowable ftile of that Court j Jiowever, in fome ancient times, Clerks have varied the ftile , through inadver- tancy • or fame Clerks have in later times, upon defign to diminifh the Kings authority , have altered the laudable manner of delivering the Ads, A&s, which hath been and is, our Soveratgn Lord, with Advice an* confent of Parliament, ordains i &c. The legiflative po ver of ordain * ing and making the Law, is in the King, though their confent and ad- vice is requifite thereto and though the Ads be called All t of Parlia- ment, becaufe advifechby them , poftulated by them , in the name of the people whom they reprefent, enaded in their meeting, and given out to the Subjeds by their deliverance ; yet, that makes nothing to prove a legijlaive power in them , more then when ads of a Lords or Barrons Court, are called the ads of the Court, it will prove that all the Vaffals and Tennants have an equal power with the Barron in making them ; and it would be reroembred in our old Laws, that the ftile often was, vult Rex f ftatuit Domixus Rex, and the Laws more ordinarily called, fiatuta Regis, the Kings Laws : And whereas this man faith, that he had faid enough before to prove the power of Par- liaments over the King, yea, in making Laws: he indeed faid enough before to (hew his own evil mind againft the King j but be hath faid a great deal too little, to make any other to be of his mind: our Laws if we will believe them, do cry aloud, that the King hath no Superior in bk Kingdom, but God the Creator of Heaven and Earth , Regiam Majeft. lib. I. cap. I. That he hath royal power and authority, ever all the Eflates of the Land , as well fpiritual as temporal ; that he hath f over aign Authority, princely Tower, rojal prerogative and Privilcdgc, over all States, Terfons andfaufes, Pari. 8 ( James <£. All i.Par. iS.Atl i. which Laws, this man going about, pag .125, 1 16* to expone,as if they were oaly complements and fair Court pu» rifbts^and that at mo ft thej only give power to the King over private perfens; he incurrs the punifhment of thefe that deprave the Kings Laws, and call his Prerogative in queftion : So, the Covenant at the taking of ir, wanted a Legal authority ; for if, as he faith, the King can make no Laws without the Parliament,fo neither can they a5 fepi- rat from him, make any Laws to bind the Subject , be being the foun- tain of all that political legiflttive power, that may be faid to be com- petent to them; neither was their appointment fufficient for impofing ir, as he faith. 5. That the extirpation of Epifcopacy is a moral duty, to which we fhould advance, whether the Magistrate will or not, upon after tryal (hall be found untrue* 6. The place, Numb. 30. 4. doth not equally intereft the Pagan Magiftrate with the Chriftian, in the engagements of Chriflians relat- ing to indifferent matters, particularly touching their Religion, as this U man (MO, , man would importunately infer ; averring them to be alike effentialtj jMagtftrates, and iftne one hath power about fuch matters concerning Religon } the other h*tb it al/o % the Lawmaking no d.fttnttion, Non eit diftmguendum,ubi lex non diftinguit,(aith he ; but as he fhouid know, tint the Law doth not found equal right to Parents or Husbands, who are fiantick toward the engagement of their inferiors, with fuch Pa- rents and Husband*, who are of found underftanding ( the Law be- ing given to crtacurcs, iuppofed to have the aclualufeofreafonj So, there is not to be equal refped and dependency upon the Pagan and Chriftian Power,in the proper matters of Chriftian Religion ; the Pa- gan power> being as to thefe things under a fort of fpiritual frenfie, of infidelity for want of Chriftian light and grace, which jfufpends him from theexercifeof his power toward the matters of Chriftian Reli- gion, until God work a change. 7. Whatever liberty a Church may have in determining anent things indifferent in Church-government, without the confent of the Su- pream Magistrate , where he is not Chriftian, nor careth for Chriftian Religion, buchatttn, oppofeth and pcrfecuteth the fame : Yet, we arfirro, that when the Magiftrate is Chriftian , the Church in bis Do- minions ought not to determine anent things indiffercnr, touching Go- vernment, and to engage the people in general by Oath thereunto, without his exprefs confent, he being according to the Scriptures, a virepixw, the %upream without exception of Caufes > or per Ions \ and being the chief keeper and guarder of both tables of the Law , having power by his Laws about the indifferent things concerning the firft table,to guard and promote the observation thereof, as well as he hath undoubtedly the like power in matters concerning the fecond table. Neither is this Apo* to be heard when he faith,/ hut if the Church have not as much power 4»ent thefe matters , under the Chriftian Magi* ftrate, without acknowledging him, as under the Turl^ i that there' fore , the Turl^wcre a better friend to the Church , then the £ hrifti- an Magiftrate, and that ft* were in better conaition under him % then under the Chriftian Magiftrate, This hath been a very ftrange tranf- port of the mans fpirit, that he would fo undervalue the benefit and mercy of having the Chriftian Magiftrate, under whofe wings publick incouragement and liberty, maintenance and provifion, protection and defence is allowed to the Church ; that if the Church have not liberty to do in things indifferent, touching government, without the Chrifti- an Magiftrat's confent ; it flaould be thought better living under the great Turk then him , and that the Turk were a better friend to her then ( 147 ) then he: But what needs this infiiting upon the Churches confait to the Covenant, as fufficient without the Magiftrates (although it be obfervable, that in all religious Oaths, impofed upon the people of God of old, the Church of Jfrael, never was there any publick Oath iropofedjwitbout the civil powers exprtfly confenting thereto; feirg as it hath been faid before, the Covenant was not warranted by any Ju- dicatory in this Nation,which had by themfelves power to make a Law for fuch a thing ; So,it had no lawful Church- warrand antecedently to the impofing of ir fa thing which hath been little adverted to ; for, albeit the General Aflembly, 1643. did approve of a Covenanr,wbich was not Printed nor made known to the Church, but fent to England to receive alterations there, from whence it was returned, confider- ably altered in the firft two Articles thereof; yet it had never (we lpeak now of the Solemn League and Covenant ) any antecedent ap- probation with thefe alterations, by the authority of our General Af- feffjb!y,but was with thefe alterations , impofed by a Commifiion of the Church, upon the whole Church; a work too great for them to have done, and for which they had no approbation in the fucceeding Affembly : for verifying thefe things, we appeal to the Regifters. S. Suppofing the Oath of the Covenant as to Epifcopacy, to be about a matter indifferent ( as the Apolog, is willing to fuppofe J certainly the Superior's rightis prejudged ,both in the fwearing and in the profe- cuting of the Oath ; for,the Qithjngaging to the extirpation of what he ownsd^nd that by laying forth lives and fortunes upon it f again fi allperf$»s what/oever, without exception^ould not but be injurious to the Superior, to whofe pleafure the matter of the Oath (hould have been fubmitted , as to thefe things of an indifferent nature 5 and the profecutioo of the fworn endeavours , againft his declared authorita- tive diflcnt could not be but more injurious; €x. g. If a Wife or Chil- dren in a family, (hould make vows for altering matters in the family, ordifpofingof what were in the Parents ot Husbands power, and (hould upon their known.diiTent,profecute the fulfilling of thefe vows; in that cafc,a doifble injury (hould be done to thefe Domeftick Superi- ors ; one,tn that no fubmiffibn was refer ved to their pleafure in making the vow; and another, that contrary to their declared will, the per- formance of the vow is profecute. So, was the matter in the cafe of the Covenant, betwixt the King and his Subjects ; neither helps it-any thing at all to fay , that the %ub\ecls dilmt prejudge the right of the Magifirate , becaufe they only [wore to endeavour fuch and (ucJe alterations in their placet 'and catlings t which might have been U a with* r 148 ) without any attempt to do thefe things , Without the confent of their Superiors : For, if the man wouid fpeak bis confidence , he would plainly conferTe, (as Napht. plainly doih) that that claufe of the Co- venant* We fhallindeavour in our places and callings, &c. was not put in to referve any right to the Kng in thefc matters , who is com- prehended amongft the generality of \_all per font whatfoever^ againft whom the extirpation of Prelacy, with the hazard of lives and for- tunes is fworn ; but , it is only put in to preferve order among them- felves, in opposition to the King and to the Epifcopacy which he Hood for. 9. Itisaftrange paradox to fay, that the place, Numb, 30.4*' rmketh much more for the Covenanters then againft them: and that according to the Writer of the Cafe, his own glofs thereupon, the Jpolog. ailedgeth , That the late King of bleffed memory ratified the Oath, becaufe, 1. he held hie peace, and declared not his diffent open- ly at the taking of it, 2. Or if he slid declare it,it Was not prefentlj the fame day he heard of the Oath. And , 3. his diffent was not con- fiant ; for, he gave his after confent in his Soliloquies, faying, That good men fheuld offend God and him leafl in typing the Oath, To which things we (ay , that the late King of glorious memory did de- clare openly his diflcnt to the Covenant , by Proclamation at Oxford^ the p. of Ottober ; and for any thing the 4 polog. can fay to the con- trary f this might be done either before or the fame day that the Oath was taken 5 for , it had been printed at London by order of the Houfs of Commons, upon the 21 . of September preceedfng, but was not ta- ken feveral dayes after : So that , confidering the diftance of place and troubles of the time , it wai no ftrange matter>that for the fpace of eighteen or nineteen dayes and lefs, report of it might not come to the King, and for any thing that can be faid to the contrary, his Proclama- tion either did antevert or trifle the taking of the Covenant at Lon- don. Neither is Mr. Croftons cenfure of the Proclamation , as being breach of priviledge of Parliament, or as being done without the King? Council,to be regarded ; the man was a more bufie medler in cenfuring the Kings wayes , then became a Church-man. Many things in tbefe dayes were hooked in under the notion of breach of priviledge of Par- liament , which wife Lawyers could not fee to be fucb : Nor can he prove , that the King did emit the Proclamation without the advice of his Council 5 nor that the Parliament fitting lliould deprive him of making ufe of his Council , or that it is breach of their priviledge to declare againft fo open breach of his own priviledge , as was manifeft h carrying on of that Covenant without and againlt him. Nor doth it at all fatisfie to fay, that the Proclamation did not annull the Alb concerning the Covenant ', if tit only inhibiteit y and that it did not con- cern ui in Scotland, for, as to the iirft of thefr, the Proclamation (landing unrepealed, was not only an inhibition of the taking of the Covenant, but an annulling of it, by his diflent fo far, as the diflent of the Superior could be valid ; it not being retracted , it imported his continued diflent from the fame : ex. g. If a Husband or Pa- rent inhibite the Wife or Child; now the inhibition not being re- traded, containeth fufftdently their diflent from it to make void the fame, though afterward there were not further opportunity to declare the diflent. And as to the fecond , that that Proclamation did not concern us in Scotland, is not tiue ; for, it i: dire&ed to all his loving Subjecls , who were laboured upon to be drawn into that Covenant ; and our Commiflioners from Scotland were in the mean time tranf^ acYing the bufinefs at London with their party there , and were bound in Loyalty to communicate the Kings Proclamation to the people of Scotland. Albeit in that junclure of time , when the Scots were get- ing up in arms againft him, he judged it not fit for him to fend his Pro- clamations to Scotland to meet with contempt; yet, after they in- vaded him, he teftified his real diflent to their courfes, by armed oppo- fition io the fields. Bur,there is no ground from his Soliloquies to fay, hudifient was not conftant ( though it be good , that now thefe Soli- loquies are confefled to be his, which formerly was deny ed by the lead- ers of the Party , who being unwilling to honour him to be efteemed Author of fo excellent a Peece , put it over upon fome on^ or other of his Majefties Doctors or Chaplains) For, as he did in thefe plainly dif- allow of the Cw?»***,efpecially of Presbytery • ^o, ail that he faith in thefe words cited, is not that in cleaving to the Covenant there (hould be no fin, but that if any honeft minded ( of whom he judged charitably) could not find tfumfelves loofed from the band of tfce Co- vcnant,yct,^r (hould le*ft offend God and him bothy if in profecuting the fame they (hould abftain from unlawful means and wayes , fuch as he thought rebellions infurretlions againft lawful Authority ,no other fenfe do his words bear; But, fuppofe they did bear a clear confent to the fame* yet, the words are not to be looked upon a* uttered by him in the capacity of our Superior and King ; for , at that time he was deprived of all his Royal Pfiviledgcs, and a prifinedopprefled man.waiting for the fad fate that infued. The party w re wont to di- ftingui& between the King as a mankind as a King , whereof fome ufc max (15°) may be made here, thefe Soliloquies not coming from him in his Royal capacity. 10. That the late King Charles gave either tacite cr expreffe cor.fent to the Solemn Covenant, is a bold aiTertion upon very weak grounds. The tacite confent the ApoL would iflerc from this , that fome years before t he confent ed to the abolifhing of Prelacy in Scotland, and therefore it might be probably prefumed > that had his confent been as ked for the extension of the engagement to the Solemn League and Covenant,*'* Would not have been refufed, Nothing fhall be faid of that confent given by his Majefty for laying afide Prelacy in Scotland^ though the world knows , it was fuch a confent as Merchants or Mari- ners give for carting their Goods over- board for avoiding a (hip- wrack; or which a Captain of a Caftlegiveth fot rendring thereof, when he findethitno longer tenable; or rather like the confent that Mofet gave to the Law for the bill of divorce, which was permitted becaufe of the hardnefs of the hearts of the people of Jfrael. That good King being at that time befieged with an unhappy junclure of huge difficulties , the flame of the begun war in Scotland not well quench- cd,but fmoaking, and a new flame of war ready to break forth in Eng- land, did yield to fuch things (as afterwards was matter of regrate to him) becaufe of the mdifpofition of his Sub/efts at that time , to re- lifh what he allowed of. His true and fettled judgement concerning the abjuration and abolition of Prelacy , may be feen in his difcourfes and practice of his whole life, efpecially in his Re&fonings at the Jfle of Wights and hii Soliloquies when he was in the fight of death, and up- on the borders of eternity. So that the Apoleg. needs not talk much upon that ground of a tacite confent, that the King gave to the So- lemn League and Covenant , feing that notwithftanding of all he did in Scotland it that time, none of the people of Scotland could in their confeience fay, that it was any way probable that the King was willing to abolifh Epifcepacy in his other Kingdoms ; but upon the contrary, the greateft probability in the world to prefume, that he would utterly diflent from fuch a thing. But, it is a flight of impudence for the jipolog, to aflert, That the Covenanter shad the Kings exprefs and formal confent unto the thing that V?*t Vowed andpromi/edin the Solemn League and Covenant, and that becaufe there was an Act: of Parliament made in Scotland by King and Parliament again fl the Pn- lates. This is a ftrange peece of futtle Logick , to argue from the Kings confent to lay afide Prelacy in Scotland , that therefore he gave exprefs confent to extirpate it alio in his other Kingdoms; this is a rare no tion, ( sp ) notion , and worthy of one that rights againft the Truth, If I con- fent, under a great tentation of fear, that a rebber fhall take my cloak, may he follow me {'when I am out of his bands, and in a legal capacity to defend my felf ) and purfue for ray coat and (hirt alfo , even to my skin; pleading, that he hath my tacite or exprefs confent for what he demands, becaufe I had yielded hira fo much already and given my cloak ? It is fuppofed the Afolog % would think the pica of a tacite or exprefs confent in this cafe (ificwere his own,) very groundlefs, and it is no leffe in the other cafe. 1 1 . No expoficion of Scripture is to be allowed, which is contrary to the moral Law of God, and to the principles of found Reafcn ,• or which dire&ly gives encouragement to any in finful courfes. If Wives or Children, putting the Husbands and Parents in firmance, un- der reftraint , or depriving them of their world.y comforts , or the li- berty of their own houfe or goods ; fhould thus extort a confent from them to their vows , it were not to be thought, that this Text fhould favour fnch undutifulneffe , giving to thele inferiours an irrevocable ratification of their vows, i%pr&miumiceUris % Although the Law feems to make no diftinftion between confent fairly obtained, or what- ever way obtained ; yet, the Law is fuppofed to fpeak of Superiors, as ading in the capacity of Superiors , and not as of oppreffed and for- ced perfoos. And who can imagine, that it is the mind of God ("who in his Word commands the dutiful obedience to be given by Wives and Children to their Husbands and Parents)to allow to undutifuIChildren and Wives forcing and affronting rheir Husbands and Parents, that pri- vilcdge,chat whatever confent they can carry that way from them,fhall be an irrevocable confirmation of all their vows } were nor this a way to encourage all inferiors to villanGus violence againft their Superiors ? and to fubjed Husbands and Parents to the tyranny of their inferiors ? It was not Gods mind in this Text to allow equal priviledge to iflfe- riors, ading undutifully toward their fuperiors , and to thefe who ad dutifully ; and although exprefs diftinftion of this \s not made here in this Law it felfjet by comparing it with other parts of Gods Word, which guards the honour of Superiors ; a diftindion muft be grant- ed,as when the Apoftle ?aul % Tit t 2. p. bids Titus exhort Servants to he obedient to their own M^flers % And to pienfe them Vreli in *&thi»gr 9 If Ore (hould fay, Lex non diftixguit ; Ergo,»0« eft- diftiniuendum, or thatServants fhould absolutely pleafe theirMafters in every thing with- out exception , becaufe the word there beareth no exception , he were tooabfard j becaufe,elfewherc God$Word>as wsll as the light and law o£ (152; ofniturc, limits the generality of that obedience • it is even fo in this cafe. The Apolog. is highly injurious to Superiors , and too much favoureth the undiuifulncfs of inferiors to them, while he aflerts, that whatever violence be fifed upon Superiors J 'or extorting their con- fentyjet that confent mufl be tin irrevocable confirmation of the inferi- or* vqVp ; and he is abfurd in faying,^** if 4 forced Oath mnft obliege, the matter being lawful , much more a confent to an Oath, mufi ft and though extorted with fear, pag. 268. For it is manifeft,that the obligation of a confent , is not 10 binding as an obligation of an Oath • for the obligation of an Oath, concerning matters lavvful,however ob- tained by fear, or fraud, or force, it ftands obJieging ; but a confent fo obtained, may be revoked. It is too much undervaluing the band of in Oath, to fay,<* meer confent forced \is much more binding then a forced Oath, Is confent to an Acl: of Parliament more binding, then when the very matter of the A& is fwornto? Or, isaraansmeerconfenting to give his daughter to a fuiter, more binding, then when he gave his Oath to that purpofe ? thzApolog. is worthy to be hifTcd at,for fuch dictates. 12. ltisanunpleafingbufinefs, to refleel upon the ufage which the Kings Majefty who now Reignethhad, untill he gave his confent to the Covenant ; whatever was the guiltinefs of a prevailing party, yec fuch things are not to be looked upon as National (tains, the purgation being (efficiently made by the late Parliament. If fome had banifhed him and deprived him of all his worldly comforts , others kept him in that condition, till they might drive him to their mind; and it may be a queftion, whether he that drives a man into a water , or be that holds him in and keeps him down into it, be mod acceffory to his hard condition and danger of drowning ? Some , whom this man now when they are under the hatches , calls Covenant -breakers , though when they were flouri(hing, were his and the parties dear Brethering, cleanly Saints, upon whom no foul finger of a Malignant ( as faithful Countrey~men were called) might be crooked, nor any oppoluion made to them by fuch , no not in defence of their Countrey, Inheri- tances, their Wives and Children 5 and to whom offers were made in writ , that the feet of the Saints [hould be wafied, if fo be they might be import ertd over their bretherine; Some I fay , did murtfrer the late King of blelTed memory, when others had put him in their hands, hiving fled in to them for protection's a chafed Partridge,without fuf- flcient fecurity to his Perfon and Honour : Some thruft out the prefent King, others barred him out, revolving to continue his deprivation of Uto) his Crown," and all his earthly comforts , untill they had their will in the matter of Epifcopacy, as if all Religion depended on that as the main hinge; which of the two is molt guilty? As for the bringing home of his Majefty to Scotland^ which this man imputes to the con- ference of the Covenant moving thereunto ; it is really believed , thac the people of Scotland had fo much fenfe of their duty and love to the Kirgi that had the Covenant never been in remm natura, they would have brought him home with more freedom, honour and faftty, then he had at his coming; but it is very difputable , if confciencc of the Covenant influenced his home-bringing ( as te fome of the main actors therein,) or if the fears of a riling party, pearking up above the intercfts of great ones , and aiming at a Common- wealth model, without King and houfe of Lords, as Oliver had exemplified in Eng- U*d 9 did moft influence the councils of bringing him home ; theie great interells not being poffible to be falved and fetled without the fame : But it is too well known, that Minifters and others,who would be efteemed chief Covenanters , were impatient to hear of his home coming upon any terms ; and therefore, in word ard writ> poured out reproaches upon thefe who were imployed in Holland to tranfact that bulinefs, as men defer ted of God, for coming to any dofe with the Kings Majefty. As to the Apolog, ill language to the Author of ' the C*/*, calling him a ftiamelefs man,becaufe he bad faid,that the Co- venant was carryed on, as if the defign had. been laid to e.xtirpat Spif- cofacY, whether the King would or not , and Whatever courfe fhottli be ttken to obtain his confent vi & armis ; a thing fo notour, that he muft needs be fuperlatively impudent that will deny it, there being fuch clear Comentaries upon the defign of the Covenant , in violent actings againft the King prefently following , and to which people were preffed , upon the account of the Covenant, as being thereto oblieged by it : and although before the folemn Covenint,Prelacy was out in Sc&t land; yet, will this man fay, that the defign of the folemn Covenant was not fo laid,as to carry the extirpation of. Prelacy \nScot- Undjti & armis ; and whether the King would or not, if it ihould be reftored ? And as it is now in the prefent ftate of arTiirs,it is eafily be- lieved , that this man and his party do account themfelves bound now by theCovenant,to extirpat Prelacy inScotUnd t vi & armts^txi whe- ther the King will or not : and he is a very (hamelefs man, if he afiere the contray. But the Apology will juftifie the fufpenfion of the King, from theexercifeof his royal power, untill he took the Covenants j albeit his friend?, Timorcus 3nd Crofton } who were well enough in, 5 formcj (iJ4) formed of the proceedings in Scotland, did declare againfl the unduti- ful dealing ufed toward him at that time. That there is any Law of Scotland, allowing the fufpenfion of our Kings from the exercife of royal authority, until! they had fubfcribed the two Covenants , is moft untrue; for albeit, Parliament i. Ad 8. James 6. there palled an Acl, when King James was in his Cradle, ( not ironing the J{ing % as he faith, for the Ad paffeth in the Kings own name, with the ad- vice of his Regent and Parliament, and it is abfurd to fay, the King en- joyned himftlf ) Bearing,f£<*f Kings and Princes in this Realm, Ibould at their Coronation (wear to maintain the true Religion of Qhrifi Jefus^nd govern the people according to the Allowable Laws t &c. But that there is any certification in the Ad,for their fufpenfion of the exer- cife of royal Govcrnment,untill they did fc, appears not from the Ad, nor from the after pradlce: King fames the fixth never took that Oath, nor was he therefore debarred from the exercife of his royal Power : KlagCharles the firft did reign eight years adually before he took that Oith (if he did at all take it) The firft pradick of fufpending the King or any thing like that , from the exercife of his royal Power, un- till that Oath were taken, was in King Charles the feconds time; not need we fay more of it , feing the late Parliament hath declaied , that what was done in that kind, was done againfl: Law : But moft firange it is, that the Apolog. fhould affirm, that the other tV?o Oaths impofed upon the King without Law , were not different from that Oath men- tioned in Parliament, i. James 6* It was never conceived by our Kings and Parliaments that Epifcopacy was abjured by that Oath, as it is in the two other • far lefs, that any thing fworn in it , oblieged to the extirpation of Prelacy in England and Ireland^ which is the de- (ign of the Solemn League and Covenant : nor cannot be with any (hew of truth aflerted , that King Charles the firft, if he took that Oath mentioned in the ParIiamenr,oblieged himfelf to extirpate Epifco- pacy out of all his Dominions : Princes are in a very hard taking* when fuch men as this will take on them to ovcrftreach their Oaths beyond their words and mind ; and although that Oath enaded in Parliament, doth import a fwearing to rule us aecording to our own lowable Laws; yet, that could not lay a band upon the Kingj for taking the Solemn League and Covenant, aoent which no Law had as yet paft • for, the meetings of Parliament, without the Kings authority, though they had been lawfu!,as now they are declared to be nulI,could make no Law by themfdves to obliege the Subjeds,let be to obliege the King,efpecially in reference to his other Kingdoms : There was no Law * nor any war- rand f 155 ; rand at all to impofe upon the King any Oath,that fuch and fuch Laws (hould be unalterable,otr:erwife to debarhim from bis right,if he would not enflave his confcience to their wiU;y ea,ii may be faid,that thefe po- fterior aditional Oaths impofed on him , did contradict the Oath men- tioned in the Ad of Parliament : for, therein our Kings areoblieged, to pre ferve and maintain tJse jufi rights and priviledges of the Crown of Scotland, and not to transfer ana alienate the fame ; and if the fufter- ing of Subjects to impofe new Oaths upon him , do no way hurt the priviledges of the Crown , and alienate the fame to Sub je&s, who had no calling for doing fuch matters , it is left to the wife to be con* fideredof, and were to be wifhcd , that inftruments of fuch irregular actions and impofitions upon the Prince, might have no lefs refentment of their wayes, then it is believed, his Majefty hath of his condefcenti- ons: It is a clear cafe , that an Oath contrary to former lawful en- gagements, lofseth its oblieging power. 13. As it is certain, that the Law, Numb. 30. 4. is partly moral, viz. in fo far as concerns the power of Superiors over their inferiors, and the duty of inferiors to their Superiors 5 yet , it is as certain, that it is not purely moral, but mixtly judicial and moral, there being fomethings in it which are not juris naturalises there be other things that are : ex.g. That the Superior (hould in the very fame day that he heareth of the inferiors voVr, teftifie hie difftnt ; that the Oath is confirmed bj the fitence of the Superior , that fame day of his hearing it • That a confent once given , cannot upon moft reafiftable grounds be afterward revoked* that no further time of ''deliberation Was granted to him y but that fame day that he heareth of the vow. Who can fay, that thefe are the dictates of the Law of Nature ? If a Huf- band or Parent, hear of the vows of their inferiors , at the difhnce of many miles from him , and it being morally impoflible to tefiifie his duTent that fame day that he heareth of the vow, (hall it be therefore confirmed } Or, doth Natures Law teach this ? If the Supe- rior (hall in the edge of the evening of that day , wherein he heard his inferiors vows, bdng under fome diftemper, perhaps through drink ( which yet is not at that height to take away the ufe of reafou) con- tent under a furprifal to the vows of his inferiors ; fhould this be an irrevocable confirmation of the vdws » were they never fo prejudi- cial or deftru&ivcto the family? Doth the light andhw of Nature teach this , thar, if the inferior {hould violently (top the mouth of the fuperior,and fo make him (i!ent,or if he (hould morally force his filence, this filence muft irrevocably confirm the vow.? This Law certainly, as X a many (156) many others,is neither meerly moral nor meerly judicial, but is mixt of both, God leaving-it to the fpiritual difcerning of his people , to try by comparing Scripture with Scripture, what is of perpetual and moral equity, and what not j and fo it is an error both in the Apolog. to hold forth that Law as mecrly moral^g. 370, and in the Author of Naph» to call it ?neerly judicial, pag. di. where any may fee thefe two Wit- nefles by the ears contr adicling one another , and both of them lofing the truth ; although Tfypht. ftrayeth moft from it, in denying the ar- gument taken from analogy betwixt Domcfticks and other Superiors, which the Learned with full confent grant to be valid. 14. It U worthy to be enquired, if in any cafe the inferior or fubjeft canbeloofed from an oath made by him, concerning matters within the power of the Superior, by the Superior's retracing his confenr, he having alfo fworn the very fame thing which the inferior hath fworn: As, ex.g. a Daughter fwears to marry fuch a Suiter, the Father once contents, yea,and fwears he will give his Daughter to fuch a Suiter •, whether can he in any caferetracl his confent ? or if he doth retract ir, doth not this loofe the oath of the inferior ? The Writer of the C*/> did in a word touch this , in reference to Magiftrates and Subjects ; affertingj that if the Magiftrat's oath were not loofed upon good grounds » he having fworn the fame thing which- the Subject did, his confent would prove an irrevocable confirmation of the Subjects oath. Hereupon, the Apohg. after the manner of his pa^ty,behaveth himfelf infolently, inviting his friends to come and laugh with him for the advantage he hath gotten, and, faith, 2Vj>» the Writer had yielded ally and had made art ominous (tumble in the tbre(hold % andfent away this Cafe toitb fbame. But , whoever rightly confiders will fee , that he is but fingiog the fools triumph before the victory 1 his laughter wherein he would have his friends to fhare, is but like the fools laugh- ter, crdekiings of thorns under apt , or a riftts fardonius ; which if he had fenfe he would fpire, and rather weep over the cruflbed head of his craifie caufe ; for , what the Writer faid , fubfifts upon good grounds againft all his weak affaults , and giveth no advantage to him or the caufe he pleads for, when he faid,That the Superiors confent was not revocable,he fwearing the fame thing that the inferior did ; unlefs there were forae clear ground of looting the obligation of the Supe- rior's oath. Did not this import, that if there were clear grounds for this, the confent might be revoked, and fo the inferior's vow be not binding? And although the Writer was modeftly fliy in fearching thefe grounds whereupon Superiors do find themfelves Joofed from that (NS7) that oath; it being the concernment of Subjects rather, to confider whether matters are in their power or not , and whether they at pre- fent dilTent from their engagements, giving charity to them that they a 61 as men of confeience fearing God , in fuch grave matters j yet , as he doubts not there may be good grounds for Superiors to find thero- feives Ioofed from the bond of that oath, whether the unlawfulnefs of the matter thereof , ( though not perceived perhaps by Subjects ) or difcerned contrariety to former lawful engagements , or grievous inex- pediences and hindrances of grcateft duties refulting , or fome fenfe of contrariety of the engagements to a mans calling, or fome injurious effects upon others , befides what other things in their own deeper judgements are fatisfying in that matter. So he thinketh , Subjects are not bound to pry into thefe things , or to call the Magiftrate before their bar for his actings , wherein he is accountable to God and not to them; but, it is material for them to confider if the thing be in his power,and if at prefent he hath declared his authoritative difient from their way. In the mean time, though Subjects m3y obey prefent Laws that are in the matter of them warrantable ; yer, if without raoft ma- ture and wife deliberation and great cogency of found reafon, there be a defulcorious levity or profane playmg with oaths , either (baking them oft or retracting confent to them, the guiltinefs is very grievous. Thus we dofe the firft cafe, wherein the Apolog* is but like clouds and wind without rain, boafting of his advantage as a conqueror in his own conceit. But , we pafle on to the fecond ground laid down by the Author of the Seafonable C*ft y ZQ (hew that the obligation of the oith of the Cc- yenants,as to Epifcopacy,ceafeth ; which was ih\s } Tbat frben #n cath $ lawful to be tal^en , becometh unlawful to be kept tipon feme emergent cccafions of providence, then the ft Ate of the mutter being fo far alter- ed , that ^9 hat V?*s lawfully promi[ed cannot be lawfully performed, kecaufe of thefe new emergencies ; then the obligation of the oath ceafeth f and it is not perjury not to do what bas under oath promt fed to be done. Rex non permanet in eodem fiatu (fay the Cafuifts) idee cejjat juramenti oblieatio. Amef. caf. confe. lib. 4. p3g. 203. Be rebus it amutabilibus nt rem premijfam faciant illicitam fubintel* ligitur in juramento , fi res permanferint inccdemftatu* And as to the matter in hand, whatever lawfulnefs there might be in the oath againft Epiicopacy ; yet now, when the King, under whofe power the difpofing and ordering thereof is (as hath been all alongs fuppofed on all hands in this difpute ) bath by bis Law determined for it > and w.a (US) wc being obiieged to keep bis Laws in matters not againft Gods will, and not bring able to crofs the lame without fin , it is now become un- hwftil to perform the oath, a contrariety refulting betwixt it and the Magiftrat's jufl Law , which by Yertue of Gods Law we are bound to obey. Againft this , the Apolog, replyeth in nine or ten particulars, which (hall be briefly taken off by the following confederations. i. That whether he will grant or not, that Epifcopacy is a matter of indiflkrencyor chriftian liberty, determinable by the Magiftrat's Laws $ yer,as it will be found upon examination, that his grounds are too weak to prove it unla wful, So it is certain,that the mod part of the fcruplers in Scotland did ftick at the oath,and not at the known unlaw- fulnefs of the thing in it felf: and with thefe did the writer of the Cafe reafon the indirferency of Hpifcopacy as to the matter of it , being fuppofed , as all alongs alfo the Apol. is content to difpute upon that fuppofaU 2. The matter of a promiflbry oath may be either res pracepta , a thing ocherwayes commanded, or res nonpracepta & adiaphora, a thing nor commanded or of an indifferent nature : duties commanded may be fworn to fix our light and inconftant hearts , that they do not fo readily ftart away from their duty,ind according to the nature of thq duty .being commanded of God for ever,fo is the oath perpetually bind- ing upon the confeience, as a voluntary band fuperadded to Gods com- mand : but when matters are of an indifferent nature , and at feveral times there may be expediencies or inexpediencies of ufing thefe indif- ferent things varying according to circumftanccs , Chriftiarw are not to intangle themfelves in oaths of that nature, with intention of per- petual obligations in all circuraftances , or whatever might be the fu- ture expediency of things which are for prefent inexpedient. Though an oath made againft things indifferent , when they are found inex- pedient , may be good and lawful, yea and binding during that in- expediency ; yet, that it rtiall be perpetually binding in the cafe of ceafingof the inexpediency, and of greater inexpediencies refulting by performing the oath then otherwayes,cannot be granted. By this it may be eafily feen, how injurious the Apolog, is to the Writer of the Cafe i afTerting, that he labours to baniftj out of the X¥*r Id, that part of religions Worfkip to god, Which ft ands in reverend [wearing by hi* 2^ame: For, as he never thought nor wrote , that oaths concerning necetfary duties were needlefs, or that oaths about things indifferent friould not be made ; So it cannot be gathered from his words by any tolerable confequence , though this man that makei lies his refuge, ivould labour to bind it upon him. 3. As 3. As it cannot be &d y that no oath binds Which is ag&inft the Laves of the Land ( a thing falfely imputed by the Apolog, to the Writer of the Cafe ) So ic is true, that fome oaths which are againft the Laws of the Land do not bind , becaufe noae can be bound by any oath to difobey the Magiftrace in that which God hath given him power ro command j for, fo the oath fhould be vinculum iniquitatis. It is true , where a man hath tyed himfelf by oath agaipft civil Laws which are meerly penal, not direftly preceptive, he may be bound by his oath, only he muft fubmit to the penalty ; as if a man had fvvorn never to be aMagiftrate in fuch a Corporation whereof he is a Member, where- as there is a Law, that whoever refufes , (hall pay an hundred pound?, he ought to keep his oath , and by paying the penalty he filly fatisfieth the Law , and is not guilty of any finful difobedience in not taking on the Magiftracy. For, where there is no precept, as here it is fuppofed there is none,there can be no tranfgreition s but, when the Ltw is not purely penal , but diretllj preceptive of duty , no mans oath can bind him up from doing what the Magiftrace commands, if h be lawful. Ndther ihould any man think, that he either fully fatisfieth the Law by undergoing the penalty, or can fatisfie his own confeience anent his unreafonable difobedience to the preceptive power of the Law,though he pay the penalty ; for, the proper and genuine end of the Law is not the puniihment, but the obedience of the Subject. Timorcus himfelf confeffeth, cap, 6. par, 28 that it mud be granted, that in/ome cafes , oaths again ft civil Laws muft be made void* } and he muft mean of oaths anent things of an indifterent nature: for, if the matters be r.e- cetfary and commanded, the oath concerning them, though contrary to civil Laws,can never be made void ; and if matters ofr the oath be un- lawful, itisabfurdto i'ay, that in [ome cafes fuch oaths again!* civil Laws muft be made void ; for, in all cafes thefe oaths are void, whe- ther civil Laws areagainft them or not i Yea, further he faith,^?£. 30. an oath taken agair.fi humane Laws % which necejjariij tend to the pre- fervation of Government and tranquility of the civil State % is forth' Twith void, Now,in application to the prefent raatter,our Law- giver, and Governors to whom the judgement of what is for tranquility of the ciril State belongs , have judged Epifcopacy needful for the fame, and made Laws for it ; therefore, any oath contrary to ir, muft upon Timorcus ground be made void* 4. It is in vain for the Apolog, to think to put us off with bare if- fertions,that the Laws for Epifcopacy are unwholfome, as he fpeaketh, or that the contrary Laws were wholfome, and therefore that the oath againft (i66) 9gai.,ft Epifcopacy (hould (land : for the late Parliament,havifig judged the Laws for Epifcopacy to be wholefome, and the contrary not fo ; we muft therein acquiefce , untill fubftantial grounds be produced, for difproving their judgement, which will be done ad Calendar 5 . Though a Zand to cafi loofe all Oaths % becaufe, as he faith, by this means when a man hath fworn to his own hurt 9 who would be gladly rid of his Oath t he hath no more to do, but acquaint the Superior , and he will make a Law to the contrary , and fo is at liberty - y But certainly, the Apolog. over*Ia(hes, in imagining that the Writer of the C*/* had faid, that by a fubfequent La vv, all Oaths might be loofed, which as he is far from thinking of, fo it were too much ignorance in the Apolog. to affert , that no lawful promif- fory Oath, can be loofed or become riot oblieging , through any oc- currence in divine Providence or in humane Laws ; it is too grofs a tenet, though it be held out to tfieundifcerning vulgars, that, whom- ever promi/es and [wears to do a thing, he is in all cafes perjured , if he do it not : Bur, the man had very bafe thoughts of Law-givers and Magiftrates, to fuppofe thern ( in the inftance he givesj fo complyant with the cortupt purpofes of private men , who had rafhly fworn to their own hurt, that they (hould for their defire, frame their Laws to their will, upondefignof looting them from their rafli Oath , which is to their hurt : this is the Apolog. rare notion, whereof all ages can fcarce furnith one inftance. Magiftrates in making Law c ,are to be pre- fumed todefign pubJick good , not the eafe of private perfons, who by their rafhnefs have intangled and hurt tbcmfelves ; it is the publick good which is only regardableby the Msgiftrate, in his Law-deter* m/nacions temporal hurt is not to be refpe&ed, as to the effect of loofing looting an Oath, P[*l*i i?» and in application to the matter in debate, the competition is not to be ilated between our hurt and the keeping of our Oath, but between our duty in keeping our particular Oath , in matters fubjecT: to the power of tbeMagiftrate, ( when his determination proves contrary to our Oath) and our duty to the Magistrate, Gods vice-gerent, whom he hath commanded us to obey in things that he hath put in his power to enjoyn, to whom alfo antecedently to any particular Oath in other matters we havefworn alledgiance and obedience : and there is better reafon to charge this mans doctrine, as opening a door to all rebellion and difobedienceto Magiftrates, then to charge our doctrine, for opening a door to all per- jury ; for, following his way when ever fubjecls fhal! hear of the Ma- giftrates purpofe of making Laws, were they never fo wholfome, they may engage themfelves in Oath againft thefe Laws, and fo as he thinks, they ftand evermore bound to difobey him in his moft juft Laws ; whoever will thus abufe Oaths to cloak rebellion, or to delude Gods ordinance of Magiftracy , and difappoint the honeft intentions of Rul • ers in Government , would remember, that God will not be thus mocked: As for Doctor Sanderfons Teftimony f Preletl. 3. 16* wherein be feems to fay, that an Oxth, wherein the matter of a ftatute is exprejlj [worn to , mttft ftand valid , though the ftatute here- moved, which this man fayes, is enough for the Covenanters : In the firftpart of chat fentence, that reverend perfen is point blank againft the Apology for, he will have the obligation of an Oathtoceafe, (meaning of things of an indifferent nature) when the ftatute was ab- rogate • whereas, this man will have no abrogation of a ftatute, con- trary to an Oath formerly taken > to be of power to caufe the obli- gation of the oath to ceafe. And as for the fecond part of the Doctor's words, which he takes hold of, mlefs the very thing contained in the oath be [worn to exprefy , firft he maketh the DoSor's words non-fenfe,and cites them falfely , for what fenfe can that have, unlefs the matter contained in the Oath, be [worn to exprejlj } Is there any thing contained in an oath.that is not fworn to exprefly ? Bur, he fhould have faid, unlefs the thing contained in the ftatute, be fVtom to exprejlj , in that cafe that Doclor faith , though the ftatute be removed,yettnc obligation of the oath remainech. But, it would be considered, how well it confifts with Government , that a ftatute removed, and a contrary ftatute eftabliQied, any private member of the Society or the Community ,ftiould notwithstanding, account hirn- felf bound by oath to tbe matter of the abrogated ftatute: This feems Y to to be againft the hypothefis of the non-obligation of an Oath, in mat- ters under the power of the Supetiour, where they teftifie their dif- fent. $. This whole difpute being concerning the obligation of the oaths of fubjeds,fcrupling at obedience to their Legiflators, it was im- pertinent for the Apoiog. to trinflate the matter to the Legiflators, and to pofe the writer of the Cafe, anent an open door i by Vehtch King and Parliament may efcape per jury : The Writer of the Cafe thought it not his concernment, to feareh much into the Legiflators motives in his actions, but to feareh into the (ubjecls duty in that juncture ; the Legiflator may have his own weighty reafons of his actions, which concerns not us to know , for doing our duty: If the difcerning of the unlawfulnefs of Epifcopacy in it felf , or the uniawfulnefs of an oath, perpetually oblieging againft it, whatever expediency orcon- veniency (hould be found thereof , for the peace of the Church or Kingdom, the matter it felf being alwayes fuppofed of an indifferent nature, or if any other warrantable motive prevailed with them, to do as they did j yet the matter in it felf being fuppofed lawful , and the Powers being Judges of the expediency or inexpediency of owning the fame, having alfo enacted it as the moft expedient , private fubjeds are upon the knowledge of the non- repugnancy of the matter in it felf to GodsWord,to acquiefce upon their determination. 6. It is a piece of wild Doctrine to teach , that not only oaths an- tecedent to 4 Law, and contrary to a matter thereof \do obliege againft a Law j but alfo that oaths again f aftanding L*W,for endeavouring a fubverfion thereof are lawful, and doe ob Hedge , if the Law be but griveous and burdenfome^and the obedience thereto not ftnfuL What a civil Government fhould we have, if fuch doctrines were reduced to practice? This man counts it an innocent matttr,for private fubjects to combine in an oath for fubverfion of the Laws, if but griveous and burdenfome,though the obedience thereof be not finful : neither fatif- fiethit,that he faith, Apolog. pag. 374. That fuch oaths for endea- vouring the fubverfion of the Law , are not againft the Law properly, and that the dominion of Superiors , is fufficiently referved to them, notwhhftanding thefubjetls combining by oath, according to their power tofubvert the Law : Are not endeavours to deftroy a man, againft a man ? How then fhould not endeavours to deftroy a law, not be againft a law > And how can it be, that a Migiftrat's right, is or (hall be referved to him , when his fubjects combine by oath , to fub- yert his Laws, will hg or will he not ? Although they fay, that they are . (*3) are only fworn to endeavour in their places and callings to do h • yet, that does not at all referve or guard tAe dominion of Superiors, for when their combinations are growa to ftrength , they will look upon that qualification! only as a bond to keep them in order amongft themfelves: in the mean time, all and every #ne will think it thtir place and calling, by any means to force the Magiftrate from owning his Laws ; Experience doth abundantly prove thi? f with whatever no- tions men pleafe themfelves or deceive others. 7. The cafe prepofed and refolved by theCafuifts, v/* fl that the obligation of an oath ceafes, qvando res non permanet in eodem (iaiu, when the matter, concerning which the oath was made, abideth not in the fame ftate , but there is fuch a change in divine Providence, con- cerning that thing , that what was at firft lawfully prom i fed , can- not afterward be lawfully performed , whereof examples were given by the writter of thtCafei And the Apolog, pag % 374, i s in an er- ror, faying , that the author miflooke the fentence of the C*(uifl$ % when he appljeth it to the furpofe in hand, the fentence was not mifta- ken nor mifapplied to the prefent purpofe ; for, whatever lawfulnefs might be in fwearing againft Epifcopacy , yet when a warrantable Law ftands now againft that oath, fo that it cannot be kept with- out a perpetual fioful difobedience to the Magiftrate , the matter abides not in the fame condition, wherein it was at the making of the oath, and fo the obligation ceafeth ; and, it is no lefs impertinently then untruly faid, that Prelacy Is now the fame when it was firft ab- jured, and no more conveniency in it , then it was feen before : Yea, it appeareth worfe, a deformed, abominable Monfter, a Cockatrice, feeking the deftruclion of all within its reach, and therefore, if than rule of the Cafuifts hold , though we had before fworn to own it, that oath fhould not bind us ; for, whatever he untruly faith of the prefent eftefts of Epifcopacy,yet in regard that now there is Law for ir, the matter remains not in the fame cafe , which was whenas he thinks the Law was againft it ; neither are private fubjecls, judges of the conveniency or inexpediency of it, nor is the determination of that referred to them. What confufion fliould arife , if every private per- fon fhould follow his own apprehenfions, anent conveniency and in- expediency of things , whereupon the Migiftrat's determination hath paft, and accordingly order his practice ? It is enough for private per- fons, that they difcern no repugnancy to the Word of God, in the thing determined by the Magiftrat** Law , wherein if they be well fe- cured,they are to deferre much to the judgement of thefe fee in autho- Y 2 iity (|*4) rity above them,who hive power from God to order things indifferent for the publick good. Bunas for his declamations againft Prelacy, we might pafsthera as words of carnal rage and pailion , not of fober truth and reafon : and were w! pbafed co recorc the accufation, how eafily and upon better ground might that be faij of the Presbytery, which he faith of Epifcopacy ? Large difcourfes might be framed of the mifchiefs flown from it , under which thefe Nuions have fmarted, and for which miy be fatd, although we had been formerly engaged to it,yet the ftate of the matter being fo changed, the obligation to it ceafeth. But thefe things we wave. Finally , it is but a defperate friift for the Apolog.to difpute down this cafe of theceflation of an obligation of an oath,which is acknow- ledged by all Divines,from the oath made by Jofbtta to the Gibeonites, and the oath made by Zedekjab to the King of TSabjlon % which both he faith, behooved toft notwithstanding that after three dayes the deceit was made known, and fo there was a change of the ftate of affairs $ we fay that this comes nor home to invalidate the condition difoblieging from an oath, fires non permanferit in eodsmftatu ; for, there is no fuch change of the eftate of affairs by the difcovery of the deceir,as made the keeping of the oath unlawful,which is the plain fenfe of that cond.tion made ufe of by the Cafuifts : for , neither was there any Law of God againft fwearing to give peace to the Canaanftes who fought it , nor againft keeping of fuch an oath. The Apolog. indeed telleth us, that there Was expre(fe prohibitions to make anj Leagues with th: Ca- naanites t of Which were thefe Gibeonites ^^Exod.23. 32, 33. and, 54. ic. Deut. 7. 2. and, 20 16*. and yet,faith he, againft thti ukilfome Law of God the oath muft bekeeped^ wherein he not only utters an un- truth , but doth after the manner of thefe who are engaged in error e proficere in pejus. For, whereas before he had only maintained, that an oath binds againft the wholfome and warrantable Laws of men, now he maintains, that an oath binds againft the Law of God it feif, which is indeed to make an oath vinculum intquitatis , a bond of ini- quity ; and for this doctrine, he is worthy to be hiflVd out of all Chri- ltian Churches and Schools. As to his alfertion , that it Was unlaw- ful for the people of Goi to ma\^e any Covenant with the C tnaanites • it is true, that it was not lawful for them to make any Covenant of peace with thefe peopIe,unlelle they iubmitted to them to b:come their fervants, and became alfoprofylites to their Religion: and this is all that. that is forbidden in thefe places cited, wherein alwayes this is mention- ed , left fuch Covenants nvght be a fnare to them to make them ferve the gods of the Canaanites , and to do after the abominations which they had done to their gods, fee 8xod. 23.32, 33«and, £.v04. 34. 12, 13,14,15. and, Dent, j, 24. and, T>etit. 20. 16. 18. but when they turned profylites to their Religion , the reafon of that prohibition ceafed: Ic was not forbidden in that cafe of their fubmiflion to the civil Government, and embracing the Religion of the people of God, to make Covenants of peace with them , as is manifeft from Dent, 20. 10, 1 1. The Ifraelites had a warrant from God , to offer peace to alt the Canaanices that wouidfubmit to them, and to fpair thera ; for, this Calvin (peaks plainly upon the 9. of ^o(b. and Junim upon the fame place, and, 20.ofD*#r. 10, 11. Of this fort of them that fought peace and fubmitted to the people of God, were the Gibeonites, with whom it was lawful to covenant to give them peace upon the terras of civil and religious fub/e&ion to the People and Church of God, which they gave, as may be feen, Jofr. 9. 8. 15. 23. ly. where they become Servants to the people of God , and are admitted to low fer- vices about the Houfe of God , which prlviledges had not been given them , had they not been converted to the Lord. See to this purpofe ^Diodate upon the 1 King, 9. 20, 21. And others of the Canaanites had the fame favour of Solomon in his beft times , 1 of the King 9. 20,21. 2Cb,on t $.y>S; whereupon they arc called the fervarts of Solomon, Ezra 2. 55.58. Kljhem. n. 3. and thefe are the Nethi- nims mentioned fo ofc in the Book of T^hem. and 8zra i who though they were not of the children of I/rael, but of the Canaanites, yet were given and dedicated to the fervice of God, at his Temple, ftp3iate in themfelves to the Law of Go;* , 2{jhem. 10. 28. Thefe were the Gibeonites and fome fuch others of the Canaanites converted to the Lore 1 , and counted amongft the Ifraelitilh profylites. By all this ic may appear,that Jojhu&'t 01th and the Princes was not upon the matter of itagainftany Lav of God; it was an oath for the matter of it law- ful ard oblieging^notwithftanding of the deceit ufed by the Gibeonites*. And the Apolog. fpeaketh vainly when he faith, That , if the writel ft and to hu principtct, he mttjt condemn Joftma in k e€ P^g t^at oath % is no fuch matter.: he ftands to his principles, and juftificth fofbua for keeping that 03th , it being concerning a thing nowhere forbidden in the Word of God s and there being no new emergent which rendred the performance of the oath unlawful; the difcovered deceitfubefs of the Gibionites could not do this ; But if it be true whkh the ApoL faiths (166) faith i that the oath "toot materially againft a particular command of god , he mud needs cundemn fo/hna for not fwearing in righteoufnefs, and for adding fin to fin in keeping an unlawful oath j and he-muft ju- iblieW, who fome hundreds of years.after did break it (ashefup- pofethj But, to [ ut this to a clofe , how abfurd is the naans opinion in faying, th*t an o*th mttft be kept againft a Lawcf (jod, and that the Law and Comm Ana of Cjod only binds the conference fo far t as 7»ight be obeyed without any breach of the moral Law concerning keeping an oaih ? It is a moll ftrange and abominable afiertion , that the moral Law of God anent keeping oaths , doth bind to keep them againft any Command of God : Call it particular command or gene* ral,or what he will, where is that command of God , that an oath fhould be kept againft any of his particular commands ? Can it be, that Gods mora) Law binds to a difobedience to any of his particular Commands? Doth not the firft command of the Law injoyn an ab- folute fubmiflion and fubjecTion of the confeience to him in all his Laws whatfoever? Abraham received a particular command from God concerning offering his Son lfaac • now, if he had fworn thac he would not do that thing, whether fhould the oath bind him againft the particular command , or the particular command againft the oath ? Surely any rational man will confent to the latter of thefe two. Again, the Jews had a particular command to he circuracifed to eat the Pafs- over; now , if a Jew had fworn againft thefe things, who would fay that his oath did rather obliege him againft the command, then the command againft the oath ? Let the Apolog. anfwer thefe things , if he can, and let him learn , that no mans oath can bind him againft any whatfoever ftanding Law of God : nor is there any evidence in the inftance we have in hand, that there was any difpenfing with any Law chat the oath might ftand. As for Rachabs cafe which he toucheth,the matter is plain.the oath made to her being a believing Canaanite, was both lawful and binding. Now for Zedekiahs oath, which, he faith, V* as taken again ji the fun- damental Laws *f the Land, that the Kingdom might be bafe , Ezek. 17. 14. and yet the oath behoved to be kept againft thefe fundamental Laws. Surely, as the man is a very loyal Subject to the King, fo he appears no lefs good Countrey- man , who faith, that a King iwearing againft the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, yet his oath muft ftand, as Zedekjah flood bound by his oath to the King of Babylon* Herein he (hall be oppofed , For, if any King (hould fwear to enflave his people to another, and to deftroy their fundamental priviledgey, making ( 167 ) making the Nation a bafe tributary Province to another Kingdom , fce is not bound to keep that oath, no more then a Parent is bound to keep his oatb, when he hath fworn away all the intereft he hath in his Chil- dren, or by oath difclaimed his duty co them, or their intereft in, and duty to him; fuch oaths are to be repented of, and not kept , unleffe God by fome extraordinary command interpofe ; which was the cafe of ZedeViab ; God had declared by his holy Prophets, that it was his mind and will that Zedelejah and his people (hould ferve the King of Tabylon, fhould fubmit and not defend themfelves againft him ; it was Gods mind,that Zedekjah fliould be a homager and tributary King under the King of Babylon ; and thus he might bot-i lawfully fwear homage, and was obliegcd to keep the oath, God having expreffy com- manded by his Prophets fubmiflion and non-refifhnce to the King of Babylon; fee Jer. 27. <5,7>8,p. 12. Jer. 38. 17. 20, 21. The God of heaven being abfolute Soveraign of all Kings and Kingdoms, dif- pofing of them as he pleafeth , may lay his commands extraordinarily upon any King of earth to fubmit to an ufurper, to promife him feal- ty and obedience under oath » which he is bound to keep, though it (hould be to the embafing of the Kingdom, for their fins. This was Zedekjahs cafe , but this can be no ground for an ordinary rule : If a King ordinarily fwear away the fundamental priviledges of his King- dom,to make it and himfelf bafe and tributary to an ufurper, to whom God commands not fubmiffion, the oath were neither honeft nor ob- lieging. Zede^iah was bound to be faithful to the King that made him King, z King. 24. S*>tk* 17. 16* nor was it lawful for him to make reliftance to the ufurper , after God had declared his mind ; but this can be no ordinary rule for Kings , in reference to ufurpers. Thus we have done with the fecond cafe, and the affauks of the ApoU are found vain and frivolous. The third and laft cafe, wherein the Writer faid, an oath ceafeth to obliege, was, when the fulfilling of the oath, was impeditive of a greater good, effecially of a greater good wbereunto we are antece* dently to the oath preoblieged , and fo the obfervation of this oatb againfi Spifcopacy , proving really impeditive of a greater good 9 to which former obligations do tye us , viz. dutiful obedience to the King in things lawful , prof ervat ion of publicl^peace , ana avoiding the herrid confufions of fchifme and fedition , Mintfiers following their duties in their callings, to which they were preoblieged before any engagement againfl Spifcopacy , we have reafon to account the obligation thereof info far to ceafe 9 The Apolog, makes reply to this third < 1*8 ) third cafe in feveral pirticuIars,ro which we oppofe thefe animadverti- ons, it He bad no reafon to carry himfelf fo infolently as he doth, be- cause, that the writer. of the £'<*/>, proceeds upon the fuppoficion of the indirTerency and lawfulnefs of Epifcopacy ; for he did all along profefs his dealing with the Scruplers again!* Epifcopacy , was only upon the ground of the Covenant, which they pleaded, having no real grounds otherwife for oppoling it. Of this fort,as he was perfwaded, that the mod of the Scruplers of Scotland were,who did fee no ground in the Word of God againft the lawfulaefs of Epifcopacy; fo, it (hill afterward appear, that there is no real ground againft it ,and if we can prove it is not forbidden ; and the Apolog, will concede that it is not commanded , what {hail be faid, but that it is of an indifferent nature > 2. The ApoL (hews bis ignorance, in difputing againft the Cafe cf impeditivenefs of greater good, by the performance of an oath, caufing the faid oath not to be oblieging , and his arguments are piti- ful weak, as if this opened a door to all perjury , jea i to the breach of the oath of ASed glance, and he falfely aiferts , that the Writer of the Cafe had confeffed, that by this means, a wide gape is opened to all perjury. He is both ignorant and bold, to endeavour todifputc down that cafe of thcnotobliegingof an oath, which ail judicious Cafuifts , popifh and protectant do acknowledge , with reftriclions more or lefs, and few of them with fo great reftri&ion, as the Writer of the C<*/irhadput: neither do they think , that info doing they open a door of ioofing men of all their oaths and vows ; See 3 Tho, 24, 2*« qneft t 8p. art. j, ad im. Sftitu in fenten. lib. 3. pag, 16* 5« Rivet in decalog. pag. 106. Amef, caf* conf lib. 4. jag, 2£i Prof, Leyd, pag. joot Zanch. in 3. preceft y pag, 6^7* yea, Timor cus himfelf \ cap. 10. acknowledges the ground to be good, and that there is no danger in granting this principle, all the matter lies in the application thereof. The Apolog, over-hihes, where he faith, that this ground opens a door to any man , to loo [e himfelf from any oath and vow whatfoever'; for, at the raoft,it can but clear a man to be loofed from an oath , the keeping whereof, proves to him an obftacle of that which is clearly a greater good , and whereunto he was preoblieged. He (hews himfelf to be among the number of thefe,that makes lies their refuge, while he affirmeth, that thr Wri- ter of the Cafe confetfed, that by means of this ground, a dwrwas tpened to all per jury , he neither thought nor faid fo of the ground, eipecialiy , as it is guarded and rcftricled by him, albeit he found ft ( 169 ) it hecefl'ary to give warning, left under pretence thereof, a gap might be opened to perjury , or to mens looting them felves from their oaths at their pleafure,and itill he chinks, that in faticklifh and tender a cafe of the loofing of an oath, on the ground of impeditwenefs ef greater oood, tl ere is need of great caution. Such a one, who would judge himfelf discharged of his oath on that groand, had need to be much in prayer to God, that he may dired him to what is right in his eyes, to fave him from being Jed by his own corrupt apprthenfions and lufts, to feek a loofing from his oath , under pretence of refpeds to greater jerviceablenefs to God ; he had need to be much in conference of godly men, able torefoivehim, what is raoft acceptable to God and conducible to his own falvation; he had need to be very clear, that the good attainable, in not performing his former oath, is indeed a greater good , and to be attained no other way : and, other caveats might be addedibut that which the Writer added,makes the cafe more cafie and clear, if there hath been a preobligation to a greater good, which is hindred by the performance of an oath tiken afterward, efpecially preobligation by oath , this makes the following oach -not toobliege. See Ameftus % lib, 4. caf, pag„ 204. Juramentnm pofie* rius contra juramemum , aui etiam prow/f/onem antecedentemho- nefiamnonobiigat ; and in the fame place he adds, ft jur amentum impediat m*]us bonum, quod genertlem i*fert obUgationem gens* raliter tanquam exceptio in promijfiane tali jubintelligitur. Rivet in decalog, pag. 116. Cene ft ea qua quii voverat bonaimfediam rxajus bonum cafu. aliquo poteft qms je cohvertere ad id quod efl meltus nan tamenfua ctnjultataKtum confeienttajed eiiam eorum qui de talibtis judicare pofjunt quaftt/t (ententia, And , pag. oo ncn eft lervandum ( faith he; juramentum cujus cxecutio cum publica pace fu^na* ret: So, that ths greater good of dutiful oreJience to the Magift- rate, wherefn he hath power to command 9 and the prefervaticn of publick peace, which in this jundure cannot otherwayes bepreferv- ed,doth take oh 1 the obiieging force of tbe fubjeds oath ^gainfi: Ep fco* pacy,(uppo(ing it in its own nature indifferent And whe reas he faith, that upon this pretence , any man may looje htmfe/f from the oath of jilledgiance, by Pledging that, the keeping thereof 'aid hinder a greater coad % whtch they are b^und by a prior obiigaritn , viz. freeirg- of the £ountrey from opprtffisn and tyranny . here we may fay , Sorex fuoi/idicio, that the man fpeaks out of the abundance of his hearr, what he judges in application to the prefent times ; for both here and in Ntpht, he teaches them who will be deceived, th* t now the Conn* Z trey (: 7 o) trey is full of oppreflion and tyranny , and that therefore the oath of Alledgiance obliegeth not, that the higheft powers may be over- thrown ; yet, fuppofe the ftate of matters were as he imagines (as it is not ) this cafe gives no ground for any to loofe themfelves from the oath of Alledgiance ; honour thy Father and thy Mother, (under which Command , duties to the Prince are comprehended) is the firft and higheft command of the fecond table of the Law ; and dutiesen- joined by that command, are to be preferred to the duties to our Countrey and Countrey-men , in cafe of alledged oppreflion and ty- ranny ) neither can any preobligation to them be fuppofed to import a higher good, then fidelity to the Soveraign , in prtfcrvirg him who is the father of the Countrey, in vvhofc well being, the well being thereof generally doth confut : Who will think, that it is rational for Childrenjxcaufe hardly dealt with by their Parents,therefore to think that this is fufficicnt ground to renounce their Parents and dutiful obedier.ee to them ; or that delivering themfelves from their hard deal- ings, is a duty above all that they owe to their Parents by Gods Law? 3. fofitia had no ground from this ruled cafe, for loofing his oath to the Gibeonites ; for what was that greater good, that was hindred by his keeping the oath ? The Apolog. faith , he was hindred from fulfilling the particular Command God had given to his people , &c. P*g' 376* but we did before clear, that God gave nofuch particular Command to his people, as this man imagines, nor was Jo/buas oath sgainft any particular Command of God ; neither did God difpenfe with any fuch Commander he had given none fuch; and had he given fuch a Command, Jo/hua's not keeping the oath, which is fuppofed to be againft the Command of God, had been no perjury, nor againft the light or law of nature, or the moral Law of God: for, the light and Law of nature and the moral Law, do not teach to keep", but to break fuch oaths as are made againft any Command of God, call it particu- lar or what you will ; becaufe , then fure it is not made in righteouf- nefs, becaufe it is againft Gods will that is the rule of righteoufnefs ; neither is it faid with any ground by him, that the Commandment wat difpenfedwith, that the oath might ftand i becaufe the obeying the Commandment , againft which ]o(hu* had [worn , as he faith, would have given great occafion of blafpheming the Name of the Lord : For as we faid, the oath was not againft any Command , fo, neither was there a difpenfation of any Command ; and if there had been a prohibition to make any Covenants at all with the Canaanites, tvrnc 07"i ) what dirhonour could it be to the holy nsmeofGod, not to allow a raihoath againft his own prohibition? What difhonour could re- dound to him, by hindering them to fulfill an oath dirt&ly agsicft his own Commandment ? ft would rather appear difhonourab!e to the Ma/efty of God , to countenance rafh and unadvifed oa.hs 3gainft any of his Commands, this importing a high dishonour to him, as abfo- iute Soveraign and Commander, to cede in the point of his Soveraign- ty tounadvifed engagements, which his creatures tskc opon them- fcives abuiing his holy Name. Might not Pagans have thus occaflon to blafpheme the name of the Lord, if he ihould difpenfe with his own Commands, for mens rafh engagements againft them ? as if he were fo alterable in his directions, as to be turned about by the rafh and unadvifed oaths of men, ufing, or rather abufing his holy name ? And let the Aoolog, tell us , what difhonour were it to God or to Chrift, ifaChriftianfhould fwear to kill a Pagan , and afterward re- pent of his oath and nor perform it ? And what difhonour then could redound to the name of God, by ^ofhuas [wearing no to deftroy the gibeonites % and afterward repenting , finding that oath contrary to that Luv of God? Can God be dishonoured by keeping any of his own Laws? Mens oath againft any of thefe Laws, falls upon that which is not materia debita \uramcnti , and God is rather honoured in not keeping, then in keeping fuch an Oath. tsfsfor the Apolog. ailedgiancc concerning Zedekiah , that this cafe would have given him liberty , to have loofed him/elf from his oath to the King of Babylon, becaufe keeping his oath kindred him from a greater good) to which he was pre%blxeged t viz. the perjorm* ing his auty to bis Kingdom and Countrey* Concerning the extraordi- narinefs of Zcdekiahs cafe , we have heard before ; God Almighty, having by fpecial revelation, by the mouth of his holy Prophets, com- manded him to fubmit to the King of Bahjlon^ and to give his oath of homage and fidelity to him ; that oath in that cafe, was a fundamental conftitution for upholding that Kingdom', Ezek. 17. 14. that by keeping the Covenant it might fia-d , both he and the people were bound to fubmit to,and ferve that King, not to defend hirofelf againft him ( becaufe, (b was the revealed will of God ; neither was there any preobligation lying upon Zedekiah % to vindicate h : .s Countrey cut of the Babylonians hand againft the Covenant he had made, Gods contrary Command having cut orTall fuch preobl gatiens, and though this man calls the dodrine in this cafe delivered, r>ew cojned divinity, Which frill not pafs rritb tender conferences^ &c. Yet, it is the divi- Z 2 nity (i?0 nicy of moft /udicious Proteftants , who have dated the cafe very ra- tionally , as the Writer doth , and with fome greater latitude and iefs caution. As for his talk of tender confeiences , the Writer truly ho- noured thefe whofe confeiences are indeed fuch ; nor defireth he,that his words may have more weight with them, then Scripture and Rea- fon can enforce * But he fears, that the confeiences which this man counts tender, are by his unfound Doctrines made fc very tough, that under pretence of keeping an oath, they are able to digeft rebellions and infurre&ions againft the powers ordained by God, and are brought to make no more confeience of cutting the throats of their feliovv- Subjefts for the fake of their great Diana, then Herod did of cutting off phn Baptifis head at the deiice of a Strumpet , and that under preter>cc % becaufe of hu oath, 4. The greater good which is hindred by the obfervation of the oath, was by the Writer of the Cafe faid to be obedience to authority in its lawful commands ^ the prefervation of public i^pe ace ^ and (as to Minifters) continuing them in th.ir Minifiry for the edifying of Gods people - Which things Were all impeded (as matters now fiund J by not acknowledging that the oath cea(eth to obliege. It were tedious at any length to follow the poor replyes of the Apolog, pag. 37c** 3 77. 3 7 8. tiutbrkftyyhc toketh foo\i(h\y Whether all be bcund to obey the Magiflrate in all things indifferent ? whereas our queftion is on- ly anent things indifferent , concerning publick Government in Church or State , upon which the M jgtftrat's determ nation may pafs. Ar.d he as vainly enquireth , Whether every Law of the Magi fi rate doth bind the SubjUts confcicnce ? What is that to the purpofe to enquire anent it? though we might return him anfwer>tbat although meer hu- mane Law doth not properly and immediately by it feif obliege the conference of the Subject; yet, God hath given to the Magiftratea power to make warrantable Laws , even concerning things in their na- ture ind fferent,which by the only authority of God himfelf, doth bind the conference of the Subject, in regard of the general charge which God haih given to obey the Magifhate for conscience fake, Rom, 13. 5. A thing may be indifferent in the nature of it, and yet when a command of Authority interveens a determining the matter to one fide, obedience is not indifferent , but falls under a command of God ; and the more conducible thefe humane Laws are totheconfervation of the divine Law, the more do they participate of the nature and force of divine Law. And whereas he faith , that in Lawt concerning in- different things, all that the Sub^H is oblieged to t u paffive obedience, which Which is confifient enough With fubiic^jeace , and hurts no the credit of the Ruler , and is all he faith ncceftarj to be given} Hefhatibe commended for this faying, that psflive fubjection isnecciiar to be given, where active cannot be; but he mult uudy how to reconcile himfelf to his great Mifter, the Author of Lex Rex y who, }ag. 3 1 8. calleth pa (live obediences chimera^ a dream, no Where cornmanaearf God ; and,/>4£. 463- heaverreth , ii is a great untruth tb*t We mu]l befubjtclto Afa^iftrates alliveiy in tktnrs lawful , ardin things unlawful pafiively ; affirming alfo , that it is no ai/honour to ike ma- jeflj of the Ruler to deny pafiivefubjetlionto him When he pum t be fide hid warrant , more then to deny aclive obedience to him When he commands be fide his Warrant, Alfo » he will ftudyhow to reconcile himfelf to Napht. who in that point is clearly contrair to him 5 Yer, this (hall not be yie'ded to him, that all that is required of Subjects in Lawsconcerning fuch pofitive and indifferent things, is piflive ob^di- erce, and that thereby publ.ck peace and the credit of the Ruler is fuf- ficiently preferved ; for, it is untrue chat in thefe. things paflTne obe- dience is all that the Subject may be fa:d to be oblieged to : for , when a Law is obeyable without offence to God, as in matters of an indiffe- rent nature, the primary intention of the fame (it not being purely penal, but preceptive,) is the Subjects active obedience : The Law ob- liegeth primarily to duty , and although a man fuffer the punifhmenr, yet that doth not free him of guiltinefs before God, for refudng obedi- ence to a hum me Law, -not contrariant, but confentaneous to his frill* Neither is the good Magiftrate wholly facisfied by fubrrrffion to pu- oifhment, but rather his heart is grieved by-unreafonablc obftinacy agaihft lawful commands,which ?gainft his chief intention draweth pu- w#iment upon the obftinate. Neither is the honour or credit of the Ruler or the publitk Peace fecured by racer paflive obedience; for, \ fuch as will unreafonably fuffer rather n'or obey , doth hurt the Magi- \ ftrat's honour, in making lmprefiion-upon bis Subjects minds , as if he 1 were a perfecuter and oppreflbr of tender confidences , becaufe he puts them untoifome meafure of trouble, reducing them to their duty : Andif this rend not to the d.iturbance of publick peace,let any judge ; efpeciaily when fuch principles are vented 3 as Lex Rex M pag. 365. &c* that the fin ofnon-refifiance unto Kings by farce , in all cafes fthtrcin, people conceive themf elves Wronged^ u a grievous fin. 5. The Kings Majrfty and the honourable States of Parliament, the £teat Reprefentativeof tive collective body of Chriftiins in Scotland, the generality of the Miniftry having willingly owned epifeopal Go- vernor tm ) verhment as a greater good to the Church then any other way, their judgments ought to preponder this mans, untill he bring ftrooger realons then he hath done : and although C as he is pugnaciffimum animal) he bravade* to difpute againft all that will fay , that Epifco- pacy is to tins Church a greater good then any other way; yet, his proofs are but To many flinders againft Epifcopacy; he hath learned thelc-if'n well, c*llumni*re audatler femper ah 'quid ttdherebit : To which the anfvvcr may ferve,^/ acctsfafiejat efttfuu erit innocens} and hovv eafie were it to make a retortion,in difcovering the fruits and con- sequences of the Presbytery , much worfe then he can alledge of Epif- copacy? As to his particular accufations againft Epifcopacy, it is falfe that any have been perfecuted by them for godlinefs or faithful- neft. in the Lords work ', if affected ignorance, or pride, or a tange of fchifmaticil and feditious temper hath brought trouble upon any, how were the Bifliops to be blamed in that,who were willing to condefcend to whatever was confident to publick peace , that they might keep in any in the main work of their Calling,apparently faithful . ? But, the extreme rigidity of fome was fuch, tint they had rather part with their Miniltry, then come in any termes of conference for a reafonable and Chriftian accommodation • which was a courfe unparalleled by any one age in times of differences and controversies. As for fuch heady leaders as thefe, this Country and Country-fides are well rid of fuch evil principled men , and better furniflhed with fuch who may teich them their duty to God and the King, and lead them in the wayes of peace, which their former guides, men of bloody violence, knew not. That Minifters now feed the people with wind and lyes ; is a windy lye« they do teach the found orthodox Doctrine according to the Scriptures, and deliver the truth of the Gofpel of God,although f perhaps they want the weftern affected tone and airy fouch , which I is neither of divine nor apoftolical precept, nor practice. As for the I increafe of Arminianifm and popery , of the former we know no fuch thing 5 and he and his party have caufe to confider,if their weakning of the hands of fuch as fhould wreftle againft that evil , hath not contri- buted much to the encreal'e thereof. As for the increafe of ignorance, atbeifme and profanentfie , complaints of that nature have been Juft under other forms of Government as well as now ; Papifts have charged the Reformation with the confequenccs of Atheifm and Pro- fanenefs, catching hold of the complaints of our own Divines to that purpofe : yet,the Reformation was no worfe for that. Profanity and Atheifme generally increafing under Piejbytery in the highc of it's power, power,wa? fadly complained of by Mr. "Bruce In his Sermon en P(. 76. For, he 3 forts, that the profane multitude of this Kingdom difdained the Word of God defpitefully ; and if we loo 1 ^ to the growth of ftn % more ugly fins Were never committed ; the Land ( faith he ) is over- burdened With the birth of iniquity • Cod hath given us ever to be deceived by the might] paver and working of the devil. O unhappy and Wrathful Country I the more tyo* ledge growth , corfcience dc» Cayeth ; Is there any clean place in the Country ? &c. Now,if thefe challenges did not rerlecl upon Presbytery , why fhould the like in our time (if they were true ) be turned againft Prelacy ? Doth it more countenance or cherilh thefe evils then the other way ? Is there lefs flacknefs in preaching down , and in punifhing vice then formerly ? If there be defects that way, they are the perfonal faults of men, but the innocent order is not guilty in influencing thefe evils. And this man and his party had need ferioufly to take to heart , if their ftudying to dif- (ipate the Church of God , to drive people to fchifra ( which mikes them wither like branches cut off from the root ) to draw them from attendance upon the Ordinances of God, to engage them to bloody rebellions againft Gods Vice-gerent, to make them to account oppofi- tions to Epifcopacy the (urn and head of their Religion, unto which all their zeal fhould be concentred ; If, I fay, thefe courfes do not greatly promote that profanity fo much complained of. Bur, how eafie were it to retort accufations upon the Presbytery ; and to corclude from the errors, hcrefies,fchifme and fedition,general concuffions of thefe King- doms by all the miferies and mifchiefs of a long continued civil War, with the ruines of Prince and People, which may be more juftly faid to have iflued from the fame , then other evils from Prelacy ; thaf it is a greater good for this Church and Kingdom to want it,then to have it ? 6. Miniftersin the prefentftate of affairs, by not acknowledging the impeditivenefs of their oath againft Epifcopacy of that greater good, to which they were preoblieged, v'z. the employing their ta- lents in thefervice of the Church of god , are guilty of their own ly- ing by from the work ; neither doth their oath impede them, from following that greater good, which if it do hinder them, is therefore loofed ; neither doth the Law hinder them , which the y are bound to obey in the prcfent cafe, notwithftanding the Oath ; nor is it reafon, that for their fakes the Law fhould be nulled , when the Law-giver feeth the publick peace and good of theCommon-wealth,fo much con- cerned in (landing to the Law ; and let thtApoLg. pleafe himfelf as he willjin faying,* W the Jufferings of their Minifiers^ arc more edifying then- (i 7 6) : then their preachingjf they hadfutmitteatwho fees it not to be a vain brag ? Owe good preaching would be more for cd fixation, then all their fti unrigs arc^being upon fo flippery and fo uncertain a ground. And, whereas he faith, that others that do jubmit y fhould not have a face togoto a Ptiipit under perjury, he mufl: know , that the perjury is denied upon grounds , which he cannot refell ; and if he will talk of p e j lry, the very fetters up of the Presbytery, in the Aflfemby of Qiafgow, \6 ] 8. were for the raoft part, men who hdd fdljified their oath to the Bi/bops, which was as lawful* as any now is pretended to be ; and even thele men therafclves, who charge perjury fallely upon others, mufttruely be challenged of it, while they avowedly and with open face , fet forward an horrid fchiim in the Churchy and fe- dicion and rebellion againft the Prince, againft which the Covenant doth molt really obltege : and is fuch perjury , real qualification of a Minifter ? how unworthy is tie doer of thefe things, to fet his foot in a Pulpit? Thus have we done with the vindication of what the Wnter of the Seajonable Cafe ("aid , concerning the non-oblieg^ing of the Covenant in this point of Epifcopacy, although this Apolog* and Napht. do think it fie for tbe^n to amuie the fimple people, with the continual tinkling of the holy Covenant in their ears,(as thefe in France faw it fie , to anuule the followers in the times of Henry third and fourth, with the noife of the holy League) It had become him bettec to have referved the glorious title of the holy Covenant to the Scrip- tures of God, and to the great tranfadion and indenture of grace, whereupon God grounds the falvation of his people , as is done by Daniel'm his Prophefie, chap. n. and not to have transferred fo high a tide to a humane device, filled with deceitful homonymies and amphibologies, that it might comprehend the various interefts of thefe who were therein ingaged. Shall fuch a frame be raifed fo near the holy Scriptures, as to be counted and call d the holy Covenant ? Shall fuch a frame be called the ^ at charter of Religion and Righteoufnefs as this man interminu calls it? ShaH there be no Religion nor Righte- oufnefs, and fo no life and glory, where this frame of the Covenant is not owned? God forbid. And now to draw near to aclofeof this matter , the author of Napht, fhews himfelf a very feraph ck D* clor, When he fo vain-glorioufly defpifeth allthedifpute ofthcApologie, againft the Writer of theO/*£. 61. faying, that noman fears Goi y or mindes his glory in a*,j meajure <>f (obristy, will deign the au- thor with an anf&et upon thefe matters ; and to refute thefe things 9 ' }»ere 9 <*ftervom to mnhe inquiry. ; Is that all the thanks the dpolog* gets „ (177) gets tor his palns)Wlicrein he hath acquit himfelf f ery poorly, that he fhould be accounted no fearer of God, nor fober regarder of his glory ? Ic nny be the Author of 2{aph. in challenging the other of no mea- sure of fobriety in regarding Gods glory, was in fome raeafure of ebrie- ty j and he fhould know, that it is very good after rafti vows, to make enquiry ,and to fay with forrow, what have 1 done } And for his call- ing up his ftomach againft the Writer of the Seafonable Cafe> calling him a Tewporifer, and his Reafonings f oor Sofhiftrj, Naph. pag. 61. the judicious will fee that his Reafonings are folid, and fubfifts againft the vain affaults of this Bragger. And as for temporifing, (hall no man have liberty to re&ifie or reform his own judgement , or come off from wayes that have been amiffc? Shall every one that ufeth his chriftian liberty differently in different times and circumftances , be therefore a teraporifer ? Was Paul juftly challenged of lightnefle and changeableneffe , not following the courfe he purpofed to follow ? 2 Cor. 1. 17. doth Religion ftand in fuch a rigid tenacioufnefle of opini- on in the moft circumftantial matters of it, that an alteration of a mans way as to thefe,muft needs be temporifing ? May it m>t be,that as edi- fication of others may fome times move men who fear God in fome- things to change their way. So carnal ftoutneffe of ftomach may bz the beft principle that doth fix others to that whereto they have wed- ed themfelves ? When Cicero heard a man glorying of his conftancy, faying, he had never repented himfelf of any thing he had done all his life; he concluded, certainly that man Vtas a fool: And better it is to endure the imputation of a temporifcr un juftly,then of a fool juftly, And who knoweth nor,that fometimes £*hivuv t« *a/f c, is But, 2. whereas the Writer of the Cafe hid required example's amongft Chrifiians of old, of engaging in^or impoftng c f publicly Oaths or Covenants Without the confent of foveraign lowers that Were ever them ; the sApolog* producech fome examples of Covenants among Chnftians within this laft age, and fome of thefe amongft for- reign Nations, ani fome amongft our felves : wherein any may eafily fee the impertinency of his anfwer, that being pofed concerning the practices of Chnftians of old , he produceth fo late examples. And alfo, whereas the Writer did require inftances of impofing fuch pub- lick oaths wichout foveraign Authority, the Apolog. doth in vain give inftances of Covenants , carried on by thefe forreign States who re- puted themfelves Soveraign , as Bohemia , Helvetia , &c. and as foolilhly doth he give inftance of Covenants voluntarily entred in'fuch as the five or Cvi Covenants he mentions among fome of our Nobility and Gentry at the beginning of the Reformation, wfaich were not in a coadive wiy impofedupon others. To fay nothing of this, neither thefe Covenants abroad nor at home , were of the nature of our So- lemn League and Covenant $ for, they were only de propugnandafide & libertate • but ours was in the true defign of it, for propagation and enforcing our exterior form of Church- government up$n a 2V4- tion and Church no wajes [ubordinate toHs\ and that with higheft op- poficion by arms to our own Soveraign and theirs; Bur, it were to be vvi(hed, the tApolog. had fpaired to mention the multiplyed oaths among our felves \ for, as we are noted by Forraigncrs to be too much given to fuddain and ra(h fwearing in ordinary difcourfe ; So alfo,that it is our way beyond other people, to multiply oaths and feditious combinations ; which frequency of fwearing is taken as no great mark of our fidelity ; for , they thatfwear often, manjfeft that they think themfelves not wortfcy to be believed otherwife, and diftrufts that every one miftrufts them : multitudes of oaths debafeth the dignity of themjand people accuftomed to them regard them little ; and it is a fin of too much diftemper in a State 1 when oaths are multiplied to form Parties and Fadions. It had been good for Scotland that there had been amongft us fewer oaths, but better qualified and more ftedfo ft !y kept. But as to the adhering to the Covenant, now in the mafter under debate, to wit the extirpation of Epifcopacy ( if the prefent frame of it be indeed abjured, whereof wefpake formerly) hovv unwarrantable it it is, appeareth by what hath been faid. But not to mention other things, there are three particulars in the Covenant, which according to the glofle of 2{apbt* and the tsfpol. contains engagements to matters fo finfui, thacno good Chriftian ought to tike it, nor having taken ought to keep it in thefe particulars ; albek, in other things of un- queftionable duty, we muft fay, that we ftand bound tothefeboth vi materia and vi juramenti : Nor is the Apolog, pag. 381. to be heard, while he faith , that no fault either in the matte;- or in the Manner of the Covenant^ can fay much for the loojing the obligation thereof, after it is taken ; for, a fault on the matter of an oath is a fin, and fomething unlawful ; and where an oath is faulty in the mat- ter, the keeping of itincreafes the guilt ; there was fin in the taking fuch an oath, and greater fin in the keeping of it. Add if this Apo \ be a Chriftian, he will eat in this word again, which he hath written here $ for, thus indeed he makes an oath to be vinculum ini quit a\ tit, and if he will ftandtoic, any will think, that he is ftrucken judi- cially blind, for bold and proud defending of error. Now, as to the particulars in the Covenant, which according to the Apolog. and Nap. glofie,we look upon as finful engagements ; the firft is,that in the fecond Article of the Covenantee fb all endeavour in our places and callings to extirpate Prelacy ,&c. which according to Nap. glofs, f*g* 151*152. hath this fenfe* upon condition, that others [ball endeavour in their places and callings to extirpat y 3tc. we [hall endea- vour the fame in oar places and callings ; but, if Rulers /hall become patroni[ers of abominations, that is of Spifcopacy, not driving to ex- tirpate it bj their power, then Vse who are private perfons, may ftep forward and occupy the places which they have abufed and forfeited ; andin fo doing, we are in cur places and callings , according to the Covenant i which in this claufe, as he faith, it not reftriclive of our duty to Ohr places and callings , but exegetical and ampliative. In which gloffing he both mocks God and man; it is a ftrange exegefis or explication of acting in our places and callings, that we (hall go out of our places and callings co act, and a wonderous ampliation to fenfe the words , we [hall all in our places and callings, ( which are clearly reftriclive) in this manner,We fhall not be confined in our pla^ ces and callings, but enlarge and ftretch our felves, to occupy the high places of others , which they have abufed. The fecond particular, which we look upon as a (Tnful engagement in the Covenant according to Napht, glofs, is that claufe in theeod of the fecond Article, engaging ( after the nomination of fome parti- cular (ISO cular Officers ) to the extirpation of all other Officers, defending uf- on that Hierarchy , under which other Officers the extirpation whereof is fworn, Napht. pag % 104. comprehends all the prefcnt Miniftery, who depend upon Bifhops ; and he pleads, that We are bound to extirpate them as well as the £ifbopr,and never cW» nor jub» wit to them, which is diametrically oppofite to extirpation. Thus this furious raan , would overthrow the whole Miniftery of this Church, which one way or another , as to their ordination or their aflings depend upon Bifhops; yea, by this expofition , the whole Mi- niftery of England and Scotland^ho took the Covenanr,and who had their ordination from Bifhops, were engaged to extirpate thcmfelves, or to renounce the Miniftery which they had received from Bifhops, by the imposition of handsjas fome did indeed in England, for looting that dependance fuppofed to be abjured in the Covenant, albeit others made a (hift by fome diftin&ions, to keep themfelves in the Miniftery. This fenfe of that claufe, we utterly abhor, as importing the height of that which Anabaptifts and Separates aimed at, to wit, the utter dtftruftion of the whole Miniftery of Scotland and England, as of a falfe Miniftery derived from Antichrift , becaufe of tnew dependence upon Biihops in ordination or in actings • and we durft not appear be- fore the judgement- feat of God, with fuch refolutions as men of this fort have againft the Miniftery of the reformed Churches ; and we will fay, if this be the fenfe of the Covenant in that part of the Ar- ticle, we will renounce it for ever : But it was a fad thing, that by fuch tmbiguous V*erds y a ftumbling block fliould have been caft before the blind, and that poor people fhould have been put to fwear in igno- rance and darknefs,againft unnominated Ecclefiaftical Officers, it being unknown to them who were meant , as it was alfo unknown to the tenth man who took the Covenant in Scotland ; Who were thefe Chancelleurs that were named in the fecond article of the Covenant ; and what were thefe Chapters , or what was that Hierarchy upon which all depended ? ,What knew the poor people of Scotland of any other Chancellours, but the Chancellours of the Kingdom ? For, they were not acquainted with any fuchChurch'Officers,nor could the tenth Minifter of the Kingdom tell them exaftly what they were. Wh*t knew the poor people of the Chapters,but the Chapters of the Bible ? What knew they the two forts of Deans , which in effeft were but Moderator?, as the Moderators are hitherto called Deans in the Hel- vetian- church ? Was it not ftrange, to lead them to abjure Modera- tors in Minifterial meetings? What knew poor people , what the Hierarchy ( **3 ) Hierarchy meaned ? ( furely they thought it forae African mox/ter, for they knew not what ic meant ) and was this fair doling with the fimple people, to engage them againil: thty hncw not wbac, under a lon° and high founding compounded Oreek term ? What needed greek language in a popular oith ? Hierarchy is a holy Government ; now if the framers of theCovenarit,did call epifcopalGovernment fo ferioufly and in good earneft it was impious to abjure it ; and if they called it fo ironically and in jeft , it was impious in a ferious oath to God, to ufe fo light figures of fpeech,- but, that which offends raoft, is the blind tying of the people of God, to extirpate unnominated Ecclefiaftuk Officers, and enjoyning them under penalty, to fwear the extirpation of the fame, though they were the true and faithful Minifters of the reformed Churches in thefe Lands, becaufe of their dependency upon Bifhops , atleaft*» fieri, and as to their being made Minifters. A great noife was made about an oath, appointed to be taken by the con- vocation of England % Anno, 1641. which was called the &c* oath, ( the meaning thereof, had not men been difpofed to be captious, was eafily underftood) but here in the Covenant is there an &c t oath with tmtnefs, w hie all other Ecclefiaftical-officers ( unnominated ) de- pending upon Bifoops , be they Minifters or others, are fworn to be extirpated : How evil a thing was it to lead people to fwear they knew not what ? This was not to teach them to fwear in truth and in judgement. Bat, the thkd particular wherein we think, that the Covenant could neither be lawfully taken nor kept, according to the glofTe of the tApolog. and Napbt, is in the fourth Article, which concerns our duty to the King ; wherein, according to their mind, the l{i*g's doing duty, is a limiting condition to the/ubjefts duty ; We do not think it unlawful, but a real duty, to fwear the prefcrvation of the Kings per- fon and authority,in defence of Religion and Liberties fpectficative t not excluding Fidelity and Loyalty to him otherwife ; bur, as the Apology and Napbt. expound the article, that \s } That while the King doth his dutj in thefe things , we obliege fir J elves to do duty to him pre- ci[ely y andnoctherwaus ; we do abhor the Article in fuch a fenfe, as being both Anabaptiftieal and Jefuitical • and this fenfe is plainly given us, both by the Apolog. and by Hjpht. more plainly, while he tells us, pag* 177. That neither altedgiance nor obeiience is due to the King , but with that reftrittion.. But again: this we avow it, as the certain truth of God, that although obedience is to be given to no powers oa £arth| againft Gods true Religion; yet, fidelity an& and alledgiancc mud be kept unto them, and all duties of hwful obedi-* ence performed to tbem,whatever be their qualifications or carriage,be they friends to the true Religion or be they not : This have we learned from Chrift and his holy Apoftlcs, who as they did themfelves, fo ex* horted others, to render to C*far the things that were Ca[ars,though herendred not to god, the things th*t "to ere gods % and to pay honour and tribute to thefe to waom it was due , albeit they were fuch as were in a (rated opposition to Chrift, and did make ill ufe of thefe du- ties payed unto them. If a Prince abufemy doing duty to him, in oppofuiontotheGofpel, that is none of my fault, ( t bough it be my grief) neither am I therefore to renounce or not perform my duty to him, and if this be the fenfe of that article of the Covenant , that we fliall only maintain the Kings perfon and authority, while he Hands for that which we count Religion and Liberty, and no otherwayes ; yea, that we fhall oppofe his perfon and authority, vi & armis, if he do not own thefe things fo valued by us , we have reaion to renounce- it, as contrary to the Word of God. And now,leaving this whole purpofe concerning the Covenant, what remains but to exhort the impofers and the takers of it to confider their wayes ; and efpecially that unfair dealing of engaging varieties of parties in it,under dubious terms , fubjecl to various fenfes. Clear it was that the Covenant was fo framed , that it might comprehend in: the latitude of the words thereof, all, except tbe owner r of Poperj and Prelacy ('which latter was in a ftrange policy conjoined with the for- mer to render it odious, and yer, being diftinguifhed from Popery, why fhould it be accounted a part of Popery ? ) So that all others, if they would but in word own the Word of God, were admitted to be Co- venanters: Andfo S* R. againft liberty of Confc. p^» 251. acknow- ledged, that SocinianSf Arians 3 Familifts^ Antinomians % Armenians , Antitrlnit arian /, Sefaratiftt % Seekers^ did take the Covenant, f fuch an Ark it was for all thefe unclean cattlej and they did take it,becaufe they thought the expreflions and terms thereof were fo comprehen- five,as might well take them in, with a refervation to them of liberty in their princip'es and wayes, and being perfwaded , that in their fenfe and confidence, there was nothing in it ftrjking againft their errors , So that they were very free to take it. Let it be fcrioufiy confidered, before the Lord, if there was not fomething wrong in this, that people pretending to give one another the greattft imaginable fecurity as to Religion, yet would have the Oath concerning that matter, contrived in fuch general terms, as might ^ make (i85) make room for the principles of fuch as owned any wrong wajj of Religion , fave Popery and Prelacy. Why was the guarding of Re- ligion againft errors, (by fpecial expreflions ) fo ftudioufly avoided; when it was known that by the flood-gate of Independency, a deluge of others, and in fome refpe&s greater evils then thefe can be fuppofed to be, was overflowing England } It had been piety to have ufed fair particular dealing in thefe matters, though it was not thought good policy to make the Covenant too (mallafteve in ftriking at particular errors oremnts , feing the Parliament behooved to be ferved by men of all perfwafions, if only they continued united againft Prelacy own- ed by the Kingi ( Popery was joined to it to render it odious by that neighbourhood) and if men only appeared againft Popery and Prelacy, whatever abominations they otherwife owned, yet they behooved to be lifted under the name and notion of the godly party, while all others were expofed to popular fury under the notion of the ungodly and malignants. But, to be more particular anent the doubtful generali- ties of the Covenant; Fir ft , In the firft Article, the Covenanters fwear to maintain the Reformed Religion in Scotland , in 'DoFlrine, Wor/hip, TH/cipline and Government, The Presbyterians are per- fwaded,as the Apolag. and 2{apb. fhew us, that the Presbyterial Go- vernment, as exercifed in Scotland, was fworn to be maintained as put of the Reformed Religion : the Independents, and all others takers of the Cevcnant befides thefe, utterly deny that that ciaufe con- tains any engagement to ^maintain Presbyterial Government in Scot- land : For,the Independents denyed 3 that that could confift with their principles , to fwear to maintain that, which as S. it. in his Treatife againft liberty of Confcience, (hews us, they did account a tyrannical, egjptian and antichriftian bondage , not to be maintained , but to be extirpated as a rag and re HIT: of "Popery. And in very truth, thefe words of the Covenant are no way cogent upon them , nor upon any f wearers of the oath to engage them to the mainrainance of the parti- cular form of Presbyterial Government in Scotland • for, the ex profs words are only, ffefhall maintain the Reformed Religion in Govern- ment , &c. So that it was only that which they looked upon as re- formed in the Government of the Church of Scotland which the fwearers engaged to • and to the Independent and fuch like , the Pref^ byterial Government was not fuch. If a man fw&ar to maintain all the Old Teftament troths owned by the Jews, he doth not therefore fwear to maintain all Judaifm ; or, if he fwear to maintain ali Gofpel Truths owned by Papifts, he doth not therefore fwear to maintain B b Popery : (i8«0 Popery : So no man , by fwearing to maintain the reformed Religion or" Scotland in Doctrine , Government , &c* doth therefore fwear to maintain the particular form of Government of the Church of Scot* /W,albeit by them accounted a part of the reformed Religion. Nei- ther indeed did theParliame nt of£«g/rftf^reprefentirg the greateft part of the fuppofed Covenanters, conceive themfelves in that claufe bound to acknowledge the Presbyterian form of Scot/and to be part of the reformed Religion; for, they plainly profefs in their Declaration, Anno^ 1647, that they could never find a jus divinum of ?resbyterv t and fo they did not account it a pare of reformed Religion. Second- ly, Was there not fome doubcfulnefs in the exprefiien$/*V;2*/7 main- tain the reformed Religion in Scotland, in c £*i(cip/ine and Govern- mental: may be enquired,whether ail that that goes under the name of Difcipline and Government comprehending both the eflential Policy Difcipline and Government of the Church, and the accidental variable conftitutions of Difcipline and Government) be fworn to be maintain- ed all the dayes of our lives ? If it be faid , not all contained under thefe namei is fworn to be maintained ,• Why then was there no di- (lindion made ? And if it be faid, that all that is call .d Difcipline and Government is fworn thus to be maintained , the Covenant was iinful in this point , contrary to the liberty of this Church , obliegin<> to maintain the variable acts and conftitutions of Government per- petually. Thirdly > What were thefe bell: reformed Churches,accord- ingtothe pattern of which , the Covenant engages to reform the Church of England} The Presbyterians will fay, that the btft re- formed Churches was the Church of Sco;l*nd 9 andfuchasit: but the Independents could not fee or feek that pattern of beft reforma- tion in the mountains of Scotland , but proftlTed plainly , that iheir meaning was of the Churches of 2{ew- England , as m3y befeenin their Difputes in the Affeoobly cf Divines. Fourthly , Albeit the holy Word of God hath no ambiguity and homonymie in it , and is not double-faced, but wholly fincere, right and true ; yet, when men of contrary principles and perfwallons as they call them, refolruig to abide in thefe , (lull engage' one to another to reform according to the Word of God, there rauft be a mutual cheat and trepanne in fuch an engagement ; for, each party referves that in their own mind, that they would do according to the Word of God , as they conctive it* Such an oath (looking to the different opinions of the parties who Mind not to fubmit their feveral fenfes of the Word of God to any S jcernal Judge J is a meer Cothurnus, a cover for contrary faiths, and in . (x«7) iinoMccordingtothetrue ufe of oaths, the end of ccntrsverfies, but the beginning and feminary of them; each party are ready to plead againlt the other *s perjured, ezch party complaining of the other as engaging them to deftroy themfelves , and to mine their own principles, wbereof we did fee pregnant inftances in the contefts of the *^ce cirnes. . Fifthly, Was there not fome homonymiein the fecond Article' abjuring Prelacy ? This hath even divided Presbyterians among themfelves ; for , the Apohg* and his rigid Brethren W/Z? have all fort of 'Prelacy abjured in ike Covenant, Timorcus will not have the Prelacy of mar order (as he cilleth \i) to be abjured in the Covenant) but the pontifical and alfo the paternal prelacy ( which, pag».i6* he caijeth tyrannical^* if a father and a tyrant-were ail one) Crofzon 3rHrmethjthat only the pontifical TSifbops were abjured. Mr. Vines i Mr. Baxter, &c> do avow, that a r Bifhop^iih a negative voice , in oraixation , &c. is not abjured in t hi Covenant > f and af- fert, that all that is abjured in the Covenant is only a particular fpicies or (ort of Prelacy fprung up in the Church of England , as it is plain- ly exprefied in the Covenant it fclf, "which expenes it ftlf in that point to mean only of that aggregate complexion of Officers jeined With the Bipjops , Chancellors , Ccmmijjaries , &c» This explication was made in the Atfembly of Divines upon the motion of Doclor Featly, Cvvhereas there was no fuch explication of Prelacy as the Covenant came from Scotland) So that for all the Covenant, we are free to own fume fort of Prelacy, and to own the primitive Spifcopacy which the Presbyterian?, Timorcm, Crofton y &c. profefle themfelves to be free to fubmit to ; neither do we plead for any other Epifcopscy but that. Sixthly, What fhouid that mean in the fecond Article , that \\>e (hall extirpate nhatfoever fhall bs found contrary to found Dotl- rine ? Found, when or by whom? If it be meant, whatfoeverfhall be found by any private perfon to be contrary, to the Word of God, {hall be extirpated, wfeac a world of confufion (hall we fail into ? For, every heady private perfon will be ready to cry accordirg to their private phancies, si/?tf%4, I have found the Truth, and ye my fellow- covenanters muft walk in my light, dkheperjured. Oh, confufion of confufions ! Shall we make as many Popes as the perfons that fwore she Covenant, who will cry out , that they in their private fpirir have found the Truth ? Bucif ft be meanr, that whatever ihould be found by any Afifemblies that then were , to be contrary to found Doftrine, ihould be extirpated, this was to attribute too much infallibility to them. Or , if it be faid , that whatever ihould be found by any fuc- B b 2 ceedirg ( ^88) ceediig Aflcmbly to be contrary to found Doftrine, (hould be extir- pated ; then by the Covenant not determining the time profuturo, when , or by whom , or by what Aflemblies or Perfons the confo- nancy or contrariety of this or that way to found Doftrine fhouid be found , ail the matters of Religion are left loofe and pendulous. Finally, the fearful ambiguity of the thrid article of the Covenant,, concerning the defence of the Kings Majeflies Perfon and Authori- ty fitz. is fo palpable, that he that runs may read ir, 3nd the fenfing of it hath divided the Presbyterians themfelves; fome taking thefe words we (hall defend the Kings Perfon and Authority , in defence of Religi- on and Liberties, as afpecif cation of oar duty to him in the fe parti- culars , without excluding our duty otherwajes ; others, amongfl: whom is the author of Napht. and the Apolog. taketh the words, asprecifely refiritlive and limitative of our duty to the King . others as Mr. Crofton , take the words neither fpecificattvely nor re- jlrittively of our duty to the King , but only as a designation of the qualification and imployment of the perfons covenanting, to this ft nfe, we being in defence of Religion and Liberty, (ball defend the Kings M^jefties < Ptrfon i Bcc. Was it then fair dealing, to bring the people of God unto a Covenant, upon the fenfe whereof, the main contrivers and abettours cannot agree among themfelves ? By what hath been Jaid, we may fee, that the Covenant being foambigous, doubtful and unclear, it ought not to have been fworn at firft, nor can the fwcaring be renewed, till it be cleared by fome diftin&ions ; no man can fwear it in truth, becaufe the truth thereof cannot be known; norinrighte- oufnefs, becaufe in fome fenfe it clearly wrongs others , whofe right we ought to preferve ; nor in judgement , becaufe its meaning cannot be known: And how far all that is formerly fpoken may be able co clear the chriftian Reader, from his obligation to the Covenant , it is referred to his mature judgement : And the Lord give us undemand- ing in all things. CHAP, ( I8P ) «— ^— — — ■■ III! ■ ■ I ■ ■ I . . CHAP. IV. Concerning the lawfulness of the Eft [copal Office. 'The Libeller's outraging andfalje revilings of the office, Per^ fans, Converjation of the Bifhops 9 both generally and particularly are considered. T He Libeller fets open the flood-gate of his fury againft the Miniftry of this Land of all ranks, that he may render them odious to the people of God and move them to defert the Mi- niftry, that they may wander from mountain to hill, as fheep without Qieepheards. But, the main force of his fury breaks out up- on the Bifhops, men who were well known in the Country to have been fuch as walked chriftianly and as Minifters of Chrift , before they iccepted the Office of a Bifhop. It /hall be our work in this Chap- ter, firfr, to clear the lawfulness of the Office of a Biftiop ; Second- ly, to confidcr his outragious (landers againft the Office, the confe- quences of ir, the practices of thefc who have been inverted with it ; As alfo , the perfonal accufations againft tbeprelent Bifhops of Scot' land not named and named by Napkt. To bqgft with the former, the Uvpfnlnefs of the epifco pal Office: At the Spinning of the Reformation of Religion, the Churches of God which came out of TZabjhn , though agreeing in a marvelous harmony in all points of. faving truth and faith, and rejecting with full eonfent the abominations of Rome ; yet , there remained fome difference among themlelves in fome points of eccJcfhfticil ceconoray, fome retaining Bifhops or Superintendents , cutting off" the corrupt dependency of thefe Officers from the See of Rome , and moulding them as near as might be to the general and particular rules of the Gofpel : others again, whether out of choice or out of necefiuy, or wanting favourable influences of the powers of the world to aflifr coward the efhblifhment of a Jading order, did remain without them : Yet did thefe Churches and Pallors of different wayes entertain fweec correfpondence among themfelves, indulging one another mutually in uieirdifciplinary differences 3 which they could bear with one in an- tfbc ( 390 ) other i Salva fidei cotnpage , falvo charitatu vinculo • they did not grate one upon another for thefe matters of exterior difcipiine, but ai Lambs plucked out of the mouth of the Lyon , they lay down toge- ther in the green pafturcsof God,te(tifying their Chnftian communion by their mutual refpefh one to another , forbearing modeftly togive offence to any of their chrjftian Brethren, in making (hew to condemn their \vay m thefe difciplinary matters- Hence, at thefirft fettingouc cf the Presbytery by Mr. Calvin at Geneva, there was much caution ufed that there ihould be no claim laid to a direct divine InftitutioQ of that order , left other Churches which owned it not , might feem to bt condemned in their way ; but ic was enough, if that Govern- ment could have from neighbour Churches the approbation that ic was confentaneous to the Word of God, and not repugnant to it, though not commanded : This was all than could be obtained from the Churches of Berne, Z finely &c. to fatisfie the Genevians anenc it, albeit they themfelves would never receive ic ; See Hookers eccL poLpref. and NicqUhs Galafins % Calvin s Colleague, in his Ep. dedic. before the Book of £ xod> But this meafure of moderation continued cot long ; for albeit upon the one hand. Churches that embraced Epif- copacy did think well of the Churches who liked the other form , and owned their Minifters as true Minifters,albeit they had not their ordi- nation from BiQiops , which was the regular way for fifteen handred years upwards, and thefe other Churches again gave due refpeds to Bifliops, and thefe who were ordained by them , though they could not fee a divine right for the Office, yet they acknowledged a lawful and ufeful humane right by the Churches cuftom and conftitution. Yed when men much enamoured with their own invention, began to catch hold of fome (hreds of Scripture , ieemingly founding to favour them, they put a (lamp of divine inftitution upon their own way, al- lowing the other way to be but an humane dev«ce,albeit lawful (when it did not fubvert any part of that which they counted divine) but was contained within the bounds of Church-canons , agreed upon for preferving the order from corruption. But albeit reverend Mr. Calvin and Bez,<* did fpeak reverendly of this Eplfcopacy,though looking upon it not as a divine Ordinance, but as an ufeful product of the Churches warrantable prudence; the experience of the Churches in many genera- tions giving joint teftimony of the benefit which they found therein. Yet , the followers of thefe and fuch like great inftruments of God in reforming the Church, efpecially of late, have not walked by thefe ancient raeafures ; but upon the one hand, fome have fo crysd up the Presbyterian . ( i9i ) Presbyterian parity in governing the Church,a$ the only form ordained by God for governing the farne, and have vehemently cryed down the moftmoderitEpifcopacy,as an humane device and anantichriftian office; upon the other hand, the Guides and Paftors of theChurches, which re- tained Epifcopal government ,finding difturbances grow in the Church- es by contentious fp'rits of that way , whom nothing lefs could fa- tisfie, then razing even to the foundation and plucking up ancient Epif- eopacy by the roots, (acourfe attended by an heap of mod dreadful conditions ) did more ferioufly fearch into the matter, and howfoever, for the molt parr, they had not raifed their claim for Epifcopacy,above the lawful confuecudc and confiitutions of the Church , tenderly re- garding the honour of the Miniftery of other reformed Churches , and the validity of their ordination, which a higher claim in behalf of Episcopacy being made good, had ftuken terribly; yet, finding fierce invalion made upon their own Churches , by hot fpirited men, both branding the offices of Bifhops as antichriftian, and making all the Miniftery to be of an antichriliian extraction and dependency, they did fee ic needful to reform their own judgements, concerning the order of Epifeopacy ;and fearchiug the holy Scriptures,did find (as they were perfwaded) that Epifeopacy is the only neceflary perpeiuai government of che Church , derived from divine Authority and apcfiolick ir.ftitu- tion or coniticution,and confequently maincained,thac the Presbyterial form was a meer humane invention, to be eradicate and plucked up, all theWorld over,that Gods ordinance of Epifeopacy might have place % Thus came the unhappy difference to be fixed in a fined and full op- pofition, and the concroverfie hath beenfadiy debated onthevaft cxpence of lives, fortunes , families of the people of God , miierable- concufllon and fobverflon of Nitions, wrapped up together in all the extream calamities of an interline and civil War. It is not our purpofe in difcourfing about this matter, either to pre~ judge the learned maintainers of the divine or apoftolick right of Epif- eopacy ,nor to prelimk our felves fo, as to bar out sny pregnant Scrip* ture light, leading to that perfwafion ; but finding i hat in order to (ke defence of Gods people,from the imputation of the guile of perjury 2nd Covenant-breaking in this point , it wis enough to evince the la w- fulaefs of Epifeopacy, abftrafting from the neceflity thereof and the grounds of the fame, therefore the lawfulnefs of the order, is here only undertaken to be maintained : If any would prefsus to be more pofitive anent the grounds of Epifeopacy, though it te utof che way of our defi^n,we (hall briefly fay thefe few things. Firft,.that it is the apr. (m) appointment of Jefus Chrift, that there be in his Church to the end of the World in official Power, (which we call Epifcopal ) paramount and above any power , that can be exercifed by a fingle Presbyter alone , and this power is the power of ordination and jurisdiction : The Presbyterians themfelvcs, will undoubtedly acknowledge this ; for the queftion betwixt the Epifcopal and them, is not whether this official power, incompetent to any fingle Presbyter alone, fhonld be in the Church of God or not, the queftion is not anent thelawful- nefs of the power, which will be acknowledged utrinque , but anent the feat and fubjecl: of the power, whether it be equally diffufed in the whole Colledge of Presbyters, or if it may be concentred in one perfon, yet to be exercifed by their concurrence and confent: It is ignorance in men to difpute againft the lawftilnefs of the official power of a Bifhop in it felf , for certainly that fame power is in Pref- by ters,according to their own dictates. The difference betwixt the tw* is like that between manus afcrt* ^aimanusclanfa^ Epifcopacy is diffufed in the Presbytery, but contracted in a (ingle Bifhop , yet fo, as to be managed with the confent of Presbyters. A Bifhops power cannot be called unlawful in it felf , for then the power of a Presby tery, above any particular Presbyter, fhould be called unlawful $ the moft that men can fay of the official power exerced by a Bifhop is that it is ufurped by him, that is, chat it is not lawful for him to have it, albeit it be not unlawful in it felf j but, when Bifhops have their power by the lawful convoyances appointed for that end, by law- full conventions both of Church and State fince the reformation, the challenge of ufurpation will be found un/uft. Yet fiy, that their pow- er were an ufurped power, other deportment ought to haye been ufed toward them, then hath been, as we may gather from the proportion of an lawful demeanour, toward the civil powers ufurped ; albeir, we are not indebted to pay the fame honour or fidelity to ufurping powers, which we owe to the lawfully invefted powers, yet as from ufurped powers, we may receive protection and relief againft injuries, and are to do thefe things uhich we are other wife bound to do at their command,thoogh that be not at all the ground of our obedience; So, fuppofing Bifhops to be ufupers, I who am a private Minifter, am b^und in confeience to feek confirmation of my maintenance from them ro enable me for preaching the Gofpel ; albeit I thought I had good enough right another way , collation from them and inftitution being made neccfTary by Law , I could not without frowardnefs refufe to feek for it. Again,being a member of the miniftenal united Church, T could Icouldnotrefufeto entertain minifterial communion with my Bre- thren in governing the Church fo far as I might, although called thereto by an ufurpiag Biihop, becaufe I was other waves bonnd to it by a divine Law : Bur, the courfe was laid with fuch heat , that men had rather choofe to leap out of the Miniftery , then either to take the favour of the confirmation of their Stipends from a Bifhop according to Law, or to do their neceffary duty in holding and maintaining the minifterial communion of Church- judicatories, becaufe he called them thereunto : Generations to come will perhaps wonder at this way. 2. It is fur is divir.i and Gods will , that as Minifters fhould unite andalTociatc themfelves together in certain convenient circuit?, fo that they fhould fet over them one (ingle perfon to be Moderator, to govern the actions of the meeting, and to preferve due order among the brethren ; he will not have the meetings of his Minifters , like the C/c/^i^rabbleSjVvhere *vfw wfevQ- wftrdutow. In all focietiesthe very light of nature teaches, that there muft be fuch a proftafie or precedercy, and in the Church thefe are reckoned by the great op- pofers :h. 20. *i. Whenhefaid tothem, jIswj Father h*tb fcAt me Jo lftndjfou;tnd when he breathed the hoIyGboft upon them, even for the ordinary work , for the retention anil remifiion of fins, as it follows in the Text. 2. The Apoftles had fucceffors to themielves in that plenitude of ordinary Church power, for that power was not to ceafe until! the end of the World, and therefore our Lord p emifes, Math. 28. 30. Jgm with jouaiway, events the end of the World , meaning with them and their fucceffors* 3. The great queftion is , who are the fucceffors of the Apoftles in this ordinary Church- power ? There be only three probable pretenders to that ucceflion, (ingle Presbyters in the modern notion, colledges of theft Presbyters in a full equality of power, or fome (ingle perfons having fuperioricy of power over ordinary Presbyters. As for the pretention* of the people or of any other to the Church-government, we pv them as irrational. Now, as to the determination of this queftion ofthe matter of fact upon which fo great a jtu dependctb, it muft be hid from the hittorical narrations of the acts of the Apoftles contained in Scripture , and from the firft and fureft light, that Church ftory can yield us,in the mod virgin times of the Church. Firft then , that the Apoftles committed that fulnefs of ordinary Church power to any (ingle Presbyter, in the modern notion, to be fxercifed by himfclf alone , Presbyterians themielves will not fay, that no finglc Presbyter hitb, in and by himfelf, power of actual ordi- nation of Mimfters orJurisdidion,will be eafily agreed to on all hands. 2. If it be alledged,thac Colledges of (ingle Presbyters had that pleni- tude of Church-power committed to them by the Apoftles,if they can fliew us any fuch Colledges of Presbyters fet up by the Apoftles, in- ftraded with fuch power, or any example of fuch Colledges, manag- ing fuch power, they will fay very much : But we pofe them per- emptorily, where they can (hew in all the Hiftoryof the Apoftles, that fuch a Colledge or meeting of Presbyters, was by them inftituted orimpowered with this plenitude of Church-power, or that fuch a meeting did ever exercife fuch a power (efpecially taking in with them meerly ruling Elders ) meetings of Presbyters we often find fpoken of in Scripture, but not meetings of Presbyters in equality of power ; there were alwayes fuperior Officers with them and over them, rul- ing and ordering their Church-acYings • if any contrary example can Cc 2 be < 196) be pretended, it fhall be confidered. 3. That the Apoftles did com- mit the plenitude of ordinary Church-power, to fome fingle perfons in a fuperiority above other Minifters , may not only appear from the Afiatick Angels, RtveLi. 3. but mod luculently from Pauls directions to Timothj and Titus, whom he fends to ordain Minifters and ufc a judicatory power in Ephefusuni in Crete, notwithstanding there had been many Minifters there before, who if thefe powers had been com- petent to them without a higher officer, had not needed his coming there upon fuch errands : Betides, it is the greateft poinble evidence thatcanbeinfuch a matter of fad , that immediately after all the Apoftles departure out of the World , and for two hundred years af- ter, to the Council of Nice , there was no other government of the chriftim Church over all the world,but that of Bifhops,who were nei- ther meerParochBiiliops^ormeerconftant Moderators of Presbyte- ries, ( as men alledge ) but perfons inverted with a fuperior authority, for prefemtion of unity and order,is might be by manyarguments evi- denced, and by the practice of thefe neareft ages to the Apoftles ("yea, coming within fome of their own times J being univerfally anfcncon- trollably received, is to us the bid Commentary upon what the Apoftles did in Church-government, when they were living, Lex turrit eumpraxi , & confuetudo eft optimus interpret Legts • but wefhallfparc to lanch forth to this matter, it being enough to our purpofe for quieting the minds of Gods people anent the Covenant- obligation touching Epifcopacy , and anent their fubmitfion to ir, that it is lawful though it were not necciTary ; and let it alwayes be remembred, that when mecr Uwfulntfs is pleaded for, the nece/fity is not denyed ; and befides,though only the lawfulnefs of it as a humane ordinance were pleaded and evinced, yet it is Juris divini, that I obey and fubmit to a lawful humane ordinance and command, even for the Lords fake. Thus we enter upon the particular confiderations of thefe places of holy Scrpiture, which have been ufed to give fome apparent proof of theneceflityof Presbyterian parity in governing the Church of God, and the unlawfulnefs of Epifcopacy : In the fearching of thefe Scrip- tures, there is need of greateft felf-deniednefs and fubmitfion of the high imaginations of our hearts, to the mind of Chrift : with much fobriety and fincerity ought we to pour forth our heart? to God, and to fay, open thou mine eyes , that I may behold the wonders of thy Law. Gods word is his royal banner fpread out , before which all our proud wit , high profeflions, engagements of reputation and credit (197) credit, (hould (loop and lye low , and as k was faid by a grave Divine in another cafe, fo fliould we fay, veniat, veniat verbum Damini, & fifexcenta colla nobis eflent ei (ubmitteremus^tx Gods word triumph, and let us in all our oppoficions of fcience , falfely fo called , and the proud out-runnings of our wir,be perfectly fubdned to Chrift and his revealed will,laying a(ide our own wits and wills, let us fincerely pray that his mil ma] be done in earthy as it is done in Heaven ; It cannot be expected, that afcer fo many learned pens have traveled upon thefe" Scriptures , any new matters fhou'd be brought forth ; yet will it be forne fitisfaction to the Reader,to have thefe things brought as it were . under his eye in a fhort view , which are made the grounds of fuch de- bates , as that for them this World is endeavoured to be turned up- fide-down, Kingdoms fhaken, Thrones overturned, the blood of the people of God lavifhly poured out, like water fpilt upon the ground, and if men of violence could carry their will, all our former calami- tous confufions (hould be reacted and over- acted. But if by a genu- ine and fair interpretation of thefe abufed Scriptures , it (hall be found, that nether is Presbyterian parity neceffary in governing the Church, nor Epifcopacy unlawful ( which two are connexed parpofes) it is hoped , that the fober minded people of God will intertain other thoughts of thefe Governments then they have done. The firft Scriptures made ufc of, for proviug parity of Miniflers in government of the Church, and difproving imparity or fuperiority of any over others, are, MarJ^ 10. 41. Math, 20. 25 , 26, Lu\. 22.25. Where, becaufeChrift our Lord, fpeaking of the Kings and great ones in the earth, tbtir exerciftng dominion and authority over tbefstbjefts, forbids his difciples to do fo, it [ball not be fo among yon 1 therefore it is concluded, that there (hould be no fuperiority or governing power of Minifters of the Church above Mmiftere, but all Should be equal. J»f 1. It may be doubted, if there be in thefe Texts any prohibition at all given to Chrifts Apoilies, but only a meer prediction of what was to be their lot in the World, *pus *x * T ®# Lttkj *-• 26» this (hall not be your condition; and notwithftanding of the verb sra/ ufed in the other paflages , yet it may import no more but a prediction that they were not to have a (lately, glorious, worldly , pompous fuperiority over others , ( which they farcied in the Kingdom of Chrift ) for often had he foretold them, That in the World they [hould have trouble , that they {hould be hated and defpi/ed by all men for his name [*K € * An ^ (hould be dra^n and per* fee Me J before Kings and Councils for his Gofpcl-truth ; Now to prohibke r ip8> prohibite mm, who hid been aflurcd by him of fuch lots, to reign over others like Kings and Grandees, in ftate or pomp> would feem as incongruous, as fi rft to afiure a man that all hisdayeshe fhould be a beggar, and then charge him ft aitly that he ftiould not play the part of a King. 2. Let it be granted, that there is here a prohibi- tion or fomething forbidden, two things are to be confidercd, full, what is prohibited, and fecomily, who are prohibited ; the thing thac is forbidden, is that fort of dominion and cxercifing aurhority , which was among the Kings of the Gentiles and their great Rulers , accord- ing to which the yet too rude Apoftles ( untill ch y were indued with the Spirit from on hig> ) fancied that their mafttrs kingdom on carchjWis to be formedjhettupon they did often entertain vain and big thoughts, and had their cot tcntions, whofhould begnateft in that imaginary kingdom, Lt*\ 24. %u Afls f. 6- Math. 18. 1. Mark- 9- 34« our Lord Jefus feveral times takes them off that de- lullon, forbidding them to expeel in his Kingdom that grandure, thac earthly pomp, that coa&ive power , which was to be feen in the Kingdoms of the World ; this which was much in their mind, he dis- charges them to aim at to affed , to attempt 5 not difebarging all faperiotity or authority of any of his Minifters above others, but only fucha manner of fuperiority or authority, as Kings and Worldly Grandees ufe over their fubjeds, y/*«* «x «*•*• Joh not (o i he forbids tiotrem^lcdmodfimreif not government 1 but the manner of govern- ment ufed by the great ones in the World. Thirdly, it would be con- fidered, to whom thefe words were fpoken , It [hall not be (0 among you, certainly they are fpoken to the Apoftles ; but, becaufe feveral things are fpoken to them by Chrift, in feveral capacities, therefore we wou'd fearch in what capacity this is fpoken to them ; fometimes our Lord fpeaks to his Apoftles,as reprefenting all Chriftians,as Mar^i^ 37. What 1 fay unto jou, J fay unto ah \ Watch : fometimes they are fpoken to as (landing in room of, and reptefenting only Minifters , as when power of remitting snd retaining fins is given them , fob. 20. Sometimes again that is fpoken to them which concerns themfelves alone in their Apoftolick capacity, Math. ip. 2S. Now this fuppofed prohibition of fuperiority and authority, cannot concern them in the firft capacity ;for then the Anabapwfts conclufion might be eafily infer- red, that there fhould be no fuperiority or authority of oneChriftim above another. Again, if the third be faid,to wit,that it is fpoken to Apoftles asApoftles,then the Chuiches ar.d Miniftersafterward are not concerned in that inhibition 1 It is is eafily yielded (as Cyprian fpeaks) that that the Apoftles were pari confortio honoru & poteflath praditi • but that fayes nothing for the univerfal parity of Church-men* nor againft the fuperiority yvhich undoubtedly the Apoftles had over other Church- men* And if the fecond be faid, to wit , that this is fpokea to the Apoftles as representing all Minifters , fo that the inhibition is of fuperior authority of any of them above others generally and for ever , we mud feek a proof from the affirmers of this , or elfe fay » it is gratis diclttm: yea, we give much evidence to the con- trary of this; i. It is undoubted truth, that Jefus Chriftgave the Apoftles a fuperiority over all Minifters of the Church, and overall the Church $ hence they ordained Minifters,excommunicated offenders* as Paul did Hjmentus and Alexander , they made their decrees for exercife of jurifdi&ion, and fent them to the Churches, as t Cor. j*j> he faith kik^ka, I have made a decree, and determined to deliver ftich an one to Sathan. So he fpeaks elfewhere te that fame Church, gf bis rodVvberewith he threatens to come to revenge all difofodietice ; and the Apoftle, $Jo.h» 9.10. threatens infolent Diotrep hes , who oppofed the Apoftle himfelf, loving to have that prcheminence which Was undue to him , that he will not fpair him , but remember his evil deeds ', 3 Joh. 10. Is it not alfo evident from the Epittlcs of Timothy and Titus % thatthefeperfons ( call them Evangelifts or what they will J had a rainifterial Authority and judicatory Power over other Minifters, as is there clearly and above contradiction written as with a Sun-beam. Therefore, this Text difchargeth not all fuperior au- thority of Minifters above Minifters : If it be faid, that Apoftles and Evangelifts were extraordinary Minifters, fo that others may not do what they did ; it is anfwered , If this be a Law inhibiting all fupe- rior authority of any Minifters above others, extraordinary Minifters are not exceptcd,#6* Lexnon difiinguitfun eft diftingftendum* And ftrange it were, that whereas the ambition of greatnefs began here among the Apoftles , the cure (hould not be applyed to them, but ra- ther to other Minifters , and a fuperior governing authority fliould be permitted to them and not unto others. Secondly, 1 Cor. 12.-28* Cod hath fet in his Chtrcbfirft Afeftle secondarily Prophet; jkirdlj teacher s y urnr* or after miracles , which is not a bare numbering of the Officers, but an ordinal numbering according to their degrees in the Church , in reference to the objects they wereemployed about. Again,is it not certain, that even according to their own mind, there is among Church-men fuperiority and inferiority ? for, they are the fu- perior Officers who have th? mere excellent work to do , ssthePaftor m ( 2C0 ) is fuperior to the only ruling Elder, and he to the Deacon. Neither is it only an objeelive fuperiority, in regard of more excellent work which Pallors have in hand above others ; but there is an authorita- tive fuperiority which Paftors have and txercife , at lead dodrinally over all other Officers in the Congregation j for , he is a Steward and Ofricer fet over that whole part of the Houfe cf God to rule it : Nor is it cafily undcrftood , how that coming from Pulpit he flionld be fo fuddenly metamorphofed , that as to difciplinary authority , which is but more particular and pcrfonal application of the word, he fhould (ink below his aflfiftants in the Seflion, and bis voice fwallowed up and overcome by theirs. Thirdly, furthermore, if all governing fu perio- rity and authority be inhibited to Minifters over others, it is either a governing fuperiority of one over others, which only is forbidden ; or elfe the governing fuperiority of many , or of fome number over many others : The firft cannot be faid ; for Chrift omiLord, if he difcharge any thing* he difchargeth not only a Monarchick or King- like Govern- ment over his Minifters , or that one fhould have governing authority over others ; but he alfo difchargeth the government of many , or of fome number over others in an ariftocratical form, wherein there may be as high date and pomp, and peremptory commanding, as in a Mo- narchy or Government by one* Chrift our Lord will not have his Difciples in their Government no more like the ol pzyciKot and /oaSV- in apx uv > ^"^10.42. the Grandees and fuch as rule with great flate-appearances, though they were not Monarchs,rhen he will have them like Kings and Pi inces. Now if the fecondbe faid > that he dif- chargeth ali authoritative fuperiority of many, or of fome number of his Minifters over many , this will certainly deftroy the Presbyterian form of Gvernment, and their fuperiority of Judicatories above Judi- catories in the Churcb,and the paramount fuperiority of Commiifions of the Kirlsrulingovcr the whole Miniftry of the Church in the inter- vals of AlTembltes. What would thefe fay to CbrilVs word , it Jball not be fo among you ? What anfwer couid they make to an Indepen- dent prefling this word againft authoritative Judicatories of fome Minifters over many Minifters ? It were a poor (hifc to fay , that any jurifdiclion which Minifters have over Minifters is only for a time , and that they who have it are countable ; for , as to the former, the tem- porary continuance is but an extrinfecal circumftance ; if the jurif- diclion and authority of Minifters over Minifters be in it fchf unlaw- ful, as it is pleaded, the ufing of it is not lawful for an hcur,more then for a life- time 5 continuance (horc or long makes no difference in the fubftance fubftance of the matter, and as for the accountablenefs talked of, as members of a General Affembly are not, according to their principles, accountable for their free votes; fo we know that the profeffed accoun- tablenefs of the Commidion of the Kirk to the Affembly, was little better then a mockery ; for, they had power to punifh all the Mini- fcts of Scotland, if they would not obey all their Ads, before the the Affembly came ; So that they could provide,thac they (hould have none in the AfTembly to count to , but fuch as they had already in- gaged in practice to own their actings ; and how eafie was it , to be accountable upon thefe teims? Bifliops will not decline to be ac- countable to any lawful Affembly , upon terms of greater difad- vantage. 4. That our Lord doth not inhibit all governing fuperiority of iome Church-men over others, appeareth from the Text, Lnk^ 32. 25, 27. aod Math, 20. 26, 27. wherein he fuppofetb, that there fhall be amongft his Difciples > fomc who in comparifonof others are great and chief (even meaning of power and authority,otherwifc the fpeech were not to the purpofe ) and gives direction to thefe who (hould attain to that fuperiority , chiefty and greatnefs in the Church, how to demean themfelves humbly, ufefully and profitably, to the edificati- on of others ; fohe faith, Ltt\% 22- 25. He that is great e(t amongft jgh , let him be as the yon ger ; and he that is chief , as he that doth fcrve*. This fame direction he hathalfo, Math* 21. 26* whoevtr Will be great among jou y let him be jour Minifter ; and he that Vcill be chief among joh> let him be jour fervant : Which is not a word importing either a reproof of moderate willingnefs of ferving of God, in fome higher place in the Church(withouc ambitious vain affeelation of the honor feparate from the work) this the Apoftle condemns nor, when he faith, 1 FVw.^.i . He that de fires the office of a Bi(hop>de fires a worth] wor\. Neither doth our Lord give direction to others of his Difciples, to undervalue fuch a man as bafe and unworthy of honor- while he faith, Let him be jour Minifier , let him bejonr Servant ; but he gives direction to fuch as are willing to undergo great char- ges in the Church of God , without vain ambition , how they ought to demean themfelves,even condefcending in raoft lowly manner to all the offices of !ove,to tht neceffary good of the people of God. This isfo evidentjthat it cannot be deniedjfor immediately after, Math 20. 28. Luk^ 22. 27. he propounds himfelf in his holy humility and fervice- ablenefs unto his people,as a pattern,which he will have thefe who are great and chief in his Church to follow,which fhall not diminish their D d greatnefs ( *02 ) grcatnefs no more then it did his , who even then when he had wafhed his difciples teezjobn 13. told them ,y oh call we Mafier and Lord^and je fay Wclljor (0 1 ami So that our Lords meaning in thefe paiTages, is not at all to inhibit Church jurifdi&ion^of Minifters over Minifters, but mecrly to inhibit the arrogating of earthly and wordly ftate, pomp and power, upon the account of their being h^s Minifters, and to (htw that the government of nU Church was not to be managed in an earth- ly pompous coaclive and dominative manner , as the Kingdoms and States of the World are managed ; He calls his difciples from imitati- on of that wordly fplendid way of government of Kings, &c^ It pjall not be fo among you, But it (hail be among you in your go- vernment of my Church , according tomyeximple, who though I ha ye authority , yet do not afted outward ftate among you, but con- descends to the Iqwlieft offices of love, and laying out ray felf for your good, that you may learn to be followers of me in governing of others. 5. The governing fuperioricy , which here our Lord Jefus doth x difcharge ( if he doth at all difchargc it ) is not only of Mi.ufters over Minifters, hut of Minifters over people 5 for it is evident, that the am- ius defircs of the fons pf Zftcdffl&x and of others of the Apoftles, were not only to have rcle one over another, but to have rule over the other fubjefts of Chrift ; therefore, Chrift in dehorting them to fol- low theKings of theGcntileSjOiakes not mention of authority of Kings over chief Grandees , but over all their Subjefts £ the T^athns J and although he faith, It frail not be fo among jcu t h jmports nor,thac he only difchargeth fuperiority of any of them in relation to others 5 but i: imports, that none of trem, whether in relation toother Mini- vers or to people, (hould claim that fort of government which he dif- chargeth. Now it is certain,he difchargeth not all government of Mi- nifters over people; but only a dominative, lordJy and worldly way of government, (for he grants them a paternal and minifterial govern- ment^ So neither doth he difcharge the rule of one or fome Minifters over others, but only the lordly and earthly way of it j it is not Chrifts mind to fay to his Minifters, you (hall rule the people , but none (hall rule you. Neither can the Presbyterians aiferr, that in their way, Mi- oifters are not under the government of Minifters ; for to fay notbing of fuperior Affemblies, whether, ordinary or extraordinary, goverqing the inferior, is not the lifter part of every Alfembly governed by the greater , and although they will not ftate nor fix the government in anypcrfons, chat makes no alteration, as to the point of government gr ruling • for, variably according to different queftions and caufes, fane. fome or others are ruled or over-ruled by the fuffra^esof the rnoft,ifit be not aftedfafl. fixt government , as to perfons, it is vic'nTuudinaryj fometimes on party carrying the matter, and fometimes another. The ntxt place of Scripture made ufe of for Presbytery againft £ pif- copacy,is Math* 18*17. If thy Brother trefpaffe againfl thee, dec, go tell the Church, &c» whence it is argued* that Chriftonr Lord giving out the great Charter of cenfuring Jurisdiction , to be excrcifed among his Subjects, doth not give that power to one msn, a Bifhop , but to the Church, and one man cannot be a Church. L<4nf> Though we difclaim Mraftus his way , and thinks that there ought to be a godly difciplinc in the Church for correcting offenders , and keeping tttf houfe of God and his ordinances in parity, yet that this Text (peaks of thatecclefiaftical jurisdiction, difcipline and cenfuring, ( though othec Texts doe clearly enough fpeak thereof ) is not to us fo undoubted : plain it is,that a courfe is prefcribed by our Lord , for charitable and equitable removing of private quarrels and offences that might arife among brethren,both to gain their friendship, and to gain the fouls too from the guiltinefs of the breaches of charity, this is cleared, v. 21, 22. of that famer^^.and from the place which is near parallel, Luk^i 7.1* 2, 3, 4, &c* whence may appear,tbat Chrifts direction is in limitation to private injuries, and not to be extended to the whole latitude of a'l offences , to which the direction given by Chrift here , cannot be fuitable, even in the fenfe of the contrary minded; There are offences arifingupon fins of omiflion , as well as commjiTion , upon fins of quotidian incurfion and ordinary ignorance and weaknefs , as well as willfulnefs,there are fcandals arifing upon matters of opinion as well as practice ; there are fecret fcandals, yet in attrocious and land- defiling fins, as well as there are open fcandals , there are fcandals injurious to God, and others to man ; there are fcandsls criminal, and there are fcandals civil or rather uncivil, in points of oppreffion , &c, fome- times the actions of fupream powers may be fcandalous to the mean- efti and fometimes their actions unto the powers; fome times that which is fcandalous may be treafonable and fubverfivc of the State : Shall we think , that in all thefe cafes, Chrift by his direction, layes bind upon his people to follow thefe rules punctually , going from the ftep of private reproof to more open, and then prefenting the matter to a Judicatory, private wayes not availing? If a fault be a pieceof common frailty or ignorance, fhou'd it be thus profecuted ? If ix be a publick faul^what needs the fteps of private dealing? If it be attrocious and land defiling^ asmurther* beftiality, &c, fhould this method be Dd 2 ufed ( *°4 ) ufed ? If itbeamatteragainftKingandCountrey , Should men fid in a private admonition,if the perfon only fay that he repents ? Should private perfons upon all offences alledged given to them by Princes, ad - rooniih them, or procefs them before Church- Judicatories ? Should all criminal and civil caufes, where an injury is pretended to be done,bs brought before Church Judicatories, who plead their jurifdidtion to extend to all fins which Gods Word reproves, 'nor will be confin- ed with any enumeration of fcandals , to be dealt in by them; cer- tainly, here will be work enough for Church- Judicatories , and work enough for Chriflians to be bulled in, though they had nothing elfc to do: nor will it fatisfie to fay , the precept of Chrift being affir- mative, binds not adjemptr, but in certain fit circumftances j for, al- beit affirmative precepts do not bind *d (cmp(r y or to do the thing commanded in all times, yet it is a ftrange affirmative precept , that binds not £T » *"» w oa«, or for the mod part ; but if this fuppofed affir- mative precept did fo bind, it would fhoulder out the mod part cf other duties of Chriftianity, and turn men abfoluteiy pragmatick m the affiirs of others, and multip'y inconvenieocies in humane focie- ties. But no: to divert much upon this , it were good they could rc- folvs us in this one queftion, which concerns the joyming of this fup- pofed difcipline with the civil government ; whether, when a man is oppreffed in his civil inheritance by his brother » and is fcandalifed by his opprefling of him,may he not tell the Church and complain of the fcandal given him by the in jirrious oppreflion, as he faith ? and may not the Church take notice of and judge the caufe ? If it be faid fhe may, then fhe muft find her felf a fit judge of the injury , before fhe can judge of the fcandal founded upon the injury ? And thus, what plea concerning oppreflion, &e. may not be brought before Church Judicatories, to the great confufion of the Church and State? If it be faid, the Church may not meddle with fuch fcandalous injuries , how is it then that (he fayes , her jurisdiction extends to all fins which Gods Word forbids ? How can (he in piety decline to judge of that which (he fayes is in her coramiiTion , although the matter may be put off in policy ? If it be faid, (he will refer the judging of the civil in- jury to the civil Magiftrate, and ber felf only judge of the fcandal, how can this be ? The fcandal cannot be j'udged without the injury be judged by the Church ; in her j'udging of the fcandal of oppreflion, e. £. (he moft either follow the antecedent judgement of the Ma- gnate, and pronounce that fcandalous, which they have pronounced injurious , ( which is indeed not CO judge; but to follow blindly the judge- judgement of others ) or elfe, before they can judge the fcandal, they muftrevife the whole procefs denovo, and parties and proctors muft be heard,and matters carried from Aflembly to Aflembly ; and how the civil Magiftratc would take fuch re-examination of his proceedings upon any pretence,who cannot but know ? And if it fhall happen, that the Church fhall declare a fcandal in a matter wherein the State finds no injury, or upon the contrary, what clashing and confufioo fhould arife? and although mens moderations may ftint their practices ( the Church referring civil caufes, as they calJ them , in frimo inflami, or altogether to the civil Magiftrate ) yet if we look to the doctrinal principles of that way ofdifcipline, hardly can mans wit eftablifh the fame in an amicable conjunction with the civil government : if the avowed principles be followed, incroachments upon the civil power and confufions cannot be avoided ; Gods people fhall be in danger to he hurryed perpetually between clafhing Judicatories civil and eccle- fiaftick; fome abfolving men from in jury, while others involves them in cenfure of fcandal and upoo the contrary, and fome conftntioufly following the plea of fcandal, while they fuccumb in the plea of inju- ry and upon the contrary. 2. But to wave the tedious arguments and replies , about founding ecclefiaflical jurifdiction in this place, k iliali be for once granted , that the Cbriftian Church jurisdiction is here fpoken of,and the granting of this (hall be without prejudice of our caufe ; fonwhereas it is argued,that one man cannot be a Churclr, we would enquire again,what is meaned here by Church ? If the efl'en • tial collective Church be meaned , it is true , one man cannot be a Church ; but Presbyterians would not yield to thi*,tbat they may not give the victory to the Independent, who p!eads,that it is the collective Church that is meant : But if it be faid , that here is meaned the re* prefentative or perhaps the virtual Church , then it may be enquired, whether it be neceffary for a reprefentation of a Church toconfiftof many perfons ? It feems indifferent to [the nature of a reprefentation, whether the reprefentative of a community be one perfon or many perfons ; we know in Parliament, fome Cities and Shires have two Commi/Tioners, fome have but one , and that one in the ftile of the Court, bears the name of the Community that fent him ,- and fome- times one Commiffioner may reprefent a whole Presbytenaj Church in an Aflembly. Tell the Churches tell the prefidents and ruiers of the refpective Churches where the fcandals fall out, and telling him thae is chief, that he with his affiftants may put order t« the matter , is a selling the Church. A mans head which is but onc> may fufficiently reptc- ( 2C0 ) t^rcfent the whole man in a portrai&ure , and bears the name of the whole man. 3. Though juri&diclion be attributed to the Church,. it is nothing againft us , who do nor grant the exercife of Church ju- risdiction to one (ingle perfon acting foldy, or to a Bilhop , excluding the counfel and adiltance of Presbyters. As we approve well of that which is fo often inculcate by ancient Ignatius^ in his Epiftles, Mn/«p X^a iviMoTr* >s^/7«,let nothing be done inChurch government with- out or feparatly from th: Bifhop j So we well allow the moderation of the fourth Counc. of Carthage, 23. chap. Vt Epifcopus nullius cau[am audUt ab(cjuepre[enti*Clcricorumfiioyum, alioquiirrita frit fentcntU Spifcopi, nifi CUricorum pr&fcntia confirmctHr : nei- ther can it be faid, that any fcaodal can fall out in our Church, where there is not a plurality, before which the Icandalous perfon maybe conventedj howfoever, there may be fuperiorky and inferiority, yet there is a plurality of Officers, whether judging or advifing, there is a Church determination, which is the refultof the concurrence of all the raembars ; neither doth the notion of the Chuichjimport an equa- lity of power in all, as is clear in one organical Church, made up of rulers and ruled. 4. We find the higheft cenfures of the Church, inflided by the authority of fwgle perfons, whoever othcrwayes con- curred with them ; S. pant excommunicated Hjmeneus nsA*/£Ux* ander, [_vpkorn I htve delivered to Sathw~\ faith he I. Tim* r, 20, To fay tnat he was but one of the quorum, and hard others acting in an equality of power with him, is to make Scripture fay any thing that men willi and to make him a bragard, boafting to have done that: wherein others had as great and greater fvvay as he ; Now the Apoftle in doing this, either tranfgrefled Chrifts precept , arrogating to him- felfwhac belonged to the Church, which menthouidbe loath to fay, or elfe did fo by extraordinary warrand ; but,this cannot be produced, nor was it one of the extraordinary characters of the apoftolical office to a& in thefe matters by his own only authority : Whatever the Apoftles had or ufed beyond immediate calling, infallible direction, limited jurisdidion and power of working miracles , was tranfmittab!e from them to their fuccdlbrs in the Miniftery , and they did tranfmic the fame to fuch perfons as Timothy and Titus , as appeared by the Epittiles to them,who exercifed authority , though it is like with the confent and concurrence of Presbyters. 5. Although there be a power given to a Church of cenfure and jurisdiction, yet this will not infer an equality of the power of all the perfons in that Church 5 for, all who are for eftabliihing Church*jurisdi#ion from this place, do ngree. sgree , that our Lord fpcaks here of the Chriftian Church-ccum , in allufiontothe Jewifo Church- courts, thofc being to fucceed unto thefe. Mow that there w*s fuch an equality in the Church-courts higher and lower, which are fuppofed to have been among the Jews, that no Member was in power above another , how fhall it be in- truded ? Were there not chief Rulers in the Synagogue and fubordi«- nate ? And who will think that the meantft Levite was equal in power in the great Sanhedrim with the higheft Pdeft of God,upon whofe fen- tence determination of things doubtful miinfy depended? Deut.ij. 6. It muft be fuppofed , that our bletfed Lord in this place , if he give direction at all concerning remedying of fcandals , giveth fuch directi- on as might prefently be made ufe of upQn the rifing of any fcanda! ; for it is not to be thought , that he only giveth direction for remedy- ing fcandals wfiich were to arife a long time afterward , but even for thefe which might prefently arife ; Now what was th3t Church which behooved to be cold and complained to, \f Judas fhould then have giv- en fcandal to Peter} would our Lord fend them to any Sanhedrim of the Jews, higher or lower, to debate their matters ? Who will think fo ? That had been to expofe himfelf and his company to the mockery of his malicious enemies, and incceafe the fcandal, to the prejudice of theGofpel; therefore there behooved to be a Church- chriftian , to whofe Judgement that matter ihould be referred: Now where was this Church-chriftian who may judge betwixt thefe two Apoftles and cognofce of the fcandal? Gerfom Huce? 'in his Exerc* fpeaking of this place, Mat. 18. and of this doubt, fsith , that Chrlfi anAkis Apoftles ia>e,e a fufiicient reprefentaiive chrifiUn Church , to f)Wtb Church matters might then be referred : Verily , we accept well of fuch a chriftian Presbytery or reprefentativeChurcf^made up by Chrift theBuhopcf fouls and his Apoftles; here there was neither equa- lity of power in all the Members, as is manifeft, nor intermixture of Lay-elders ; this is a primitive Presbytery indeed, according to which form others afcerward fhould be framed ; i/lud verum que-dprimum, faith Ter t udian ; Give us fuch a Presbytery, and all our controverfie were at an end , and if we will not follow that pattern, we were nor worthy to be heard any more. But to go on ; they argue, that in the times of the Apoftles, Pref- byters and Bifhops were all one in office,and that they left no B {hops, but fuch as were the fame in office with Presbyters and Elders ; and therefore , that now there ought to be no Bifhops in the Church , but fuch as are of the very fame office with Elders and Presbyters, Presby- (208) ter and Bitliop being but two names of one thing. This they labour to prove from Atls 20. 17. 28. where the Elders of the Church fent for by Paul to MUetusixz called Bidiops ; and from Titus 1. 5.7. where he that is called an Elder, is called alfo a Bifliop, and the names ufedasfynonimsand words of one Signification : So, 1 Pet. 5.1,2. the Elders are ET/**o5rmss, fuch as have the overfight over the flock. Theftrength of the objection lyes thus; if there were noBifhops in the Apoftles dayes differing in office from Presbyters , there ought to be none fuch now ; but in the Apoftles times there were no Bifhops differing from Presbyters in office, therefore there ought to be none fuch now: The fecond propofition is proven from the mentioned Text, where Presbyter and Biiliop figniheth but one fort of Officers, v/c. the (ingle Presbyter in the modern notion. An[ t It Thefirft propofition is not fo indubitate as they would have it fetm to be; even their own great Mr. Bezi, though he be of opinion, that in the Apoftles times there wai no other Biftiop but a Presbyter in the modern notion,and that fuch are meaned by Bidiops in Scripture 3 yet doth freely acknowledge the lawfulnefs of that primitive Epifcopacy which he calleth humane; and againft Sartvia often profeffeth , that there was no fin in fetting up Epifcopacy , as it was fet up by the An- cients, nor any opposition in it to the apoftolical Ordinance. So thar, although in the Apoftles times no fuch Bidiops had been, yet the law- fulnefs thereof might fubfift by the constitution of the Church of God, guided by his holy Spirit , to ufe fit means for confervation of her own peace,ai caufe and occafion was feen in after times. 2. As to the fecond propofition , that there were no Bifhops in the Apoftles dayes differing in office from Presbyters in the modern notion , is fooncr affirmed then proven. The Presbyterians are in this matter much like the melancholick man at Athens , who never did fee any fhip arriving at the harbour of Athens, but inftantly imagined it to be his own, and concerned himfclf as ferioufly in every Veffel , as if Veffel and Goods had been his property , when there was no fuch thing. So do they imagine, that whatever Presbyter or Presbytery is fpoken of in Scrip- ture,prefentiy is meantPresbyter in bhe modern notion, and Presbytery of their form : but we (hall labour to help their miftakes by thefe con- fiderations. 1. The name of Presbyter is not in holy Scripture a diftin- guifhing name of one fort of Officers from ail others , ( although fometimes as a paflage of Scripture requires, it muft be looked upon as diftingui(hing thefe that are under that name from fome other Officers) ( i°9 ) Officers) Remarkable it is,that when God is affirmed to fct Officers in his Church , I Cor. 12. 28, it is faid, he fetin hu Church Apoftles, Prophtts {Teachers, &c. but not that he fet Presbyters in his Church ; and, Eph. 4. 11. when the officers which the afcended Saviour gifted to the Church are reckoned up, Presbyters are not among them $ it is not faid, that he gave any Presbyters to his Church , that name being none of his appointment for defignation of any certain order of his Minifters, albeit under the name ofPaftorsand Teachers, both they and Biihops are comprehended in this catalogue , and given, to the Church. 2. It is certain the name Presbyter in Scripture , is not appropriat to any one fort of officer , nor to the Presbyter in the modern noaon, which is the continual miftake of the Presbyterians : I know not one place of Scripture, where the name of Elder or Presbyter is mentioned, that muft needs be underftood only of an Elder in the modern notion, or of an officer fixt to a particular charge in teaching and ruling, having no other above him in power, nor having power over any other offi- cers ; if we look to the principal places where the name is mentioned, we (hall find it fo j ketsftts 14. 23. where itisfaid, the Apofjtles ordained Slders in every City : it may be queftioned what Elders are meant ; Presbyterians will not deny , that there are Elders of the firft and fecond rank, fome teaching, others ruling only, and the dig- nity of the one fort is very far above the other : Now they muft either fay, that under the name of Elders, are only meaned preaching El- ders,and fo the Apoftles plantation of thefe Churches with a Miniftery had been very defective, feing neither ruling Elders nor Deacons are mentioned to have been planted by him ; Or clfe they muft grant, that under the name of Elders, are comprehended tie feveral forts of Elders and Deacons too ; and if they fay , that feveral forts of Elders were comprehended under the name , meaning by one fort their ruling Elders, we (hall with far better reafon fay, thac two forts of Elders are comprehended under the name, and one fort of them are the Ma- jores Tresbyteri or the Bifhops , who having a diftindl office from iht minor es t yet keeped the name in common with others, both in the apoftol.ck times and in fome after ages , when the offices were dearly diftinguiihed,as in Irenes time,who was furely in the modern fenfe Blfhopof Lyons } yet is called Presbjter £cchfitnfis y and the fame may be faid of others : Again in the 15. chap, of the tAHs of the Apoftles , 22. 23. mention is made of the Apoftles, Elders and Brethren, meeting in the Synod at Jerujalcm* now it Ee would (no) would be confidered under which of thefe, Janes the Lord's Brother* called by the Ancients Bifhop of Jernfalcm (who was not properly an Apoftle , bot a dtftincl perfon from the two Apoftles of that name ) is comprehended. Aifo it miy be enquired , under which of thefe names theDeacoris are comprehended? for ic is not to be imagined,that either in the Synodical aclings, or the Synodical epiftle direcled to the Churches,they ate not included under any of the appellations, Apoftles Elders and Brechren,th;y being men full of the holy Gh*ft and of faith and as is fuppofed to hive been of the feventy two Difciples, To put thefe Deacons under the name of the Apoftles,were too high ; to put them under the name of Brethren , were too much to debafe them being Church-officers ; therefore th*y mull go under the name of El- ders, which name is here to be taken as common to the Bifhop of Je- rufalero James, to the Deacons and to teaching Presbyters, yea to only ruling Preibyters , if there were any fuch there. And Mr. 2*** is poficive, I Pet. 5. 1. That the name of Presbyter is common to all Church- oncers higher and loVcer , in fo much , that even the holy Apodles themfelves have taken that ftile, as the Apoftle Peter doth in that place, calling himfdf Fellow-presbyter with other Presbyters ( he that is a Fellow presbyter is a Presbyter ) and the Apoftle John calls himfeif the Elder, or vwGvts}©- r in his fecond Epiftle to the Elect Lady, and his third Epiftle to the beloved Gtiui , holding forth his eminent Authority, as an eminent Presbyter and Officer in the Church of God : It is ridiculous to fay , that he fpeaketh only of his age rotbis purpofe , John the oldman y or Iohn the eldrenman ; for that is unfuteable to the Apoftolick way^of writing Epiftles who in the infeription of their Epiftles, give (ignification of their au- thority »and not of their age. As for the mentioned Scriptures, firft, there is not ground to aflerr, that the Presbyters mentioned Atts 20. were Prerbyters only in the* modern notion,and none of them Bifhops in the modern notion; for to fay that they all behooved to be (ingle Presbyters of Effoftis and not Bifhopsin thereftrainedfenfe, becaufe many fuch could not be one Church,hath no weight; becaufe not only the Elders of the Church of Ephefut were called, but of the Churches ofAfia about, fo far as in a transient vifit they might get intelligence of the Apoftles being at Mi. letHsuhis appears from t/.i8. where it is faid.be preached throughout all Ada ; and , v. 25 . fpeaking to thefe that were conveened, faith, you *ll,among Vchom I have gone preaching the Kingdem ofCod^Cn importing that others o£A[ia 7 who might be proper Bifhops in their places- (Ul) places, were there prefent at well as the Elders of Sphefus , nor can there be any facisfying ground given> why Presbyters here fhould be in the reftrained fignification rather then Biihops, or that the term Pref- byter fhould limit the term of Bifliop, rather then the term Bifhop {hould limit the term Presbyter, which is a common name for thefe in the Miniftery. As for Titus i. 5. the Presbyters to be ordained by Ti- tus , may well comprehend the major es and minores ?resbyteri % as the Ancients have diftinguifhed Bifhops and the ordinary Elders j and the Apoftle may be taken as reafoning analogically from the quali- fications and duty of the Bi(hop properly fo called , to Ihew the ne- ceffity of the like in all Presbyters, who are comprehended under their order,and whofe work is much the fame with theirs,and the very fame in all Sacerdotal ads with theirs. As to 1 Peter 5 . 1 . it may agree well to Presbyters, both of the firft and fecond order, not excluding the qne nor the other, Bifhops or ordinary Presbyters : and Presbyterians themfelves are in all thefe and fuch like places, forced to acknowledge two ranks and orders of Presbyters j only we differ in this point, what are thefe different orders. The next Scripture they infift on is, 1 Cor. 5 . where it is alledged, that the Church of Corinth not having a Bifhop, is acknowledged by the Apoftle to have the Power of eccleiiaftickcenfures even of excom- munication, and is reproved for not executing of thefe cenfures , and exhorted fpeedily to execute the fame. Hence it is concluded , feing this Apoftolick Church was fo conftitute, that it had the power of ex- communication in it felf by its own Officers, Presbyters without a Biihop ; that therefore , all other Churches (hould have that fame power without a Bifhop.according to the Word of God. Anf. 1. If there be here any power of jurifdiftion or cenfure acknowledged, it is not acknowledged to be in the Elderihip , or not in them alone as it is pkadedjbr the whole Church is fpoken to here in this matter,* ^r* is fornication among you&c* chat is not among theElderihip,but among the whole people; je arepuft up and not lamented, that the evil might be taken aVray ; it concerns not the Elders only, but the people and all the Saints in the Church, of whom he faith, that they judged thsm that were within, &c. Ic were llrange, that the people who are moft exprefly named, fhould not be concerned in what is faid here, and the Elders who are not at all named fhould be concerned ; fo, that this Text would rather make for the congregational way, then for the Presbyterial,the Presbytery being no more mentioned then the Bifhop, and there being no more evidence of a governing Presbytery fettled ac Ee 2 CV- ( 'ii* ) Corinth, then of a governing Bifhop, fo far as may be feen from th« Epiftles ; Neither doth it facis-fie to fay, that in the Epiftles directed to a collective body, fometimes there are precepts not to be applyed and appropriate all diftributively, but refpe&ively , according as feveral perfons or forts of perfens are concerned in thefe Commands. This may in fome things hold fometimes , but yet in the ufual ftile of the apollolick Epiftles, there are diftin&ive notes and periods , whereby each fort of perfons in the collective body may know the precepts wherein they are corcaned : as the fame Apoftle makes particular apoftrophies, turningliis fpeech to perfons of feveral ranks , as Mini- fters,People,Mifter$,Servants, married, unmarried, Wives, Husbands • and in the cafe of dangerous confufion, ready to arife about jurifdicti- on between Presbyters and People, who will think but the Apoftle would have been yery diftincT in fpeaking of their jurisdictions , if he acknowledged any jurifdiclion in either of them ? But there is adeep fiience concerning Presbyters jurifdi&ion here; nor is there any evi- dence in the Epiftle of any fixed Presbytery at Corinth at this time, albeit there were Teachers miny, ye3,eminent Teachers, extraordinary Prophets, i Cor. 14. 2. The Apoftle fpeaks of that fentence to be pronounced upon the inceftuous , as proceeding from himfelf, and noc from the Corinthians, although declaring and executing of it be com- mitted unto them, as is plain from that he faith, v t i. Te have not mourned^ that he that hath done this deed might bs taken away , tW s^f^jfj he might be taken awajr, or cut off by fuch as had power, im- porting that the power was not in themfelves, but in another ; foric were improperly faid, that a man did take away a thing from himfelf: Neither doth the Apoftle reprove them for not inflicting cenfures up- on the peccant , but only that they had not fought with tears to fuch as had power of inff&mg, that f fa the evil one might betaken away. Alio, it is further cleared by his own claiming the power of determin- ing the cenfure upon the man ; for he faith , v . 3. / verily as abfent in body b Ht prefent infpirit , have judged already , &c. v % 4. In the name of our Lord] ejus Chrift , When ye are gathered together and mj [pint With the power of my Lord fefus Chrift , Vt 5 . to deliver fuch an one unto Satban, &c* Taul determined the cenfure, and gave judgement, {_ KiKfiKajhat fuch an one (hculd be delivered to Sathan J He doth not refer the matter to their votes or arbitrerrient , nor takes them in as fharers with him in the determination concerning the cen- fure, but requires their obedience in declaring or executing his fen- jence, or putting away the evil one from among them, and that this flxould («3) ftiouldbe done folemnly when they were gathered together; yea, he fignifieth fome further thing to be dot.e by his fpirit prefenr, which could not be done by the Corinthians , the delivering the man to Sathan to be tormented outwardly, which was to be done by his extraordinary gift of miracles , together Vvitlo my ffirlt % and the porter t f the Lord Jefus , to deliver , &c. The Corinthi- ans might upun Sc. P*ttls injunction > feparare the man from their fociety $ which rs one confequent of excommunication, wherein fome doing on the peoples part is reqaifite j but it was Paul who by his fentence doth bind him in heaven, and by his gift of miraculous power only, he could be delivered up to Sathan to be tormented in body; which by the Learned is thought to have been in thefefirfi: times the attendant punifhment that followed excommunication. 3. Suppofe that it were To , that there is here a power acknowledged in Church-officers for centering delinquents, yet will it make nothing for their caufe, unlefle they can prove,that thefe Church- officers were fingle Presbyters according to the modern notion ; for, in that highly- gifted Church of Corinth, we find indeed, thit there were numbers of Prophets, Officers above any ordinary,who might do what the ordina- ry could and more. If to thefe a power of excommunication had been left, that will make nothing for the ordinary Presbyter, who whether fettled as yet in that Church it was not certain. 4 If it were fo,thac a power of excommunication were in the ordinary Presbyters in the Church of Corinth t thcy might have had it by delegation and com mi f- fionof the Apoftle; or if it were not -fo^this inftance of the Church of Corinth is but one,and cannot make a rule for ever,without fare know- ledge of a divine direction the Apofdes had, to keep an uniform courfe in foch external matters ; a thing which never can be proven. Butyetagainitisargued,from £ph.^, n. that becaufe Bifhops are not mentioned by name amongiY the Officers gifted to the Church* and fent to her for her edification by the afcended Saviour, that there- fore no fuch Officers are to be acknowledged in the Church. Axf* 1. The objectors would think it ill reafoned to fay, that btcaufe Presby- terrnor any Officers under that name are in that catalogue, that there- fore Presbyters are not acknowledged to be Officers of the Church : But, feing they acknowledge Presbyters to be rneaned undei Paftors and Teachers , why not Bifhops a I fo, who are Palters and Teacher? ag well as they? Neither hath the objection any weight that faith, they cannot be reckoned with Paftors and Doctors , becaufe all fuch are equal, whereas Bifhops pretend to be Paftors over Paftors. And the~ (214) the equality of all Paftors is but weakly proven from this , that there was no Apoftle above an Apoftle, nor a Prophet above a Prophet, nor an Evangeiift above an Evangeiift; therefore there ought to be no Paftor above a Paftor : For,to pafs other things which might evidence perhaps difparicy of degrees amongft one fort or another of thefe other Oificers ; yet, fuppoiing that there was no fuch thing amongft them,the confluence will not hold, that therefore there ftiould be no difparity of degrees among ordinary Pallors; for thefe extraordinary ones,as Apoftles, &c. having from God infallible direction in the great things of their Miniftery, and being alfo to live difper fed ly for the more expedite fpreading the Gofpel-light over the world, and feldora having the opportunity of ordinary living in focietie$,a governing fupe- riority amongft them was partly unpracticable and partly unnecedary. But the cafe is far different amongft Paftors living in a vicinity , and fixed upon their charges in the circuit of a certain local bounds • for they in their affociations have need to have fome governing fuperio- rity amongft them , which may be as a nerve or finew of their union, and that the gravity and prudence of fome may repreffe the levity and unadvifednelTe of others, in managing the Government of the Houfe of God; and this way of one having fuperiority in a certain circuit above others , being fo early and univerfally embraced in the whole Church of Chrift fince the beginning , it is wonderful confidence ( to callitno worfej to reject that courfe with reproach, there being not one title in the Word of God againft it. Another Scripture is objected, 7>£*7. 1. 1. where Paul writes to the Saints at Philippi with the Biftiops and Deacons; whence it is argued,that there is only two forts of Church-officers, one under the name of Biftiops , and another under the name of Deacons. And it is afferted, that thefe fo called Biftiops were but ordinary Presbyters in the modern notion ; becaufe, fay they, in one City there could not be moe Biftiops according to the modern acception of the word Biftiop. Hence alfo it is concluded, that feing Presbyters bear the name of Bifliop, there is no fuch thing as a Biftiop aa Officer fuperior to a Presbyter, feing as they fay, the name of a fuperior Officer is never given to the inferior , albeit the name of the inferior be given foroe- times to the fuperior ; and feing it was fo in this Church , that there was no other Officers but Presbyters called Biftiops and Deacons, that there ftiould be no other Officers in any Church. A*l* i« It is a thing considerable , that the Apoftle St. P*ul doth never in any of his Epiftlcs to the Churches befides this # direct exprefly his Epiftle to the Officers Officers *$contradiftin3 from the Church, but includes them in the organical Church, without the exprefle mentioning of them. Some reafon would be fearched for this variation of his way, if indeed he do vary it.* This moved godly Ambrofe to think, that the Bifhops and Deacons mentioned here, were not Bifhops and Deacons of that Church written to,but the Bifhops and Deacons prefent with St. Paul and Timothy at the writing of the Epiftle, in whofe names , as confent- ers, together with his own and Timothies^ he fends the Letter, even as elfewhere writing to the Galatians, he takes in with himfelf, t>. 2. aS the brethren that are With me y faith he I and indeed the Apoftie doth not call thefe Bifhops and Deacons, the Bfhop; and Deacons of the Church of Philippic but abfolurely Bifhops and Deacons*, and that copulative evv may refer to Tauliwi Timothy writers , as well as to the Saints at Thilippi, And although the tra'jettion feem to be hard, yet there are a great deal harder to be found in tbeScripture. Bur, 2, by the Bifhops and Deacons here, may be meant others then fuch as belonged to that particular Church of PhUippi y whom providence had brought therefrom other pms of Macedonia \_Thilippi being the Metropolis] to confult the good of the Churches about , or who were for a time refident there , for contributing their counfels for the Churches good in that Country. We do not hear the Apoftie fay, that he writes only to the Bifhops and Deacons of that particular Church of PhUippi ( but as he fpeaks generally to all the Saints that are at ^PhUippi) not only to the fettled Church there (If at this time there was any ) So this Direction of the Epiftle to the Bfhops and Deacons may be taken nniverfally to all that were there, although not of that particular Church- 3. Be it fo, that the Apoftie did write to the Bifhops and Deacons of that particular Church only, it will not prove that all that were called Bifhops by him were of equal degree.,, although the name Biihop in thefe tim?s might be communicated to Presbyters, and may fo yet in a common fenfe , they having indeed in- fpeftton over the Church of God with the Bifhop, ftridly fo called- If a man fhould direct a Letter to the Magiftrates of a City, though he call them ail in general Magiftrates, he denyeth not that there may be fuperiority of fome of them over others , as one a Provofl , others Bailies 5 the Apoftie fpeaking in cumulo to the B:(hop« of that Church, ftands not on diftinelion of names , feing the thing [jnfpeclion] was common to them all ; neither doth he deny different degrees and or- ders amongft thefe Bifhops, neither doth the Presbyterians themfelves deny, that two dif&rent orders of Elders under the name of B;fhop arc (il6) are there comprehended , to wit, their preaching Eider ani ruling Elder; for under this name of Bifhop, they muft either place the rul- ing Elder, and thus we have two forts of Officers under the name, or elfe he muft be taken in under the name of Deacons, ( which ftile perhaps he will think too low for hirofelf, as we think the former too* high for him ) and thus there are alfo divers ranks of Officers under that name meaned or elfe it mud be faid , the Apoftle minded not to write , to the ruling Elder at all , which were ftrange , if he were a Church Officer indeed ; the iflue of this isj # that if the Presbyterians can account it not abfurd , that under the name of Bfhop two forts of Officers fhould be comprehended, Why fhould we think it ftrange, *thit under the fame namc,preaching Presbyters of fuperior and inferior degree fhould be comprehended , there being better war- rand in Scrip:ure for that firft rank of preaching Presbyters , then of that order of meer ruling Presbyters adjoyned to them ? 4. Where- as they think to ftrengthen their objection from this place , by tel- ling us , that the name of a fuperior Officer is never given to the inferior ; and therefore, that Presbyters here being called BiAiops, the Office of a Bifhop was no wayes fuperior to the Office of a Presby- ter : Thisobfervation will not hold, for we find in Scripture, that not only the name of the inferior Church-officer is communicated to the fuperior, becaufe the fuperior includes all inferior orders , as the rati- onal foul doth the fenfitive and vegitative j but eve do alfo find, though perhaps not fo ordinarily, the names of fuperior Officers given to the inferior, in refped of fome common dignity , qualifications or actions competent to both,and fo undoubtedly the name of Presbyter,botht'/* afcenjpts & via. defcenfus^ is in Scripture given to higher and to lower OfficerSjandtoallmdiflvrentlyjasMr. *#^* confeflech, I* ) l*1* n l on °f tfs€ h<™&* of the Presbytery ; Whereunto we fay firft, that no evidence can \>z brought, that by Presbytery here is meant a Colled^e of (ingle Presbyters, according to the modern notion, and not rather the dignity and office of a Presbyter ; which is not only Mr. Calvins opinion aflerted over and over again by him, when his judge- ment was ripeft, in his Inflitutions y lib. 4. cap. 3. but alfo by Jerom and others of the Ancients, who clearly underftand by Pref- bytery here, the official power of a Presbyter ; yea , it is moft ordi- nary in the ancient Greek Councils,that nr^^n^v and *r/>i5\£uT«pw have been indifferently ufed for the office and order of a Presbyter, Council Hjcen. can. 2. Antioch. can. 18; African, can. 136. See alio Eajeb. lib. 6. cap, S. cap. 20, 23. 43. all cited by Bil- jon, pag> 77. andnoman will doubt j but they well underftocd the greek Tongue and the (ignificance thereof; neither hath it any weight to tell us, that in all the New Teflaroent, the word being feveral times ufed, y«t it is never ufed for the office , but for the meeting of the Presbytery: It is true , in other places in the New Teftamenf, the word is ufed for a meecing,but never for a meeting of Chriftian Presby- ters,but only of J ew fh fclders,perfecuting Chrift and his Ap )fties,but it is nothing to the purpofe » though the word in this fenfe fhould bs taken only in this p!ace,as being one of thefe called *n*Z M^/xsra.The word Q Church ] is never taken in the New Teftament but once for a reprefentative Church , Math* 18. 17. yet do the Presbyterians cleave to that fenfe of the word in that place, though they have no parallel whereby to illuftrate the fame; fo 1 Corinth, n, 10. the word C P ower 3 * s ^kd to fignifie the covering and vail which is upon the Womans head, in token tfaat flie is under the power of hec Husband, and yet the word is not ufed in any other place of Scrip- ture in that fenfe: It is enough , that the ftrain of a context and the matter in hand doth require a varying from the ordinary acception of the word in other places : Neither is their ridiculous objection to be regarded, who fay, that the office of a Presbytery hath no hands to F f impofe, impofc, but only the Meeting; that exception proceeds from the miftakeofthe meaning of the Text , which doth not attribute thefe impofed hands to the Presbytery, as to an agent or efficient, but only limits and determines that impofition of hands, which Timothy had from the Apoftlc or other high Officers of the Church , to the parti- cular ufe and end, for which hinds were impofed on him ; to wit, the giving him a power of a Presbyter or Elder » So the fenfe is,Thou had impofuion of hands, not confirmatory, not reconciiiatory, &c % (for impoficion of hands was given for feveral ends ) but thou received i'.r.pofition of hands ordinatory , or for making thee a Presbyter or Elder in the Church, the whole context runs fmoothly enough ; ito- gleU not the gift that ii in thee, Vvhich rvat given thee by the laying on of hands , thereby thou \Yw ordained or made a 'Presbyter*, 2. Were it fo, that Presby try here were a meeting of Presbyters, how fhall it be evinced that it was a claiTical Presbytery, and not a con- gregational or parifh- Presbytery ? It will trouble Presbyterians to prove the former, there is ao evidence of fuch a Presbytery in the Text, or in the antecedent or confequent verfes ; therefore they cannot from this Text, evince the neceflity of their Presbytery, to which they at- tribute ordination. 3. Let it be fo, that they were a meeting of Pref- byters in the modern notion, who gave impoiieion of hands to Timo- thy ; yet, that they alone did it, without an Officer of higher autho- rity joyned with them in the ad , is not to be granted ,• feing the Apoftle St. Tatil faith, that he impofed hands upon Timothy, z Tim. 1. £. where he faich, Stir tip the gift of God vthkh in thee by ( ft* ) the putting on of my hands \ as here, 1 Tf'w, 4, 14. he faith, grace was given him W/r/; ( v-ita ) the iajing $n of the hands of the Presbytery - f the former place importing his authority in the aftiof?, and the latter the concurrence and confenc of the meeting of Presbyters with him. 4. Suppofe it (hould be yielded, that the name Presbyter /„ were to be taken here for a meeting of Presbyters concurring in the or- dination, yet feing Mr. Be*,* truly confeffeth> 1 Vet, 5. x. that the name Presbyter or Eider in generai , comprehendeth all thefewho have any ecdefiaftick Function, why might they not be Officers of a higher fort then finglc Presbyters } If he was ordained a Bifhop, as fome of the moft learned Commentators of the ancients do think, as Chry(oftome % Theodoret, Theophilaclmd Oecumenitu, that Presbytery might be a meeting of Bihops , concurring according to their mind in that work with the Apoftle Taul ; and it is adif-ingenuous objecti- on that imputes to thefe learned and godly men, that theyfpakein expounding expounding Scripture according to the practice of their own times. It is too foul an imputation , that they did wreft the Scriptures to co- lour the practice of their own time, contrary to the Scripture; a charge which may be rooft juftly retorted upon the heads of their ac- cufers > who do palpably wreft the holy Scriptures to patronife their novel! practices and humane devices. Again, if the ordination of Ti- mothj to be an Evangelift be fpoken of here, under the name Presby- ter] may be well comprehended a meeting of Apoftles or Evangelifts, or apoftolical men , feing the conjugate word Presbytery may be of as great a latitude and fignification as to a meeting, as Presbyter is to a perfon* Thus have we prefented the fum of their ftrength who are contrary minded to us; and the chriftian Reader may perceive by the fair and juft interpretations which are and may be given of thefe places of Scripture.without any inference of the neceflity of Presbytery, or the unlawfuloefs of Epifcopacy , how hard a matter it is to plead a co»- vi&ion of fpirit or fettled refolution , that in thefe or the like places Presbyterian parity in governing the Church is eftabliflied as a necef- fary divine Ordinance , and Epifcopacy caften by as unlawful. Men had need to be very clear in their grounds in owning fuch Doctrines, for which they account the multitudes of murthers and maiTacres con- tinued many years , the fad and woful ruines of Princes and People, and overturning the foundations of humane fociety in an endlelle confufion, too low a ranforn to refcue that which they fo much afTeft. As for us, having with greateft impartiality in the fight of God , pondered their allegations from Scripture for Presbytery and againft Epifcopacy , we find no weight in them at all , nor judges the defence of their way worthy the life of one man ,• whereas we judge the undoubted Truth of God of more value then the lives of many. True it is, fome may think, that, in defence of Epifcopacy that it is only lawful,we have taken too low a way 3 which may be advantageous to the contrary minded ; but confidering that it was enough to our purpofe, in order to the vindication of the owners of Epifcopacy from perjury, to evince that Presbytery was not necelTary by any divine Or* din-ance, nor Epifcopacy unlawful, we refted on that as qmderat de- monftrandum to our purpofe, yet have given fome foort account how far we j'udge it divine. Calvin* word we relliih well,who fpeaking of geniculation in prayer to God, faith of it , THcofic ejfe kumnnam ut fimul fit divina, Dei eft qnntenus eft pars decori illim Cftjus cur a & obferyatU nobis ftr Afojtoltsm commendAtur y loominnm tutem qua* Ff z tents s ( 220 ) tenus fpccialiter deftgnat quod in gene re fuerat indication f otitis quam expofitum , ab hoc uno exemplo eftimare licet quodin totohoc genere fit (entiendum, &c. lib. 4. Inft. cap. 2. art. 3c. And amoogft thefe Divino-ecclef$aftica t what hindreth us to place this fo much oppofed Epilcopacy ? But, the importunity of thefe we deal with, will either urge, that it ftands upon a meer divine right, (Tor evidencing of which, they call for Scripture- examples or precepcs to (hew the neceffity thereof) or elfc they will drive us to a meer humane right as our ground, and then they will have a fair field (think they J to rethoricare upon us brge!y ; andatlafttheitfue will be as Napht. Pref. faith, That we are for our Opinions Latittidinarixns and nttll'fidian tsfdiaphorifts* But the Gentlermn would be defired not to drive fo furioufly 5 for we do with a good confcience own fuch Ordinances as are Divino -eccle fiaftica % as Mr. Calvin dothi (of which we judge Epifcopacy one ) Ne ther are we moved at all with their declamations, that Epifcopacy is a meer humane invention which God will not bleiTe, and which ihould not have place in his Houfe; and that Epifcopacy is a new Office never appointed by Chrift, and fo to be expelled his Houfe ; that to bring in fuch an Officer croffeth the perfection of Scripture , and the honour of Chriftinhis prophetical and kingly Office, wherein he was alto- gether faithful, appointing Officers as he thought needful, and leaving room to no others to appoint them. There is much here faid j But to the firft,*»tf»f humane inventions ,cei tainly the term ordinarily founds very ill,iroporting Tome abominable thing contrariant to the holy mind of God 5 fuch as are thefe whoorifh inventions , wher.by men depart from God,wfaich are the product of mans meer corrupt and carnal rea- iot) y Pfal t io6 2p» 59. Vpon Which inventions Codta^tth vengeance % as another Pfi faith. Or elfe , humane inventions in Gods fervice are trifling and unprofitable ceremonies, proceeding rather from mens plea* fure then found reafon , and being not at all fubfervient to Gods ho- nour or the edification of fouls, efpecially if performances of thefe trifling things be magnified as parts of Gods fervice; or if the com- mandments concerning them be taught for dotftrines neceflary to the bappinelTe of people , as the Doctrines of God are, Mat. 15. 9« /« vain do they Werfiip me , teaching for dottrines the commandments of men* NeverthelcfTe,there are refults of fanclified reafon and war- rantable prudence, whkh arc fubfervient to the decent and orderly performance of the wonVipof God acd to the ruling of his Houfty (with refped to the general rules of his Word ) which are not to be accounted. accounted (inful humane inventions, but a warrantable e*erc!fe of god- ly prudence and difcretion in ordering the Houfe of God : What Mi- nifter can preach or pray fitly, without ufe of his humane invention in the fervice of God ? Muft he not ufe his invention in feeking to find out acceptable words concerning the matters of God, which may be mod caking with people, and be as the Words of the Wife feftned 04 goads and nails by the Mafitr of the Affembliesf Eccl.l2.11. And muft he not ufe his invention fo to methodife the matter of his difcourfe, that it may hang fo fitly together,th3t peoples memory may be directed as by one threed to grafp the variety of the purpofes he fpeaks of > And let this man or others , who indiftinftly cry out of humane inventions in the fervice of God , fhew us how they will fing Pfalms to God without the poetical invention of him who fetthem in the vulgar meeter , wherein he had no infallible infpiration. And let him alfo fhew us, if their Confeflion of Faith, Catechife, yea and the holy Covenant, be not humane inventions, as to their outward frame and compofure. What if fome fhould fay unto them, wis notChriftandhis Apoftles both wife enough and tender enough of the good of the Church $ and could not they have fee down fuch forms if they thought them neceffary , and not kf: them to mans in- vention ? What if one fhould fay,that the Scripture is perfect enough, and Chnft was faithful enough in doing things for the good of his Church; and therefore, how durft men bring in their own inventions and forms of their own making into the Church of God. Men would take heed how they declaim againft the conclufions of fun- 6tirled reafon and prudence , as humane inventions : As upon this ac- count, fome have caften off the ancient Creed y which our godly Re- formers religioufly required to be confefled by Parents pre fencing their Children to God; and the ancient "DoxolGgj which they alfo ufed, (fo careful have they fhewed thernfelves to maintain the reformed Reli- gion of Scotland in worfhip accordiog to the Covenant. ) And la* raentable is it to fee the fuperftitious dementation of many , who in a time when vile Antitrinitarians and Socinians vent their doctrines, will rejecl the ancient eftablidied forms of folemn acknowledge- ment of our faith in the blefled Trinity r and of our glorifying that one true God in three perfons. But as to Epifcop^cy, we have hinted before that it is no meer humane invention, whatever force of the Church- conftitutions or Laws of Princes may have of fetting it up ; and did it only depend upon humane confticueion , not diffonant from the divine Will, it were too much folly and arroganey to rejed it upon lha: accounts a^l found Divines will acknowledge. Bat ( •« ) But ftill there is much clamour about fetting up a new Officer in Chrifts Houfe which Chrift hath not warranted , fuch as they fay the. Bi/hop is. *Anf. There is alwayes a great homonyroie in the name Officer and new Officer , whereby Gods people are led unto rai- ftakes; for if by new Officer be meant a new Ordtr or fort of Mi* niftry not appointed in Chrifts Word , it is denyed that the Bifaop is a new Officer in that fenfc ; for both they who (land for the di- vine right of it , will utterly deny that the Bifhop is a new Of- ficer or order of Miniftry not appointed by Chrift ; and they who reft upon the ground of ecckfuftick Conftitution , will alfo war- rantably deny that a new Olficer ( that is, a new order or fort of Mi- niftry) is fet up which Chrift hath not appointed; for it is only a new dignity , power and authority granted for order and peace fake to one Minifter above others ; within the bounds of that fame Order there is a reftraint of their power and an enlargement of his ( a thing needful in all Government ) yec even thefc whofe power is reftrained as to aclual exercife , retain the fundamental aptitude , as annexed neceflarily unto their order. It is the greateft miftake in the world to thinkjthat every meafure of power given to a Minifter above others, makes a new order of Miniftry ; that only is properly a diverfe fort of Miniftry which hath annexed to it power to do fuch things , as if another inferior fort of Miniftry do the fame ; they prove , being fo done,uttcrly invalid and a meer nullity : as if a Deacon lliould prefume to ordain a Paftor,to minifter the Sacrament of the lords Supper,thefe things being altogether out of the fphere of his calling, are, as done by him,nu!lities in the fight of God, becaufe they belong to another fort of Officer altogether diver fe from him: but fo it is not between a Prcf- byter and a Bifhop; for,whatever be aBifhops dignity or pre-eminency for order or policies fake in the Church, yet it is not to be faid, that if Presbyters do that in any cafe which regularly is the work of a Bifhop, as ordination , &c. that it is a nullity and void before God. But, if by n«w Officer in the Church be meant , the old Officer appointed by Chrift, yet imployed by the Church in fome Church- a&s, wherein other Minifters of that fame fort are not imployed, though the BiHiop be that way a new Officer ("improperly fo called ) yet that is nothing againft the mini of Chrift , who hath left power to his Church to or- der and rank the Minifters appointed to him , as beft Anting with de- cency, unity, order and peace in the Church. Will they call the qno* rnmoi fifteen Minifters, under the name of theCominiiTionof the General Affembly, fet up to rule a whole year over one thoufand or twelve ( ~**3 ) twelve hundred Minifters that are in ScotUndznd the whole Church ; will they call fuch new Church- officers, becaufe for the time they had fupenority over all , and an authority enlarged beyond other Pallors ? Why then faould Biihops be accounted new Officers, there being no difference but in the limitation of time, wh'ch is not material and in pretended accojuntablenefs, which no Bifhop defires to beexeemed from where there is a lawful AfTcmbly to call them to account ? And as for collegiat and conjunct acting, that is alfo a thing which in go- verning the Church, Biihops do much defire in the matters of greateft weight at leaft. Again, it may be considered if the old Scots Superin- tendant, under whom this Church was for many years well governed, was a new Church- officer not appointed by Chrift ; or if he was a Church- officer appointed by Chrift. If the former be faid, there is too great an imputation laid upon this ChUrcb, as if they did fo far incroach upon Chrifts priviltdge , to fet up new Officers without his appoint- ment and order in the Church. Mr. Knox was in an error , who faid to the Superintendant of Lothian at his admiftion, that he -was called of God to be Pafior of the Churches of Lothian , Stirling- (hire , &c* printed before the old Pfalm Book. If the latter be faid> then it was unlawful for this Church to put away that order, and theaffirmer is bound to produce Chrifts warrand for fuch an Officer ; and if he do, we promife within few lines after the paflage that fpeaks of a Super- intendant, he (hall find warrand for a Bifhop* But furc it is, they had an c fficial power in the Church over Minifters and People , who by fe- veral ads of the Aflembly, are commanded to obey them, and fome of them continued in that power twenty, thirty years ; So that without condemning our Church in that matter, the Offices and Employments of fome Minifters in Church-affairs, from which others are excluded as to the exercife ( whatever aptitude they have within the fphere of their calling ) are not to be lookt upon as an unlawful fetting up of a new fort of Minifters which Chrift hath not appointed. As for dfcouifes concerning Chrifts fa ; thfuinefle and the Scriptures perfedion,we believe that Chrift is mod faithful in his prophetical and kingly Office , as he was alfo h his prieftly Office , and in doing in the Houfeof God all that was committed to him for the falvation of fouls; for which end he hath given both particular Commands con- cerning the great eflentials of the Government of his Houfe, and ge- neral Commands to direct the prudence of his Church and Peop'e, in ordering things left under their Chriftian liberty for the belt ufes and ends* But for men firft to fancy fome what to be neceiTary in the Go- vet nmenr ( 224) vernmentof the Church, and then to argue for it from Cbrifts fait h- fulnelfr, is a very prepolterous courfe ; for wc fhould not reafon thus, This is neceflfary , therefore Clirilt particularly appointed it becaufe he was faithful ; but thus , Chrilt was faithful , and therefore if fuch a thing be nccdViry, he appointed it j and if he appointed it nor, it is not ncceffary : But iome men have too great a taqg , in reference to their own way, of the word that is in the foolifh glofle of the Ca- non-law , Non viderctur DomivHS Iejusfni^e (atis difcretns i fi non crdinajfet Papamfttpra Ecclefiam^ &c. Again, as to the perfection of Scripture, we hearti!y acknowledge it to be perfect, to make the man of god wife to/atvati$n f and through^ llfttmifitd to every good Vtorl^, either by the particular or general precepts thereof j but do not think that it belongeth to the perfection thereof,to contain particular rul« for all the circumftantials inChurch- government, more then it doth for all the particular practices of our common life. And the Writer of Napb. Pref. is too arrogant to charge the owners of Epifcopacy with error , in things f important in Religion , at in their tendency and conference reach the very foun- dation ; and far more intolerable is he in that fame/' rtf % while he chargeththemodeftmaintainers of Epifcopacy upon the ground of the Churches godly and prudent conftitutions, agreeable with the ge- neral rules of the Word of God, as Latitudmarianj % ot rather r.ulli- fidian Adiaphorijfs , with an exclamation, O my (out , come not thou into their Jicret. So this Aerian and ratling Solifldian, who hath caft away the ferious characters of a found ProfeiTion , Cbriftian Iove t meeknefs, peace, modefty and humility, dares to brand the glorious Lights of the Church of Chrilt , as Nullifidians. In this r3nk mult Jerom ( if his fenfe be not miftaken ) ftand with many others of the Ancients ; alfo Mr. Calvin and ^^Bifriop Jt*el % Doctor ivhi\t*\cr and Rynolds , the two immortal Glories of the two great Englifli Univerfities ; with many moe Bifhops and Doctors of the Reformed Churches,whofc names are and (hall be famous therein,who maintain- ed the Chriftian liberty of the Church of God by her prudent confti- tutions to order her own Minifters in certain degrees, as nothing con- trary to the Word of God : And in this quarrel we are engaged, and will (land faft to the liberty wherewith Chrift hath made us free, raft- ing oil the yoak of bondage which furious men would wreath about our necks,without any folid ground or warrand from Gods Word. Thus fSfJ Thus having faid what we thought fie of the lawfuluefs of the Office of Epifcopacy , it remains, that we confider his opprobrious re - vilings of the holy Office , and his general and perfonal challenges againft the prefent Bifhops. i. The Libeller over and over ag3in calls Prelacy Antkhrifiian y the root andftrength of the Antichriflian wicked Kingdom^ Napht. pag. tfo. found in ail ages pernicious to truth and right eoufnejs; the main engine and device of the 'Devil to advance the Kingdom of da r K' neft t pag. 53. and faith, the Antichriflian fpirit of '^Prelacy was ever enemj to the Go/pel of our Lord Jefus Chrifi , pag. 83 . And it is hard to reckon up all the wicked imputations this outragious pea Jayes upon that Order, wherewith it were fcarce juftifiable to defile paper, being the corrupt iffues of the mans foul , deferted of God to utter outragious lyes : But firft, the Libeller is all alongs ridiculous in denyiog the name of Biftiops , and giving the name of Prelats to thefe whom he oppofes, as if it were a name of difgrace , and as \f Prelacy were fome ftrange Monfter. Should he not know , that every Mini- fter is a Prelate by the figni ficancy of the word,**, e. preferred before his Brethren, to rule themMinifterially ? Is not every Minifter *K/srcs and • uyvpyw* which are as high or higher ftiles then a Prelate ? What thinks he of T. C. who in his fecond reply , pag. 34. calls the ruling Elders % Vicars of Chrifi and Prelates of Cjod} ( wonderful Vicars and Prelates indeed ) And fhould the name be grudged to be given to Minitlers, who have the chief care in the houfc of God ? Prelates they are and Biftiops too, the name which the univerfal con- fentof the Church of Chrift hath given them, whether by way of eminency or appropriation , and it will remain with thera, whether this Novelift will or not. 2. We value littfe his clamours againft Epifcopacy as Antichriflian , feing we find nothirg in the Law of Chrift againft it ; and it is become an ordinary trick of Se do neceiTanly infer Bifhops, yea the Pope himlelf, the greac Antichrifl: ; becaufe ( forfooth faith they) evety Church muft have one Minifter above it,and if there be a diocefian Church, it muft have a diocdhnMjuifter above it,and a national Church muft have a national Minifter over it, and finally , an oecumenical Church an oecumenical Minifter, that is a Pope; for a Church and Minifter over it, arefuch correlates according to Chrifts inftitution , that the one fhould not be feperate from the other. Thus we fee the imputation of Anti- chriftianifme caften upon the main truths of Chriftianity • and is it not fo, that fome things which our godly Reformers thought to be pious and to be ufed in the fervice of God, are now caften by as Anti- chriftian ? No man was then permitted to hive his Child baptifed,buG he who would give an account of his faith in the ordinary form, which hath been many hundreds ofyears in the Chriftian Church, and is ufed in the reformed Churches over feas at this day; but now, fome are lb demented as to choice rather to want baptifme for their Children, then to give that confelTion. Then the Doxology was religioufly and gravely fung in our Churches, but now, fome would rather run away from the BIefling,tben ftay to magnifle the bltfled Trinity, or will fie as if they were ftrucken with a dumb fpiric, while others are crying up the praifes of the bleiTed Trinity ; fo fagacious are people become, as to fmell fomethingof the Pope in thefe holy formes j or clfefo fubtile is Sathan in deceiving, that he moves them tocaft away folemn an- cient forms ofconfeiHon and praife of God f which were as the meeths and land-marks of Religion , that Socinian errors agarnft the bleffed Trinity which abound may have lefs opposition, when thefe fhorc memorials of that blefled doclnne are caft out of the minds of peo- ple, and the publick ufe thereof put away, 3. It is a great untruth, that Prelacy hath bemin all a^es mofl pernicious to truth andrightc- ottfnefstthatitiitberootofth? s/fntichrijlian Kingdom, a device of the 'Devil, &c. ( as 2{apbt. faith) for it is certain, thefe who have born that Office ( fee cannot mean all thefe things of the Orfice ab- ftraftly,I fuppofe abflratta non agunt, aUiones (ant fupfofitcrum) in the firftand beft times of the Chriftian Church,havebeen a great i,uard of truth and righteoufnef^as the ftory of thefe times doth witnefs; and it ( 227 ) it were tedious to give infttnces.- If after the purer primitive times, Bifhops did decline and became corrupt, that fame may be Hid of Presbyters alfo, whofe hand was very deep in all the corruptions and wicked doctrines which flowed in upon the World , in the juft judge- ment of God, for contempt of the Gufpel; nor are thefe faults of men to be imputed to either of thefe innocent Orders, there having been eminent witness of truth of both thefe forts in feveral Generation?, in the midft of horrid defection and apoftacy from the truth. 4. It is hUcfthat Spifcopaj is the very root ana ftrength of the Antichriftian Kingdom^ as it comes near to direct blafphemy , to call it a device of the Devit 9 and engine to advance hit Kingdom of darhne[s\ for nei- ther was the Topes Kingdom fupported by the primitive e Bi[hopT % who,as appearetb by the ancient Hiftories and Councils of the Church, did mainly refift the rifing of the Roman Aniicbrift, until! the traitor and murderer of Mauritius the Emperor , Phocas did about the year of God, 600. climb up unto the Imperial Throne a and declared the Pope univerfalBifhop j So, that Biftiops as well as Presbyters then were w rfully fubdued to that man of fin : Neither have the pro- teftant B:fhops been fupporters of the Antichriftian Kingdom , who as is known in the rimes of Queen Mary of England , loved not their lives unto death, but endured to be burnt quick , for their teftimony againft the Popes Antichriftian ufurpation ; for it is known » that the main points they fuffered for,were for the oppofing of the idolatrous Mafs and the Popes Supremacy. Neither (finally) is it true,that the prefent popifh Epifcopacy,is the ftrength 3nd root of the Antichriftian Kingdom 5 for it is we'l known , and fomewhat of it was feen at the Council of Trent y that the preient Btlhops in that Church account themfelves little better then opprefled by the Popes exemption?, dif- penfaiions, refervations, &c. in prejudice of their Authority ; and could the Bifnop* have had their wills, they would have begun the reformation of the Church in capite c>incuria % in the Pope the head, a id in the Court of Rome y as former Councils at Conftanee and Tiafil had defigned the Reformation .« But the very root and ftrength of the Antichriftian Kingdom (lands in Presbyters, in the confiftory of Cardinal Presbyters the immediate fupporters of the Pope,ard fpecially of late in Presbyters of manifold religious Orders as they call them, creatures immediatiy depending upon the Pope , but mainly in the Presbyters of the Society of jefus, as they term themfelves, who have done more for ftrengthening and upholding the Antichriftian Kingdom , then all the Bifhops in the Romifh Church have done. Gg 2 2, The fi58) 2. The Libeller challcngeth the Order of Epifcopacy , as the foun- tain of all the prophanity in the L%nd* Prelacy , he calkth it the vi- fibleprodutt of devils , of mens pride ana Iptfl • afferting that thtj and their dependents are the proper authors of all the prophanene/s *ndV9ic\ednc[s $fthe Land , it infeparably and infallibly attending on Prelacy , by an infallible influence ; and that the only eye* [ore of Prelacy is con/cteuce^nd any meajure of tendernefs in it • and he cal- leth Prelacy the engine and device of the devil , Napht. pag. 72, pagl 1 18,1.1 p.Now,who is there that fearGod truly,but will abhor fo hor- rid a writing fo full of the gall of bitternefs , frnelling fo rank of the evil fpirit moving upon the mans heart? Certainly Presbyterians that are deemed fober, would wifh anoiher fort of dealing in this contra- verfie,then this defperate reviler, who hath (hxken off all fear of God ufeth. Buc fome notice muft be taken of his words for truths fake •' yet any that deals with him will find caufe to feek grace from God to guard their fpirits from being moved with fuch provocations. Truly it may make any Chriftian heart tremble at the condition of this man who hath fold himfelf to do the work of the lyar and murderer from the beginning without remorfe , in affirming moft diabolical untruths againft the Office of Bifhops. By what Logick will he be able to prove,that Bifhops are the proper Authors of prophanenefTe, and that prophanity depends upon that Office in a certain influence, as he wick- edly faith ? Was ever holinefs at a higher pitch, then under this Go- vernment? How many eminent Saints and glorious Martyrs have flourished under the fame in ancient times ? yea in late times, we need go no further then our neighbour Land to feek fuch > for the confuta- tion of this wicked trnns aflfertion. And albeit there is j'aft caufe to complain of much prophanity in this time, as there hath been alfo un- der the Presbytery *, yet fhould Epifcopacy be burtfcened with impu- tation of it, as r.ccefiarily connexed with it more then Presbytery was > Which of the principles whereupon Epifcopacy ftand§,!eads to prophal nity , let him tell us if he can. Do not Church- meetings fearch after and punifh fcandals as formerly ? Dare he fay, that they are hindred and not helped by the prefidency of the Bifhop ? May we not ju&W fay, that the increafed prophanenefTe and atheifm in the Land was the producl of the ungodly and horrid fchifm carryed on for many years by this man and his party, whereabout ftill they are employed, calling alfo reproach upon the Servants of God, to the weaknirgof their hands in fuppreffing fin ? And may we not further fay, tlatfe- dicion^rebcIHon , cruel nmrther and rapine is the more native cfFeft of this ( *29 ; this mans Doftrine, (whereby we may know hiro both to be a wicked Peribn and a faife Teacher J then any prophanenefle can be though: to be a fruit of Epifcopacy ? But, look a little upon the general and perfonalrevilings of the prefentBilhops of Scotland ': Fuft, hechargeth them,p£. in, 112, 111 dt men *^* f encline the Kings Government to tyranny 9 having no [bare in the Common wealth themselves , being mean and abjec? perfons ; and that they (tib)ttt Laws ^Libtr ties and Fortunes of others to the tuft of theP owcrs in an abfolute Surrender ard prof ufton,and are wore intolerable then the Romifli 'Si/lops , becaufe they fo absolutely depend upon the K.wg, to V?hom they have made an abfolute fur ren- der of Religion and Con' cicr.ee > and all (acred concernments to his ar- bitremtnt x c ailing thsmf elves athciflicallj his creatures, Ar,f t Sure- ly this Furrie drunken with pride and malice,is fpeaking moft things of this matter againft his confeience. What mediing or influence have theBiihops upon the Kings Government? Do chey not , for the moft part, live abftra&ly at their feveral charges, fave it be one or two admitted by the King to his Council ? who how unlikely they are to pervert the whole frame of Government and turn it unto tyranny, any that hath a dramme of wit may fee. But tlis traitonr all alongs grates upon the Kings Government as tyranny, when difordered per- fons may not live as in the dayes when there was no King in Ifrael ; but the King may fay as Auguftus faid to the lewd woman that called him Tyrant ; Siejjem , non aiceres* God grant, thu clemency and induWency to fomemiy not prove more dangerous then fome mesfurc of feverity , which thedifcontented might perhaps call tyranny ; and that lenity to difordered perfons prove not cruelty to the orderly, preflat fub eoviverefub quo nihil ticettfuam fub qv.o omnia licent. The frowardnefs of fome is fuch , that lenity and love do not win them, and to fuch, oderint dum mart nt is a fentence futtahle enough. 2. A devihfh untruth it is , that the Bifliops do make an abfolute fur- render of Re!igion,Confcienceand all facred concernments to the King, calling themfeWes his creatures ; they have not don£ fo, nor will by the grace of. God do fo, knowing well, that that is only the priviledge of the G )d of gods , to have ahfoluee power in thefe things , whofe creatures they own themfelves to be ; nex: unto him , acknowledging their dependence upon the King as Subjecb, yea, and as Biihops at Icaft to the exercife of their power : Nor are they fo atheiftxal as this man and his complices are , as to ddp'uc the Powers ordained by God, or to incite people to caft them cut of their places when they pkafe, f*3°) and to cut their throats in a PhmcasAWt zeal. And this Libeller fh v: th bimfelf a fine Pioteftant, when he mskes the B fhops worfe then the Romifli B,(hops,bccaufe rtuy depend fo much upon the King, whereas they do no more depend upon him then all Bill-. ops and Mi- t.illers (hould upon a chriftian Prince; but this arrogant fort will bj to Independent power befide the King, co-ordinate, parallel, receiv- ing no direction , regulation nor lim-tation in any of their p >b!ick act- ings from the civil Magiftrate; they muft have an unaccountable and uncontrollable Impcrinm in Imperio, elfe there is no peace with them. If Kings will be fo tame as be that way ufed, let them be doing, and repent themfelves out of time. They have f forfooth) brought: their wares to a good marker, if when they have caften of a forrcign (ingle Pope, they put in their heads in theyoakof a many headed complex Pope of this and that meeting of their own Subjects (and thefenot of the beft difcretion ) claiming uncontrollable auchority over them- felves and all their people, and ufurping that very fupremacy that was exerccd by the Pope. Let any wife man judge whether of the two feemetb moft intolerable , for a Prince to have the Clergy of his King- dom depending upon a forreign T5iJbop t from whofe difcretion and his alliftant?, fair dealing might be expected ( if otherwife ail were well concerning Religion) then to have in the bofom of his own King- dom fwarms of Demagogues , pretending abfolute independency from him in their Church-a&ings , and claiming liberty without hira, yei againft his will,to convocate his Lieges when, and where, and in what numbers they will* to rule all Church-matters by their arbitrement, and to over-rule himfelf alfo. 3. And as to his arrogant talking of the Bifh^ps being mean and abjettperfons, and lowing no fiarc in the Common-wealth, andfo care not to fubjett La^>s y Liter ties and For- tunes of others to the lufl of the Powers,p*g. 1 1 2, 1 1 3, Anf* Some- times the man rageth at the great Intereft 1 Wealth and Rents which Che faith,) the Bifhops have ; and now upon the contrary , contemns their intereft and reviles their perfons. As to his contemptuous fpeakingof thtm , were it fit for them to fay , they might truly fay, that the mtaneft of them are comparable or preferable to this Railer or any of his Complices ; but contefts of that kind being not with- out feme mcafure of folly , are willingly forborn. But it were wor- thy to be known where this great T>on ( who accounts the Bifhops bafe and abject perfons, who hive no intereft in the Common- wealth) hath his T ands and Territories lying ; perhaps in fome of the King- doms of Vtopia or in the land of Nod 9 where ftigmatized v r 3gcbond Cain (m) Cain built Cities when he was driven from the prefence of the Lord : But untiil we may know him better , that we tray pay him his clue re- fpect?,we muft look on him as a bafely bafe and abject companion, who gives fuch bafe iarguage to the B (hops againlt all rules of civil, ty, and for his bufie indeavouring to confound this Kingdom in the miieries of wars, ftirring up any private perfons that can fight moll fiercely like beafts, to fub/ect all the fortunes and liberties both of their neigh- bours and fuperiors to cheir lufts. As for the Bifhops intereft in the Common- wealth, they have what the Kings Mjjcfty and theLsws allows them , and are ready to lay it forth forpublick good ; nei- ther have they by their places,allowed by God and the King, fmall in- fluence in this ChriQian Kingdom , for the good of the fame, which cannot be better feen, then by confidering the contrary noxious in- fluence of Minifters formerly ( who had no great intereft in the Kingdom ) to involve us all into fo many long continued miferiesi Tedious it were to infill upon every railing accufation of this man againfttheBiihops, Mthat they grofiely toleratpoperj } and that they were the authors of laying on ail the bur thins upon the people^xpht* pag. 1 1 8. &c. For popery , what cm they do but uieeccieiiiftical power againft the profeflbrs of it ? Coa&ive authority is in other hands, and fomething hath been done by Bifhops in their feveral charges for repreffing that evil, and more might have ben done, had it not been for impediments and difcouragements given by men of this fort, whofeabfurd principles and practices, fchiims and (editions have ftrergthned the Popes K ngdem in this Land more then any thing elfe, and have weakned the hands of th-ie who (hou'd have looked to thtfe matters, while they have been kept bufie with a firy party in their own bofome. And what fociety is there,that will not ftrive firft to quench a fire at home, and fupprefs inteftine factions, be* fore they yoke in a war with forraigners ? As to the other general charge, wherewith he charges the Bifhops all along, as if they were the authors and caufes of laying on a I the burthens upon the people^ ajExcife, Se(t, Fines y &c pag, 113. Ifcheman hath not utterly loft confeience, hecinnot but fee , that he doth btlye them; bur, it did concern him to render them odious to the people, that they may perilh by their fury. It is known , that fome of tbcfe burthens were laid on in time of Presbytery ^when there was no Bifhop , ard Tome of them were in meetings of Conventions of Eftates, voluntarily taken on by the fubjecls , for their own protection and peace in a time of great need, while moft of the B (hops were refidenr at their Charges 1 and. and it is too well known, that thefe who were prefent could not ( chough they were obheged to do all fervice to the King in a rational way, and to teftitie their homage and love to him in the time of need ) incline thefe great Reprefentatives of the Land , to part with money where they did fee no caufe. And as for the Kings difpofing of the humble offers of his fubj eels , the Bifhops are not the men who will queftion that matter, although this man and his complices muft either have him brought to a reckoning for thefe things, or elfe there is no living with them. But , to dofe the general charge againft the Bifoopjjwe could not read,without admiratioo,fome of his outragious, falfe and cruel words againft the Bifhops ; as, fag* 117,118. That their only grievance and eye* fore is conference ,and any meafure of ten- dernefs therein : that they are favourers andencoura^ers of all pro- phanity, drunk?nnefs y adultery % blafphemy, &c. Yea, fag, 301. he aflerts, that the Bifhops have heafed together in their own perfons i the dunghill of vilefl vices , and tranfmitted the fame to others over aU the Land) whereupon he would gladly flir up the zeal of all to execute gods judgement upon thefe men • and is profanely bold to exped God to be the executioner of that wicked revenge that boyles in his per- verfe heart: bur, Qw * pwimZi-TUt Thou thoughtefl that I Vtas altogether fuch a one as thy (elf\ but I Veil I reprove thee* And, fag, 134. he faith , if God had not plagued us Withftufiditj, andfmitten vsWith blindneft, madnefs and aftonifhment of hearty it were impof- fible that rational men fiould ftibmit themf elves to the yoa\ of a fw infignificant , apoflat up-ftarts , and not acquit themfelves liftmen, fluck\ing them out of the Santluary and the great refuge of Loyalty, that in the righteous and de/erved punifhment of thefe kicked men, both the fin and backsliding of the Land might be fifted % and'the wrath cfthe Lord averted. Now, when thefe and the like words were read, we could not but be aftoniftied, to fee a pretended Proftflor of Reli- gion fo poiTeffed and drunk with a fpirit of impudent lying , execrable pride, fierce and bloody cruelty , profane boldnefs with the Majefty of God. Nor dare we be fo uncharitable as to think, that the party whofe Advocate he pretends to be , will own him in thefe things, or that they are of the fame fpirit that he is of; but w*e rather ho pr, that his unchriftian dealing will help to open the eyes of thefe he pre- tends to plead for, to fee that his way is not of God. But as to the Biilnps and their f Jlow-hbourers in the work of the Lord , and the people of God under their charge 3 as they are not the men who will hypocritically bjaft thcaifeJves, as this man and his party were wont to to do,calling thcmfelves the godly and only godly in the Land • yet, let the matter be brought to the teft, it (hall be found, that their lives and conversations have been as blamelefs, as thefe who are judged the beft of the proud parcy ( the integrity of their hearts they defire topre- fenc to God, being humbled for what is amifs in hope of his pardon, being thankful for what meafures of grace they have received,and pray- ing for new fupplies thereof) and they have their witnefs in Heaven, how much they regard the heavenly and amiable difpofition of a tender confcience, when it may be feen even in perfons who are of a contrary opinion to them in difciplinary matters j and how loath would they be to countenance the profane,whom God abhorreth? But they think, that there is great caufe to tremble, and to lament the dreadfully great hypocrifie of man, and that fuch a perfon as this ( who is of fo tough a confcience, that lying, reviling, fedition,murtber,rapine,rebellion and bloodfhed with all confuiion,areeafily digefted by him,and commended to others as Cardinal vertues and godly Chnftian practices) (hould dare to talk of a tender confcience. But as to his horrid fpeech, That the Wfbop have heaped together in their oVtn perfons, the dttnghil of the vileft vices&c* to trans/fife it through the whole Land: who will not be amazed at this fury? What guard hath the moft innocent perfons in ths World for their reputation and good name , when the Prefs may be fo poliured and profaned , by cafting into it the corruptions of their fouls, who have fold themfelves to fpeak and work wickedly ? Did not fuch men as thefe, and all the people of God where they lived, know trnm before they were Biiliops ? Were they not in their con- vention approvcn as other Minifters, and is there now fuch a ftrange Metamorpholis , that they have heaped in themfelves the moft vileft vices, and tranf-fufed them unto the people of the Land ? Should he not remember, nemo repente fttit tnrpiffimus } Should he not have that much wit as to know, that they live among the people of God, who considers their wayes and fees in them that Chnftian behaviour that becomes their calling? And they certainly will think, that this railer is talking of men in remote iQands in the World, and not of the B(hops whom they fee walking among them , or elfe will think him the moft defperat Iyer who ever put pen to paper. It were eafie for us, without forged recrimination?, to pay home again this Libeller with particular charges, againft the great pretended fufferers for his Caufe ; but neither fhall perfons nor crimes be named, knowing thac fcandals are too much fncrcafed already among the people t>f God .* But , feing no other remedy can be had on earth , this accufer of the H h Brethren (m) Brethren is challenged to appear before the dreadful Tribunal of God, to give an account of his ungodly and uncharitable fpecches : And as for his ftirring up the people againft the Biihops to deftroy them, and to burchen themfelves with thdr blood to the botcome of Hell , thtj do commit the keeping of their fouls and lives to their faithful Crea- tor , who will appoint them his falvation for walls and bul-war\^s y and f jew them his marvelous loving kjndnrfs as in a firong City • neither do they doubt , but God will do them good for this Shimei- l:ke railing and murtherkig words : in the mean time, they will not ceafe to pray for repentance and forgivenefs to this man, and that God will give them grace to forgive him,and not to retaliate. But we come to the particular challenges againft the Bifhops , fag, 299, 3 00 , 3°i* wherein the Author of Naph. (that his book may want nothing of the perfection of a defamatorie Libel ) falleth upon kveral of the Biftiops by name , not fparing others that are not nam- ed, but leaving upon them the blotts of ambition, pride, fenfuality, hatred of godlinefs, oppreffion, perfecution , and a number of other vices henamethoutof the abundance of his evil heart, calling ini- quity of ail forts upon the fervants of God , who ffaving common humane infirmities ) are as free, through the grace of God, from the prevalency cf thefe things, as this man rheweth himfelf void of all honefty and fear of God. He falleth firft particularly upon the Archbishop of St, *Andrews % whom,as in feveral parts of the book, he outrsgioufiy reviles, fo, p*g. 299* his carnal rage fwelleth againft him, and fhamefully foameth out in unworthy inhumane expretflons : The malice and fcry of this man and bis party , hath been fet againft this very Reverend Perfon, ever fince he approved himfelf faithful in doing for this Church, againft the Reraonftrator party ; in which tranfaftions they who em- ployed him , had no caufe to repent , feing under God he was at that time the inftrument of preferving the fober part of the Miniftery, from the oppreflions of a furious faction : He was moft trufty to them, in all chat they entrufted him with , and had their approbation given moft folemnly, as is eafily proven: Nor can it bealledged with any truth, that in any thing he betrayed his tiuft ta any who entrufted him with the concerns of the Church ; neither did he by his Letters or otherwayes engage himftlfto do any thing againft a moderat Epifco- pacy, or for keeping up Presbyterian government, as it had beencx- ercifed : and if the beholding of a remedilefs, defperat fchifme fixt in this Church, the confideration of the corruption of feveral of our Univerluies, ( *J$ ) Unircrfuies, in point of Magiftratical authority,and the evil influences thereof upon fierce Youngfters, fent abroad to feveral quarters of the Couotrey, who had more skill in nrma virtimqne c*ne,then in preach- ing the Gofpel of meek and mercyful Jefus: If ferious reflections on the troubles which King James had by the Presbytery, and the late horrible confufions arifing upon the fame, and that no reformed King- dom of the Warld had embraced that form , but only ScotUnd % (both theKings and people thereof having M\y fmarted upon that ac- count,) if the due confederation of the purity and peace of the primitive times of the Church under Epifcopacy, together with the tranquility of this Church under the fame for many year?, after it was eftablifhed by ads of the General Affembly and Parliament, Anno^ 1610. iSiz. If the defire of a fweet peace after fo much trouble , and of a fit joint- ing of ths Church-government with the Monarcbick in the State for publick tranquillity ;If,I fay^ll thefe things prevailed with that Reve- rend Perfon , fo as that he could not in conference nor in tendernefs to the well and peace of this Church , (land in the way of the King and Parliament,for re-eftabliiliing that ancient form of Government^ hich the violence of former times had outed , or declining the making good his alledghnce to his Soveraign and duty to the Church, when com- manded to take a (hare in that Government : Why (hould this defpe- rat reviler turn this to his reproach ? Ou why fhould he be upbraided for his faitbfulnefs to the King in the late infurreftion , feing there is no loyal Subject but will approve his honefty and activity in that junfture of affairs ? Next, the Libeller falleth upon the Arch-blfhopof Gtafgowby name, whom this man of great (ignification , proudly callethinfigni- ficant, and a firy zealot for the height of Englilh Hierarchy and Cere- monies ( whereas he hath never prefled beyond his Brethren in thefe matters ) this furious zealot for a dominireing Presbytery, talketh of the princely pride of that Reverend Perfon, becaufe of his great gravi- ty in maintaining the refpe&s due to his place , yet with that humility andmecknefs , that becometh a Gofpel-minifter: It were fo much the better , that others in that Calling may (ludy to behaye them- felves fo, as that no man might defpife their authority , feing that of- tentimes too much familiarity breedeth contempt : But if retortions were pleafanr, How ealie were it to name Presbyters , palling all the Bifhops we ever knew, in princely pride and contemptuous flighting of their Brethren ? A*ain he nameth the Reverend Bifhop of GaUtwaj , whom he H h 2 chargeth ( ne ) chargeth with dilTimuIation in the beginning of thefe changes, and will bind upon him, as the man of all others , that hath been the chief caufeor the oppreflion fas he callcth it) and perfecution in Gal- /eWrt/, and the occafion of the late riling in armes, and blood that fol- lowed thereon. Howeafieisitco cart faife accufat:ons upon honeft men, not inftru&ing them ? How unjuft is it to fay, thit wife con- cealments of a mans minde, in a ticklifli time, is diflimulacion ? But as for alledged prevarication , it fhall not be beleive;d upon his word : neither was the BiQiop caufeor occation , either of the fuffcringsor infurreclion of that people of galloway ; the civjI Authority of the Land juftly put them to fufter for their diforder : And if this man and his like, wili let their own confciences fpeak , they will be forced to fay, that not he but they, were the proper, dired and infti&ating caufes of thatinfurre&ion* Next, he fetteth himfeif to revile theBifhopof Ork»aj byname, whom he calleth a Cafuift, Who can tell, why > ( unlefs in be that he fufpecls he had hand in a fhort paper fome years ago emitted , called thcCafeof fubmiffionf the prcfentG over nmtnt^flated, &c. Anent which, he is not bound to give an account to fuch a perfon , was it fo or not: But fure, not he onely, but other Bishop: and Mimfters in the I/md, will own that Paper, as containing Mid truths ; and fo much the more, when the poor and vain affaults of the Apology againft ic hive been feen. But he chargeth the Bifliop with a hard fpeech, ufed againft tfie Archbifhop of St. Andrews about nine years ago ; And fc in his fyrie and hellifh zeal , breaketh out upon him , calling him f ilfe, and comparing him to Sathan. As to his revilings , they can be eifily born by him whom he reviles, for his fake, of whom wicked men faid, He hath a devil and Was a falfe deceiver of the people j And he comforteth himfeif in the Apoftles word, as deceivers jet true i And it were too much weaknefs to be commoved with the roavings of an impotent and impudent railer. But as to the words alledged to be fpoken in a private gairden to a private perfon,the author (hould have remembredjthat it is a hard cife^hat one perfon (hould rife up in judgement againft a man, which is contrary to Gods Law ; or, (Tup- pofe the report were true ) that in meer private of7enc.es (notattro- cious nor treafonable ) the Church /hould fo told, before private ad- monition given , which is conrary totheLawofChrift; But none of thefe Laws do fuch men regard, that they may fatisfie their lufts, up* on men whom they account adverfaries. As to the matter it felf, the Wr ixter (hall knowi that bis fo called famous accufer, is an impudent ud (H7) and infamous lyar, inventing what was not fpoken : And this author being fo ready a Chap-man, to pedle out fuch wires as flinders and lyes^ftiewethhimfelf no worthy perfon. And as for the Bifhops accepting of a Buliopnck (which is the gr- at crime hechargeth him with) he will be able enough to defend it againft thisfa&ionift and all his complices. Next , when he can touch no other fault in the B?fhop of the lfles % (a man who hath done much good in his fhtion ) hecatcheth hold of the natural and innocent faculty of a wholfom Stomach, call- ing him a man gluttonous, as Chrift was called ; Surely the man hath fallen fhort in bis other accufations, when he refts upon this. But who will take pains to fcann fuch ridiculour and loachfome challenges ; yet, the Libeller lets ui fee, that a mad man never wanted a wcaoon. The next Bdiop he revilerh, is the Reverend B.fhopof Duxkeld(tr 9 whom he challengeth as sui hater of godlinef: and of godly men , and an dd perfceutor of both 5 And why,forfooth ? becaufe when he was Minifterof Stirling , timeoufly forefeeing the mifchief and diforder of this now infolenc Faclion , he laboured to crulh the Cockatrice in the Esg, before it became a firy flying Serpent ; in which endeavours, he had the approbation of the founder part of the Church -aflemblier, for obviating feparation timeoufly. And for his fo doing, which this man calleth perfecution of the godly and godlinefs , the undermining party wrought fo, that they persecuted him and turned him out of his Miniftry, becaufe he had too much honefty to enflave his judgement to the growing Fa&ion* As for the entertainments which be ailedgetb to be given to the Btfhop of "Brichen by thefe that vifit him, it is an unworthy and bur- deofom thing to us to rake into the kennel of fuch mens words , who by themfelves or by their emifliries creep into houfes. But we arc confident of that Reverend BiPnop>that nothing is tolerated, fcire vc- iu^t fecreta domus, &c> or allowed in his hcufe which becomes not a Gofpel miniftcr ; nor are we to believe the (landers of his enemies. Finally, he falleth upon the Biflaop of Dunblane by name in much defpight, challenging him as an afpirer nntopromotion % places of ho- nour, e^fe and Wealth , uxaer the vizird of j 'efuitical-liks pretended holinefs and crucifixion to the World ; and th#t he hath betr&jed the Caufe mth a hjfi, and [mitten RcUgien under the fifth rib, ar.a by his practice and expre/fions, giveth greatefi fufpicion of a popift inclina~ tit* and defign. Though that grave and godly perfon livethfurely above all fuch currifti fnatlings x as the Mo^n keepeth its courfc albeit &0&S, dogs bark at it ; yet muft we fay , that the integrity and foundnefs of that pcrfon in faith , fanclification and exemplary good converfatior, hath left fuch convincing impreflions on the hearts of all that know him, that they w.ii not be biowa away with the windy words of this Libeller. Any that know him may fee , that fo far as men can fudge, he is a mm crucified to the world , and feeketh not great things there^ in. And it is a fad imputation upon our Prcfeflion, that none can feetB to £0 beyond others in holinefs, but Jefuitifm and inclination to Popery (lull be fkt upon them, no fuch thing being juft!y prefumed of this Reverend perfon. As for his betraying the Caufe with a kifs, it is doubted whether he ever kilTed their calves. And for fruiting Re- ligion under the fifth rib, Religion for him is fafe and fure. But God pity us , when Religion is reduced to fuch a narrow circle as the Pref- bytery,and that we cannot have Religion without;*** (umus ergo pa* res, and without a hotch-potch parity in power, not only of Minifters whom God hath made unequal in gifts , but of the Mechanick-clders, who muft have their parity of power with the wifeftand learnedeii MiniQcr in all facred adminiftrations of Difcipline , or elfe Religion is ftrucken under the fifth rib. Thus have we palled through the general and particular charges againftthe Bifhops, whereby this heart-munhererftudies to enrage the multitude againft them > that they may be as guilty of their blood in deed , as he hirofelf is already in heart. As Tiberius caujed the hangman fir ft to ravifi the feftal Virgins , ( becaufe it was unlawful to put them to death, being Virgins,) and then to ft 'r angle them ; So, this fierce unchriftian man offers violence to the fame and reputation of the Bifhops, defiling their names with his foul tongue and pen, that fo he may waken the fury of his party againft them to deftroy them. As the Chriltians of old were by the Pagans,?/** into the skins of bears and tygers , and fo cafl to the dogs to be devoured, thus are the Bi- lbo ps u fed by this mani whofe judgement flumbereth not : but the Bifhops do not take fuch revilings and inlligations of people again!* men in their Office, as any new thing , remembring that holy, zealous Athanafius was falfely accufed of murther, &c. by the Arian parry, and every way moft miferably afperfed above any man , for his fidelity to the Son of God. Nor is it to be forgotten , how the Donatifts and Circtimccltions ( the genuine forebeers of a furious Faction that feeks to prevail) cryed out aginft Auguftine, <4ugu(tinttm ab omnibm tancjuam Lupum opprimena)um ejfe } becaufe he was in the zeal of God earned againlt their wicked fchifra. And they are very hopeful, that the ( 239 ) the good people of Scotland will never hearken to the chimes of this murtherer to fulfill his lufts,and to heap guilcinefs and the heavy wrath of God againft therafelves, or to be fas he would have them) religious murtherer*, by venue of the bond of the Covenant. But, as to the mans tbreatning? of the judgements of God againft the Biftiops or any of them , and his reckoning up the difaftrous ends, as he calls them, of fome Bifhops and their favourers, Naph. pag.41. It is the Bi&ops comfort, that Gods judgements are not at the dif- pofalof mans curfed fury - t they acknowledge tieir owndeferving of his fevereft judgement % for fins known and not known (amongft which chey cannot fee the embracing the Office of EpTcopacy to be ) but they look to the God of their mercy for pity and pardon , and for grace through JefusGhrift, that whatever they meet with in ex- ternal difpenfations, they may never fo be moved as to condemn a righteous caufe. Ttiey know well,that all the Apoftles of Chnft died in blood and flume in the eye of the world, except on? , and they who killed them thought they did God good fervice : They know , that the greateft and violenteft ftorms of perfection h the primitive times fell chiefly and fir ft upon the Bilhops , when the Pagans cryed againft theChriftians,^^ ivtpios • the higheft cry was, Poljcarpvs (the Bifhop) teqtiiritur ; So, qui prior ent digmtate, prior trabebatHr ad nttrtjrium : And if the Bifhops fliouid be drawn to death in the bloody livery of their predeceffors , they fhould not have caufe to be difmayed , but to g'ory in that coronation with martyrdom and nati- vity to a better life. Whatever may be Gods Providences toward them, or however wicked creatures may be let loofe upon them ( by his per- miflicn) tiey defire to adore his Soveraignty and Juftice , and to roll themfelves on his mercy , that they may have their fouls for a prey, and their eternal reft fecared for them, beyond the reach of all world- ly ftorms , howfoever they feera to mans eyes to periih in their rightc- oufneffe in a pre fen t world, £W*/". 7. 1 1. As to his inftances o-f difaftrous ends, &c. If Mr. Douglas Arch- bifhep of St* Andrews^ dyed (as he faith) in the Pulpit, fome perhaps may think that was a glorious end, while a faithful Preacher was draw- ing others to heaven , to Aid.* in himfelf : And as he had btcn ail his dayes a faithful Profeffor and Preacher of Chnft, bcirg a prime in- ftrument of our firft Reformation , and entruftcd with the charge c£ the chief Seminary of Learning in this Church , the new Coiledge of St. Andrews ; So it was his honour, after he was made Bfhop, to dye in that employment, epportet Impcratorem fttwte msfi - } and if ( 240 ) it was difaftrous, it was no more then the furprifa! of Mr. BIac ^. Mi- nifter fometimes of St. Andrews , a violent Presbyterian, who dyed fuddeniy at Dundec^mng thanks to God after meat. And for Arch-* bfliop Adamfons dying in poverty, after recantation, and difgrace ; to fay nothing that thac tecantation, according to our Hiftorian, is a for- gery, what better is it to dye both in poverty and a violent death too ? (luch as bath been the lot of fome contrary minded) and what better was the condition of Adamfons great adverfary Mr. Mtlvil , who dyed baniftied into a ftrange Land in fmail reputation with the Duke of Btillcign ^ho wearied of him, as is certainly known, and was often complained of by hi'mfelf; his own Country not being able to bear him , he dyed in a ftrange Country which would have been rid of him. If the Regent Morton and Optain Stewart dyed a violent death , fo did Regent Ji#r™; and Lennox % fo have many others of old ?nd of late that were for Presbytery fuffered. Why lliould thefe things be mentioned, as being for or againft the Caufe ? Gods judgements are a great depth , his Providences are often dark to us , but his Word is light i and however it pleafe him to toffe us in the world 9 we are al- wayes to Jook to the Law and the Teftimony , and hold faft our duty, without follicitude about event?, Cur a officii^cura noftra • cur a even- ttu % curd Dei. He may allot the forms of our death as he pleafetb, and take us out of the world what way and by what door he will j and it is our part cordially to fay, Thy tyili be done. CHAP. V. The lawfulness of the calling of Minivers admitted by Bijhops, and the finfulnefs of de (fifing and [chi(matically defeating themin the mini fir ation of the holy things of God. AFter the Libeller hath uttered his fury againft the Bifriops , he fallcth upon the Minifters, from ^£.301^0305. andelfe- where j a? likewife the Apolog* doth, from pag. 317. to pag. 284. It is the greatcft pain in the world to rake up the filth which flows from this mans fpirit which he cafts out upon the Minifte- ry,provck'ng the people to deftroy them; for this man and his party are refolvei to be either faife Martyrs , or to make others true Martyrs. Takeat.fteonly ofthemansfpirit, 2(jtph. pag. 104. hecalleth them grace left) violent hirelings , enjlaving their PArocbes as if the j were their (Mi) their Lords and Makers, that they are not fo much as externally caU /real of God fbould animate thtm % as one man to at ive array theft Wolves and Thieves ,and toeradicat thefe plant /, which our hea. venly Father never planted 1 Nor mind they to exped the a&ing of lawful Authority in this matter ; for, Apolog.pag. 272. it is after ted, that all poffibility in getting redrejfe is aVray , and that thefe agairft V;hom any would objeft y would be the better liked, and that things which are heinous crimes, would be accounted great vertues and com* mendable praBices : So that it appears, they will admit no Judges but themfelves, nor Law but their own will, and they would be judges, executioners,and ail to drive away Thieves andVVolves with force and fury; and if it be thus, fure we are not far from a Munfier bufinefs. It is not our intention, hafting now to an end, and to thruftinto fome quiet harbour, either to enquire into the verity of his accu rati- ons againft the Minifters, which he makes all general, niming no man : Nor to defend thefudden adraiflion of any , without fufficient trial of their gifts and converfation. If any fuch thing hath been, it is ordinary that in too fuddain and great evacuations of the body ecciefiaftick as well as natural, or fuddain repletions, great errors may be committed and inconveniencies arife ; but, fo long as legal evidences are not given of mens guiltinefs of crimes, whereof they are accufed, efpeciajly when freedom is offered to all, to except and object, they muft not beop- prefled, nor guiltinefs imputed to them,for the chmours of a fchifms- tical party, their declared enemies, but muftfce held as ftsndingr*#* in curia till they be found faulty , otherwayes there can be no pro- tection for the innocency and good reputation ofthebeftmen in the World. If the Minifters be fuch as they fay,How came it to pafs,that the zeal of God hath not moved people to complain to theBifhops and their Synods , that evil might be taken away from the Church ? To fay there was no hope of redrefs that way , as it is untrue , fo it is no furBcient difcharge of their duty , who in zeal to God* ought to have delivered their own fouls by telling the Church in the cafe of offences, otherwayes not removed, whatever the event might be. And fuppofe, they look upon the Bifliops as ufurping powers, yet as a man may feek right and juftice to himfelf from an ufurper, he may I i muc & ( *4*) much more feekit for vindicating Chrifts honour,and for purging the Church, ( whether he get from them a juft hearing or not ) neither is it uniafe for any to make fuch complaints , as is well known ; nor have any addreiTed therafelves teBifliops and Synods to complain, who have been Qghted, and therefore the oaoft of all the horrid ac- cufations agajnft the Minifters* efpecially Napht. p*g % 30$, 304. where his words are too abominable to be repeated, muft be looked upon as the malicious forgeries of one wickedly fet , to caft contempt upon this Church and the Biftiops and Minifters thereof, and to make them the facrifices of the publick hatred. But the great thing we have now to fpeak to, is the lawfuloefs of the calling of the Minifters admitted by Biftiops , and anent the hear- ing of them, and attending the rainiftration of Chrifts holy things by then hand. While the Jpo/og, aniNapht. are (peaking of them, all allongs in a way of difdain, they call them Cunts, and fo have taught the people generally to call them, in a way of reproach, jurats; wherein their ignorance is to be marvelled at , not knowing who pro- perly is called a Curat : In other Churches there are fomc great be- neficed perfons, who being resident in Univerfities or Colledgiate Churches for publick good , have fome other Minifters under them, who ordinarily attend the Cure or Charge, having from the beneficed perfon (who hath alfo his times of attendance at that Charge ) a cer- tain proportion of the maintenance^ his ordinary attendance ; Now we have no fuchcuftom in this Church, and therefore foollifhly are the Minifters called Curat*, they not being under any beneficed per- fon , pretending to be the chief Minifter in the place, nor depending upon their arbitrement for their maintenance. Bur,perhaps they will fay, that Minifters are Curats , beciufe they take the cure and charge of Souls for the Biftiops; but this h alfo ignorantly and malicioufly faid,for they have care of fouls, as thefe that are AmbaiTadours for Chrift, and to be accountable to him : Neither do the Bifhops account them their Curats,but Chrifts, having the care and charge of the flock laid upon them by him j and every Minifter that is not thus a Curat, is a knave. St, Paul it appears was a great Curar, when he faith, the care of all the Churches came upon him daily ; nor needs any faithful Minifter in that fenfe be afhamed of this name , in relation of his care of the particular flock committed to him; albeit thefe* high- fpiritcd men, who itls feared are a&tng the part of Sathans Curats in diflipat- ing the Church, love not fo low ftiles. Buttoeometothequeftionanent the Minifters \ the Apolog*\>z- ftow& ( Hi ) (lows the whole Sett. 1 5*pag> 217, cH; to prore that theyfliouid not be heard by the people of God while they preach the Goipel, bat all along fpcaks with much hefitation ; for, fbmetimei he labours to prove that they fhould not be beard at all by Chrift* fheep, fomctimes that they fhould not be heard and attended ortinwil^ foretimes they fhould not be heard upon the ground of the All of Parliament en- joining hearing ; fometimes they (hould not be heard as Minifters, at ieaft as Minifters of a particular flock , doubting of fome of them if they be Mimfters at all* The Author of Naph. faith, the queftion is not anent hearing cr not hearing the Curats, but anent owning and fubmrttingto them t% ourMinifters, pag, 104. and, 105. he denyes them to be fo much as externally fent and called, pig. 109. and laith; that their Miniftry is not the Lords Ordinance* We do not minde to infift upon the contradictions of thefe Writers one to another, or un- to themfelveSt nor upon tbefalfehoodof feveralof their affertions, but in behalf of the Minifters , ihall briefly reafon thus, Thefe who are the lawfully called Minifters of Chrift and Teachers of his Truth, are to be heard in preaching of the Gofpel by the particular Congre- gations to whch they are fent, according to a lawful order of the Church ; neither can they be defpifcd or Separated from, without great fin : Bat foitis,that the prefent Minifters admitted by BiQiops are the lawfully called Minifters of Chrift, Therefore,^. The firft proportion fhines with fo much light, that hardly any will deny it : all the matter is in the fecond proportion , anent which it may be enquired, what is a lawful calling to the Miniftry ? (we fpeak of an external Call) what is necelTary to the fubftance of ir, and what defects or corruptions may nullifie the fame ? The high-flown Author of Naph, gives us a rare defcription of an external Call to the Miniftry ; which golden Sen- tence, left we (hould mifle the reading of it, he hath fet down in great Letters, pag. 105. To be externally called, faith he, according to the meaning of the truth and import of the Words, u to have fuch a viftble evidence of the call of fofus Chrift , as in reafon and charity doth §b- liege all men to receive the per fon fo called, at truly (ent ; which is one of the wiideft definitions of an external Call that ever was. Firft, it may be enquired at him, what is meaned by the viftble evi- dence of the call of Chrift } It is hoped he means not that ordinary Mi- nifters fhould have fuch vifible evidence of Chrifts call, as the Apoftles had,when in the day of the pentecoft the Spirit came upon them in the fhape of firy cloven tongues , which were viftble : Why did he not expreffc the particular matter of fuch a vifiWe evidence, or a thing evi- I i a dencinj ( ^44 ) f dencing the Call.but choofed rather to lurk in a generality } Who can divine what this lurking vifible evidence is upon the matter? 1$ ic the vifible horrnefs which Independents require toward Church^mem- benhip? But that cannot be enough to evidence a minifterial Call, fting many may be vifible Saints , who are not vifibly fufficient for the Miniftry. Or, is it any vifible character external in the miniftration of O finances, which one externally called by Chrift, hath in the eyes of the people of God, which another hath not? Upon how much uncertainty is the defining of this ex:ernal Call caften ? For, per- fons not equally allowed by Chrift to be in the Miniftry, may be equal in the manner of their utterance, feeming aftectionatnefs, fpiritualnefs of matter, earned manner of application ; yea,as to external manage- ing of Ordinances , one not allowed by Chrift to be in the Miniftery, may feem to exceed another which is allowed $ fuch is the manifold wifdom of God in diftributing his gifts as he will. 2. What a flrange thing is it , that he faith the ex:ernally called Minifter hath fuch evi- dence as doth obliege all, &c % he faith not only may, or mu(t,or ought to obliege all, but actually doth obliege in reafon and charity to receive the perfonfo called as truly fent. To which we fay, firft, can any thing actually obliege all to receive a Minifter as called , unleffe it firft be made the object of their reafon and judgement, and be known to them ? And (hall a Minifter never think himfelf externally called, un- till he know that all men fee the vifible evidences of his Call , and be fatisfied in reafon and charity. 2. If by all men, he mean all the men of the world , where (hall there be an externally called Minifter had ? How long (hall it be before all men (hall be actually oblieged in reafon and charity,ancnt the vifible evidence of the mans Call ? If their rea- fon and chanty be not actually fatisfied , how can they be actually ob- lieged to own the man as a called Minifter ? And this can never be, except vifible evidences be prefented to their reafon. Again, if by ail he mean all in the particular congregation whereunto the man is called, (hall he nor be judged an externally called Minifter until! all and every one, be oblieged in reafon and charity to receive him as ftnt of Chrift ? Women as well as Men, Servants as well as Mafters, muft be fatisfied before he be owned as a Minifter ; yes, each one of them hath a nega- tive voice,which will inferre a fuperlative independency, ButJeaving the airy notions of this high-flown man , who having no folid truth anent thefe things in his own mind , drives to involve others in dark- neiTe under a heap of vain words ; we choofe to hold clofs to the doctrine of the reformed Churches, anent a lawful external Call of a Minifter,, Mirifter, which tescheth us, That it fiands mthe fitting af art of a perfon, andfolemn dedication of him to God and his (ervice in the Gof- Tif and in a poieflative mijjion or fending of tht man to labour in Gods Vinejardycrfome fart thereof \ With mintfterial power : and this to be done bj perfons who themfelvis were former I j entruftedin that mat* ter and that upon ex all trjal of the minifl trial gifts of the man to be ordained^ and of his convtrfation fuitable to the worJ^ y and upon fa- tisfattion had after competent try at. The man who hath the Gof- pei-d-ifpenfation thus committed to him, according to the rules of Chrift i We judge to have the fubftance of a lawful! exterml Call. And To we come to profecute the defence of the fecond propofidon, That the minifters now ordained by the Bifhops , are the lawfully called minifters of £hri ft. And hence it will follow , that defpif- ing, deferring them , and refufing to hear them , cannot be without great fin- Now, in fpeaking of a lawful Calling by Chiift, we muft diftinguifh the fubftance of the Calling from the circumftances, or way, or order of coming to it ; for, there are fome faults that do nulli- fie the fubftance of the Calling , and make all the mans adlings therein to be invalid, as if he be ordained by perfons that have not power, &c . There are fome things again, which though they be the fins of the man that enters unto the Calling and makes k unlawful, as to thefe circum- stances ; yet donotdeftroy the Calling, nor make the ads done by the Minifter void, either before God or man •, as if a man enter by fy- mony, whether giving money, or things efteeroable by money, &c Corruptions in the manner of a Minifters entry obliege him to repen- tance, yet if in other things he hath the fubftance of the Calling, and be faithful in delivering the Lords mind, he ought not to be deferred by the people to whom he is fent ; nor is he to be judged a< a thief or robber that enters not by the door, although he cLfile himfcif in a mire before the door, which hemuftftudy tocleanfe. The door is Chrifts order, which he hath appointed for ad million of his Minifters, whoever comes in thereat and behaves hirnfelf faithfully in the Mini- {try , enters not as a wolf and a thief, though he hath fomeperfonal (ins adhereing to him as to the manner of his entry , which he ought to be humbled for. But , let us fee what are the grounds whereby the lawfulnefs of d e calling of the prefent Miniftry is impugned y as Naph.pag icq. faith, It is plainly denyed that their Miniftry is the Lnds Ordinance ; the grounds layed down are, fir ft, fcrjury , then intrusion into the places of other men % thefe two are joined together by Nap h. pag. 105,. ( 2 4 and from thefe he raifes the condufion, that they are not to be admit- ted to be fo much as externally called. Thirdly, the Want of the el* tttvon from people, and taking prefentatiens from patrons. Fourthly, their d'penaance upon "Bifhops for ordination^ &C. and this is pleaded frum the Covenant, kecauje we arc bound to endeavour the txtirpati- onofPrelats and their dependants, ana (o cannot own tbtm as Mini* fters, t^pht. pag. 104. and, fag. 108. he faith, the true lealof C/od fhould animate us t as one man to drive away thefe Wolves and Thieves \and to root out thefe plants our heavenly Father never plant* td. To^ll which we fay, Firft,as to perjury, which he imputes to the Minifters,it is utterly dented ; many of them did never take the Cove- nants,and fo cannot be accufed of perjury in breaking of them, nor can the oath of any others be fuch a bond upon their fouls , as to fix upon them the guilt of perjury ,if they do not what others did fwear: and foe thefe who had taken the Covenant, what hath formerly been faid ( to which the Reader is referred) may clear them from perjury. 2. As to intrufion into other mens Churches, it would be obferved, firft, that no Minifter hath fuch right and property in the people whom he ferves, or the Church at which he ferves, as he hath in his Wife , Children, Family and Goods. A flieep-heard that keeps a flook , cannot plead a property in the flock, it is his matters flock not his : So a Minifter muft think, that the flock he feeds is not his flock, but Gods and Cbnfts,ac- cording to the Scripture phrafe, Te are made overfeers over the floc^ which god hath furchafed frith his ofrnbloodx Again 1 Feed the fioc}^ of God that is among jou : It ismodeftyin Minifters to abftain from fuch talking, myfrck, my people, my Church; the flock and people is Chrifts only, the Church or meeting- houfe is dedicated to God for their ufe , the maintenance follows the perfon that hath the office, Beneficium (equitur efficium, and the prefent Minifter is only an Ufu- fiU&UMie ad vit am or ad cutpam, he hath no further right to any thing in the congregation , when he is found culpable of deprivation or fetting him afide from fuch or fuch a charge, and the maintenance annexed to it. 2. If a Minifter be either depofed by the Church,and de- prived of intereft and benefit in a congregation, or if he bebanifhed that congregation or the countrey by the Magiftrate ( which is a kind of civil death ) as there lyes no obligation upon fuch a Minifter , never to embrace another charge, So there lyes no obligation upon a people, never to embrace another Minifter to feed their fouls unto lifeever- lafting ; for by thefe ads of the Church and Magistrates (betheyjuft or unjuft we enquire not ) the aclual relation between the Minifter ( *47 ) and the People is Icofed 5 and as be is free to take another Church, fo they are free to take another Minifter. It is fatty to think, that mi- nifterial relation is like to marriage relation (as they fondly ima- gine) Chrift is the only bridegroom and hut band of the Church, from whom, through his merits, neither mifdeferving nor death (hail feparate her ; Minifters are neither bridegrooms nor husbands of the Church, but the bridegrooms men, whofe joy is fulfilled in the hearing of his voice,or if they be not fuch as they fhould be, they may be thrutt out of the bridegrooms Charxber^nd others fitter fet in their room. 3. When a Church is voided of a Miniftery by a publick Authority , it ^concerns not any that fhali be nominat to enter afterward, to enquire upon what grounds, and how warrantably his^redeceiTor was outed $ it is enough for him, that having gifts given him by Chrift , and an honeft inclina- tion to ferve him in the Miniftery , and the approbation of the publick Officers and Mrainiftery of the Church, he finds a place void, to which h e is nominated by thefe who have power according to the Law. It were a continual torment and difquietnefs of fpirit (which God allow- ethnot) both to a Minifter and to people, iftheperfwafionoflawful- nefs of his calling to a Church, or the lawfulnefs of a peoples fubmitt* ing tohim,fhould depend upon either the Churches orMagiftrates deal- ing with the former Minifter, the impartiality or right order of whofe proceedings^ is very hard for private men to fearch:If an inferior Ma* giftrate be outed of his charge by the Supream, and another put in his place, What horrid confufion fhould arife , if people would fay, be- caufe we are notfatisfied in the caufes of the removal of the former Magiftrate, we will not obey the prefent Mrgiftrate ? It is even fo in this matter concerning Minifters. 4. Be the caufes juft or unjuft of the removing of a Minifter from a congregation , yet Gods peo- ple are not bound to keep themfelves under a deprivation of his ordi- nances by a fettled Miniftery, wrrch may teach them truly the way of God: The people who have received good and comfort to their fouls by a Minifter , are not to be blamed but commended, for loving him and longing after him , and for labouring fo far as they can, to have him returned to them ; but, when there is no hopes that way, people are not bound to ftarve their own fouls , nor fuffer atheifme to increafe among them for want of the ordinances of God,and when they cannot get their meat in the di(h that they would have,rhey fhould take it in the di(h they may have, and from the hand of any lawfully called orthodox Minifter. It is a fond refpeel: to one man, that makes peo- ple cruel to the fouls of thoufands, who ought to be fed with the fincere ( 2 4 3 ) fincere milk ofGods Word, whatever be the condition of that one man» By thefe things and the like, the clamours of 2%apb. and the Apolog. againft the prefent Minifters, as violent extruders of their predecefibrs, arid intruders upon their charge, appear to befalfeand vain. And howfocver thefe men had rather chat all the Congregation?, which by tbeir difobedience to Law are laid waft in the Countrey, Should continue fo even untill atheifxn fhould overgrow all, then that they fhould not have a re-entry, ( wherein they (hew much of carnal felf, and little love to poor fouls periihing through ignorance , and as little regard to Gods glory ) yet godly and fober men , not rinding them- felves, according to Law , free for preaching, will be well content that Gods people have any good meafure of Supply of his preached Word by other hands : But the Author of Naph. and the Apolog. are of a worfe fpirit ; yea, Napht. is fo wildely tranfported , as pag % 105. 106. he utterly denies, that the Minifters have any external cal- ling upon the account of the perjury and intrufion ( which healledg- eth and faith, whoever Acknowledges them as Minifters , my ft thinly them[elve$ bound to receive Simon Magus as an tApoftle , bad be in his b rrid wickednefs pur chafed the ssfpoftlejhip with money ) Where to fay nothing of the impoffible fuppolition he makes , fee AttsS.io. We fay, fuppofiug that to be poflible , that the Apoftleihip could be purchafed by money ; yet,if Simon could ftiew the figns of an Apoftle, and make out his Apoftleihip as well as Paul did his, the World bad been bound to accept of him as an Apoftle : But waving thefe impoilible fancies, we fay if it were true, that the Minifters have entred by perjury and violence (as it is not ) yer,if they have the fub- ftanceof an lawful calling and preach faithfully, people are bound to attend their Miniftery , albeit the Minifters be bound to repent of the errors of their entry. 3. The accepting of prefentations from Patrcnr, and want of the peoples election , is objected againft the lawfulness of the Minifters external calling: The Jpotog. fell. 1$. and Naph.pag. 6$. declaim bitterly againft Patronages and Prefentations , and thinks that the abolifhing of them ^ was a (peciai point of onr civenanted re- formation to be flood for y again[t all hazards : It is granted that there may be abufes of Patronages and Prefentations, which ihouid be obviated by the Church of God j but as the ufe of them is very ancient in the Church ("even much above a thoufand years) and hath been Ser- viceable to the advancing of the Gofpel,fo may they yet be; the origin * al of the fame was when Nations were converted,and brought into the Church, for the building of Fabricks for Gods people to meeet in, and fettling ( *4P ) . fettling the maintenance for the Mimftry in Stipends and Gleibs; the Lords or Mafters of the ground did beftow tbefe things for the ftr- vice of God,and by the Churches allowance, thefe who contribute fo amongft their VafTals and Tennents who contribute nothing, had the priviledge to nominate the Minifter when the Church had been vacant, but with a fubmiifion to the judgement of the Guides of the Church concerning his ability, and leaving it free alio to the people to give their rational diffent j the aboliihing of this way is but vainly cryed up as a piece of Reformation, that ail might be devolved upon the people : Yet it is certain, one or two cf the leading men in the parifh do work upon them in thefe matters as they iviJi ; and iz is to be fear- ed, that the abolishing of Patronages ( whatever caufe there be for regulating them) may prove a hindrance unto the Gofpel,difcourage- in* Noblemen and Gentlemen from building Churches, and doting them when there is need, becaufe they fee that their Tennents and Cottars mull: overfway them and their great Families in the nomina- tion of the Minifter. Neither fhould the Church of God do any thing amifs , if for the encouragement of able perfons to bui!d and to eftabli(hCnurches and Benefices in our wild High lands where there is rnoft need , (he ihould give power of Prefentation and Patronage unto them>there being no Law of God againft this,and it being rnoft fubfer- vfent to the Gofpel. But cow we are come to this,that every ground- lefs novation mud be taken as an advancement of the covenanted Re~ formation , and who knows where we (hall fift? Our godly Refor- mers and the poflerity after them, for the fpace of one hundred years, were not fo eagle-eyed as to fee the neceflity of this great point of Reformation; which ("whatever this man hub) is fo far from being fworn in the Covenant , that the continuance of Patrons ( being at the [wearing of the Covenant , part of the order of the Church of Scotland) is rather engaged to be maintained : And if it be fo neceflfa- ry a part of Reformation, they would tell us why the Affembiy cf Di- vines at London and the Parliament there did not abolish Patronages. But the great buiinefs is^inent the peoples power of election, with- out which they do think a mm cannot be a Minifter ( at leaft of fuch a Congregation) feing that this election appropriate the Minifter to fuch a Charge. We are much weariel with thejmperious impcii- tions of fuch men , who teach nuns fommandmtnts for the dotlrines cf Cod , not being able to ihsw us in all the Scripture say command for, or example of peoples choofing' their own Pallors, It is true* thev tell us of the peoples having hand in the election of Alattkias to Kk the (250J the Apofttefiiip, Atts i. where they alledge that people were permit- cd to proceed in that election fo far as it was poflible for them to do in the election of an Apoftle ; for they appointed two, whereof one was to be divinely chofen , and this was done to give example, to be imi- tated by the Church afterward in ecclefiaftick elections. *An[. The. Church or People here,as they had no hand at. all in the election,which was Gods work, Lord> (hew which of theft thou haft chofe» y y, 24. So they did not fo much as prefent the two, ^23. they appointed two, trMAv cTi/o, referrcth not to the whole Church of the hundred and twcnty,hut to the Apoftles,as S. R, Due right of Presbytery >^g % ip . fhsweth upon confidcrable grounds, they appointed^ they (et % they pre- sented ; The peoples election could not be admitted in the choice of an Apoftle,who is an Officer no wayes called by men^bm of God immedi* ateij) .who in this election governed the lots and defigned the perfon ; and the laft word, v. 26. Who mu numbered with the eleven Apoftles % doth not import that he was made an Apoftle by their fufTrageSjOr cho- fea by the fame, but only that he was acknowledged fuch a one> as Die* date upon the place hath well obferved. So that it is but a fanfie to feek ground for peoples election of their ordinary Minifter?, from the electi- on of this extraordinary Minifter, who was neither chofen nor crdain- ed by man, but called of God. They urge again with as little reafon, that feing the people had election of the Deacons, v4#j 6* 3. 5» that therefore much more fliould they have election of their own Pallors and Minifter?, feing the feeders of their fouls fhould be more beloved and acceprable to them, then the feeders of their bodiey,and their confent (hould be no Iefle,if not more- waited for, in fetting over them the one fort of Officer then the other. z.4nf> 1. .There is no folid ground of arguing from the manner and circumftances of the entry of one Officer to another, nor any neceflity that they (hould have all circumftances alike in their entry upon the Office ; and there is a great difparity betwixt thefe two Offices,which may invalidate the confluence from the one to the other, as to the manner of their entry thereunto. In a grudging and murmuring tirae, the honeft ApoftIes,for avoiding fcandal and fufpicion of male-ver/ati- on, refuting to meddle anent distribution of alms,and to deal in money- matters of that kind, did wholly put over the matter upon the people, to choofe whom they Would ta deal in thefe things , referring the judgement of thtir qualification unto them without further trying, that fo all might be Satisfied , and murmuring ftayed : but we never hear that theApoftles permitted the liberty of the choice of aPaftor un- to fifO to people, nor was there the like reafon for election of a Faftor by peo- ple » the greateft part whereof ufually being the weakeft or the worft, it is a ready way to bring in a weak and corrupt Miniftery,and the bet- ter part oi the congregation fhall remain unfatisfied. And albeit it is true, we are bound to love our Paftors for their works fake, more theD the adminiftrators of the poors goods ; yet, that inferrs not the neceliity of a liberty to elect them:I am bound to love the Prince,more then the inferior Magiftrates that are eledive; yet, why (hould that inferre election of the Prince , who hath his power hereditary and by fucceflion^ Again, 2. Why (hould they mention this pattern of the Deacons election, to force the like in the Minifters election, feing they themfelves will not follow the pattern which they propofe ? For, here the Apoftlcs had no vote in the election, norprefided at it, nei- ther do they try the qualifications of the men chofen , when they are presented ujto them , but upon their preferment inftantly appoints them, neither of which, will Presbyterians admit in the peoples election of Minifters, But leaving this loofe reafoning from the one Office to the other, we come to the main ground of the peoples alledged intereft in elecli- on of their Paftors, which is pleaded, Alls 14. 13. There is much weight laid there upon the word , xs't* 70 ™** 9 ™' when it is faid, Pant and Barnabas ordained Elders in every City, which they ex- pond, that they ordained them , the people lifting up their hands and teftifying their (nfrage , choice andconfent f and that the Apoftles ordained none but fucb as the people did choice , teftifying their fuf- frages that way : Bat more found and fober Presbyterians , finding their difadvantage againft the Independent and Seperatift, by cleaving to the common fenfe given by them of this Text , have forfaken this hold for papular elections , and do not prefs hereupon the peoples voting in elections. But however, the word yu^rov^v cometh from the manner of fuffrages ufed in forae grecian Republicks , either in choofing perfons or making Laws; yet, th^y think that foraetimes ( and in this place ) it (ignifies (imply the All of conltitttting and patting a perfon in office, not exprefly importing the manner or the way of doing it by fuffrages or lifting up of hands , as the old inter- preter hath it (imply, Cumqtte conftittsiflent Tresbyteros, fee Mr. fT. againft L» pag. 148. and it is good fo to profit by opposition of ad- verfaries, as to be made plyable to accept of the truth , which hath been a little deferted, itlHspifcatorfapit. Certain it is, that the fub- ftantive eonftruc~ted with the participle jcs/poTwiraraf, U Pant and K k % Bar- ( »5» ; 'Barnabas, of whom it is abfurd to fay, that they mad? Elders by their fuffraging or voting , and it is as abfurd to force fuch an expofition up- on the Text , When Paul and Barnabas had caufed the c Di[ciples to make to themfelves Elders by fuffrage , which is a fort of figurative fenfe,which (I doubt much) fhall be found any wherein the World* And no lefs abfurd is it which fome fay, ( but in a direct betraying of the Presbyterian caufej who will have x^ 07mt to be fo much lookt to, as the ordinary and currant ufe of the word, in appli- cation to fuch a thing. We find x*w™w u ^d otherwayes inScripture, then for choofing by fuffrages,y*#/ i o.4i,and fo *ttex u ? t * A79 Atts i6> 1 6* 2* If we look to the words, x 6J ?* TaH iv fignfies not only to lift up the hands (which was the ceremony ufed to fignifie fuffrages J but it fignifies the ftretching out of the hands , which is done in order of laying them on, fo that ^s/poTow* and > : s/po3* R. Bus right of Presbytery, pag % i 2 p. faith, * man may have a Alini ft trial charge WXfullj over (ttch as ars not billing to lubmii to bis Miniftery; for, faith he, what if th: mo/i part upon fote groundtefs prejudices refttfe him, u he not their Paftor , becaufe they confent not} Can we thinly, thn Cbrift pur- chafed a liberty bj his blood to refufe a called P after ? And fo often he afleitf, thai the whole ejjence of the Poftoral call , [lands inor^na^ tionby Paftors, andfnch as are in room tf officers of the Churchy p?g. 105. SUilion makes not a man a Paftor in foro Dei, nor doth theVrant of it unminifter him • yea, faith fc, a Minifter may be* Minifter to a congregation that never elided him^at if a man convert Infidels and Pagans who do not eltcl him, but In gathers them into a Church : Yea, the firft book of difcipiine , allows the compelling of froward people to embrace a Minifter , Vfhom the Church fends to them, chap, 1. And in the year, 1649. the order of the Gene- ral Aflcmbly for eleftion of Minifters bears, tbatif the. congrega.- tioo (^4) tion be diftfh'&ed f others of their Writers zAdjfthey be ignorantjr- rontons or Jchifmatical ) the Presbytery may fend them a Minifter wibtout their confent, and appropriat him to that place ; which gives ground enough to think, that in their mind popular ekdtion is not /«- rvOvntii otherwise* they would not take it from a Church untill they had unchurched it , and excommunicated the plurality, of the Members of it. As to the fourth thing objected againft the lawfulnefs of the Mini- fters Ofrke,their dependance upon B:fhops,for which it is (i\d y that ac- cording to the Covenant , they are to be abhorred and extirpated like Values and thieves y and that it is an indifpenfible duty lying npon us never to hear tbem y let be to own them as Minifters y Naph. pag. 104, 105. 107, 108, io?t But, firft, it is a moil wicked fenfe put upon the Covenant , that it engageth to extirpate and deftroy all Minifter s de- pending upon 'Bijhopt ; for certain it is,Minifters that then were at the making of the Covenant, howbeit they renounced dependance upon the Bijhops Government , yet could not renounce their dependance ttpon them , as to their being Minifter s , as long as they lived, unlefle they renounced their Ordination by them and took a new Ordination, which very few did or thought themfelves oblieged by Covenant to do : The Covenant was a wicked fnare , if it be expounded after this mans mind , engaging all the Miniftry of Scotland and England to re- nounce their Ordination by Bifhops , and to take new Ordination 1 as if they had been before falfe Minifters ( according to the Brownifts mind,) and fo their Churches no Churches , their Sacraments r.o Sa- craments , their people no Chriftians. But if this man will maintain the unlawfulnefs of the Miniftry ordained by Bifhops , and depending on them that way, we ftiall yoak him with Presbyterians who will beat him foundly ; See London Minifters Jtssdivinum Minifteriiytowwd the end. Thus having confirmed our fecond proposition in behalf of the Minifters , viz.. that they are lawfully called Minifters of Chrift, we may add, orthodox Minifters teaching the .way of God truly, the conclufion neceiTarily follows , That they are to be heard, their Mini- ftry is to be attended and cot to be feparated from,becaufe Chrift faitb, He that heareth yw y hsareth me ; and he that defpifeth yon y defpifeth not man, but god. And as T^apht. arguments againft hearing them or owning them as Minifters, from pag. 104. to 1 io. are but paiiionat, frothy words of vanity, as any may fee ; So the4polog t Sett.i$, pag. 270. &c. in producing his fourteen considerations againft hear- ing the Curats, as he calls them, is but a vain difputant ; for,ali his ar- guments (255) n p guments^un either upon begging of the queftion , and the thing that will not be granted to him, as thele which he grounds upoa the fup- pofed pei jury and defe&ion, &c which is denyed, as in i^s fr. it three arguments, oron falfe doctrinal principles, as his 4, and 5. arguments, where he faith, they are not to be heard for fear of fcandal,and we fay, efficiftm non eft demittendum propter fcandalum^my h not to be left for fear of fcandal, or eife upon falfe alledgiance in matter of .fa& , as when he alledges them to be falfe teachers,as argument 6,7, 8. or elfe upon great inconsequences, as 9. 10. as if they that heard them were acceflory to their intrufion, (as he calls it,without reafon or encroach- ment upon the Scripture liberties of the Church) or upon groundlefs furmifes of their infufficiency,or becaufe there is corruption in the way of their entry, iwwi As if everyone were judge of their ineffici- ency, and might upon their own judgement of the fame feparate from them,or as if corruptions in the wayofMirnfters entry,fhou!d indifpen- fibly obliege people never to hear them, albeit the fubftance of their calling were lawful!, or elfe finally in felf-contradiclory pofitions, while he dare not deny them to be Minifters of the Catholick church ; yet, he applies to them all the characters of thefe who were no Mins- iters but falfe Prophets, which he could find in Scripture, and in lay- ing that falfe ground, th3t it is lawful for people to defer t their own Mmift&s, under pretence of coveting the be ft gifts, and trjingall things , holding f aft that which is good. But to leave thefe vain wreftlers againft the truth, we do affect, 1. that it is not the peoples election, thic makes a Minifter of fuch a Pirocb,to be owned by them, but after ordination, the poteftative miffion and inftitution given him bv thefe who have power , that he may exercife fpiritual jurisdiction in reference to fuch a people .• hereof we have Efficiently heard the judgement of the Church of Scotland, inthecafeoffroward anddif- a&fted congregations at leaft, together with the judgement of S~ R. 2. We affert, that the grounds which we have laid to fhew the mini- ftery of the Minifters to be a lawful miniftery of Chrift, and themfel- ves to be true Preachers of his mind , are of infinitely ftronger confe- quence to prove that tbey fliould be heard and received , then all the weak confederations of thefe two Martyrs are to prove that tbey fhould not be heard, as any unpredicated will confeffe. 3. Where- as both thefe witneflesmakeahugebufinefs about hearing the Pha- rifees , Mattb. 23.1. and are pitifully diftrefled with that argument which was ufed of old by the good Ncn-conformifts of England againft the Separatifts, in behalf of the Miniftry of England • we do DOS not trouble our fclvcs much with his groundlefs notions a^out that roatte^buc only fay briefly , that if Ghrift allowed his difciplcs^r people to hear the Pharifees while they really taught Mofes Law, albeit fome of them were of other tribes then of the teaching tribe which God had cholen to teach his people , and that their lipsjhould keep knowledge. Yet , being in pofleffion of the chair of Mofes, through the fioggiflv nefsof Priefts and Levites, for above one hundred and founy years before Chrift, and being alfo moftpartof them teachers of humane traditions for the Commandments of God : If (I fay ) Chrift al- lowed fuch to be heard while they keeped their rooms , and before he ftiould bring in reformation of all the Old Teftament way ; certain- ly he alloweth prefent, lawful, orthodox Minifters to be heard, to whofe charge no fuch thing, can be laid as to the Pharifees: and to fay that he would not have the Pharifees the ordinary Teachers to be attended and heard, is abfurd ; for, while he faith, what they com- wand you to do, that obferve and do, he dearly imports that it w^s an ordinary duty to hear them command , and Chrift enjoining the end that is,oblerving and doing.muft be fuppofed to enjoin the mean?, that is, hearing. 4. ^Whereas the Apolog. takes much pains to paral- lel the Minifters with the Pharifees,he will be pleafed to apply (as they fliould be; thefe few particulars concerning the Pharifees ,• 1. They were Separates, as their name imports, counting all the populut terra as a profane rabble,monopolizing all holinefs to their own kftftcLuk* 18. thePharifee, $■*&«/* w* *M7»v 9 he ftood with or by himfelf, fhunning the approach of ordinary men as unclean ; fee 7 fa 6j. 5. Standby thy (elf ', come not near me > I am holier then thou. 2 . As others think,their name imports a lingular undemanding of the Scrip- ture , which they pretended above all men , therefore their Schollars called them the Wfi men^nd when they were to lefture, We will (fay they ) go hear the Wife, *« *m the Wifeexponetoday. 2. The^Pbarifees were a fupercilious , vain-glorious pack. 4, They would not enter in them felves to the Kingdom of God, nor furfer thefe who would to enter in , tikf * h * do g *» th < m « n l er > that *e™ ld not eat haj himfelf 7 and yet noulduot (»ffer theox to eat, Mo could and would too. 5. The Pharifees, under pretence of long prayers and devotions, had their tricks of covetoufnefs. and devoured widows hwfes for maintaining their party, d- The Pharifees were themoft adive gainers of profelytes to their way that ever were , creeping in- to all corners, and hunting efpecialiy the fouls of filly women to nuke them €v*'t in perverting their husbands. 7. The Pharifees 1 were more <*57) mote occupied about the lefTe things in the Law then the greater, mer- cy, judgement and faich- 8. The Pharifees had their own traditions which chey taught as the Commandments of God. 9. Though they pretended great refpeel to Gods Law , and to be tender of oaths , yec they iroployed their art and skill in diiToivirg the raoft lawful oaths ; if they feemed to be faft in fome oaths , they were as loofe in others, ic. The Pharifees were whired torrbs, but within were full of dead mens bones and rottennefie, and of hypocrifie , cruelty , iniquity and bloodlhed. Finally , the Pharifees , as Jofepbus tells us, were a fro- wardfortof perfons, than which they laid they were perfwaded of, id (equuntur pertinacitcr ; and he faith , they are afitttum hominum genus arrogant & inter dum Re^ibus quoque infijlum , which made one of the Aftmonea* Kings to cut off eight hundred of them at once for their feditions againft his Authority , and ftill they were crying out againft Taxations given to Kings to ftir tumults againft them, after the example of Judas the Guulonite t Afts 5. 37. called in that place, Judas of galilee , who was a perfecl Pbarifee , ftirring up the people becaufe of the Taxations exacted by Cafar and the Ptinces. Let this rpharifec Gaulonite pa: bis own confeience to the pains to make ap- plication. But 1 to clofe a!) , let this man and his party confrder the dreadful- r\efs of the fin of reparation from a lawful Miniftery and an orthodox lawful Church, which in the judgement of grave Divines, is a fin not inferior to adultery or to theft. Mutinies and feditions in an Army are puniihed by Generals with death , becaufe they do more infallibly de- ftroy an Army,then aimoft any ether fault or weaknefle. Some petty diftm&ions, we know, are devifed to mask the ugly face of ir t which will not fuftainjand fome think there is no fin in it at all to begin a fepa* ration from their own Minifter and Paroch- church , where God harh caften their lot to be combined with a certain portion of his people, if fo be they go to other places and to as good Minifters or better : but howfoever, I would not counfel Minifters to be too rigid againft fober and bumble Chriftians, who fometimes without dif-refped to their own Miniftcrs,m3y be inclined to defire a proof of another* gift?. But feh as fear God would confider the circumftances and confluences of fo doing ; what if all the people (liould do as one doth, in deferting a faithful Minifter,(liould he not be a Minifter without a people ? Are not people bound to obey and hear them who labour among them and teach the truth of God , as well as the Minifter is bound to teach thf truth to them ? May he with a good ccnfd:nce leave them , as weii T i . ... (25 *) a s they may leave him? And although they may covet the beft gifts yet it muft be in an orderly way , let them rather remove tfteir dwell- ings to follow the fame , that they may not give fcandal to the people of God , that they may not introduce confufions into the Church, Jt is the will of God, that his people, according us they are orderly, joined in Congregations , (hould ordinarily attend thedifpenfations/ of his Ordinances there, and not to introduce confufion in the Church npon pretence to deiire to hear better gifted men : People humbly at- tending upon the Mmiilery Gpd hath given them, miy expe&his bieftir.g thereby, rather then when they gaud abroad to better gifted men, with fcandal to others of Gods people* Peoples diforderly run- ing in this confufed manner from their own Congregations , hath been fatal to ail order in the Church, and hath a tendency to atheifm and contempt of all divine things, and opens a fluice for moft abominable errors. CHAP. VI, The Libellers tragical complaints of perfection >and his va'n- glorying of the Martyrs of his way, with other evi~ dences of his pride andarrogancy. TO rake into the aflies of dead men, or to talk of the aggrava- tions of their guiltinefs who have received rfieir fentence from their Judges on earth, and their great Judge in heaven, were both unchriftiafn and in-humane. Yet , becaufe this Li- beller goeth about to juftifie what lawful Magistrates have judged to- be Rebellion, and to inftigate to the like by vain elogies of the way of them who are taken away, it wiil be needful to fay fomewhat ( yet with great companion and tendernefs toward thofe who ruined them- felves by forfaking their own ftationj concerning his defences of their way, left truth receive prejudice , the right to the glorious Crown of martyrdom be translated to, or challenged by malefactors and evil- doers • and left Magiftrates, in profecuting their duties faithfully for publick peace, fhould be left under the difgrace of being perfeeotors of the godly. We (hall not notice much his mentioning of the teftimonies of fome perfons, who dying a natural death or otherwaye?, declared their opinion to be for Presbytery, though they dyed not for that caufe* Men are not to be judged infallible at their death, more then in their iife 5 a man may dyeinforue particular error not difcerned upon his bed* (i>9) bed,as we!! as otherwayes ; God may fuffer great and good men to go away und£r greater miftakes then thefe are whereof we now fpeak, without prejudice of their fouls happinefsor lofs of his favou» $ and if thefe who are mentioned dyed in fuch an opinion , as great arid as good men haye lived and dyed with comfort in a contrary opinion. As for the remnant of the witneflis of obfeure name, whom he brings in with difcourfes either made by them or for them , ad faciendum or falitndum poputum ; it (lull be none cf our work to dnpurc the gra- cioufntiTe of theeftate of any of them , nor their prefent happinefs,' which are fecrets known to God : buc, it faali be our part, waving all vain elogies given to them, to confider their way and practices how far they areapprovableby the Word of God , or imitable by others. i. Certain it is, that gracious men , for fome iins committed by ihem, may be fo for a time deferted of God , as even when they are in fome meafure of fircerity aiming at good ends , they may through ftrong tentacion be rmfcarried to the ufe of wrong and (inful means , which may make them obnoxious to the ftrcke of humane jaftice , becaufe their deed tended to the overthrow of humane Societies. Again, 2. it is not fafe meafuring of the righteoufneile of a Caufe, meerly by the confidence and feeming confolation of thefe who are prompt to fuffer for it* It is true, the confidence and confolation of Gods Mar- tyrs have ftrange diftinguiftiing characters, to put difference between the fame, and all delusory confidence and comfort ; bat thefe are only difcerned by the godly Martyrs therafelves, or by God himfeif, and thefe to whom God hath given a lingular fpirit of difcerning, For, oft-times greateft malefactors and defperately profane perions , grofie hereticks and atheifts, dying in, and for their fins, are found to defpife death, to have lingular feeming patience and deluding comfort in k } there being upon their hearts a judgement of hardnefs , and having obftinately lived in error and fin, they have dyed under the power of a deluding comfort ; which ncverthelefs , God forbid we (hould think of thefe perfons , cf VpbomVce have hoped better things, and things that concern falvaiion. 3. Who are we, to undertake to meafure the miftical methods of divine mercy, and the roomentane- ous , ir.comprehenfible, fuddeo workings of his Spirit , Who mov- eth fyben and how he Ufteth } he can give particular repentance for a particular Cm^ter pontem & jontem y and quickly dart in the in- timations of his mercy, according to the old wo;d fpoken of a wicked man that fell over abridge into the water, 'Between ihtbrUgeand the ground y Mercy I fought , and mercy I fomd. Who dare limic L ! s trie ( *6o ) the holy One, fo as that he may not give particular repentance in trtU culo mortis, which for his own holy ends, he conceals from them that furvive ? Ic is not the prefent perfonal eftate of any of thefe which we dare quarrel , but when it comes to a juftifying of their way as if it were of God,and to tnftigate others co an imitation, as Napio, dotbj we muftftand in the gap ( fo far as we may ) thaf fo great a delufion break not in upon the Church of God. Therefore,briefly,we fay,none of thefe fufFerers did fuffer upon the ac-* count either of owning the Covenant or Presbytery, which are owned by many,who upon that account fui&r nothingjbuc their fuffering was upon the account of rifing rebeilioully in arms, without and againft all Authorities in the Land , fupeiior and inferior , which if they had not done,they might have owned theCovenant andPresbytery long enough, before they had been troubled for that caufe : And all that they can fay for their rifing is,that the Magiftrate by moderate penalties accord- ing to Law, was prefling them to attendance upon the Ordinance of God , which is 'his indifpenfible duty* We may very juftly fay Tome few things of thefe that made the infurrefticn, which may fuftain well and fervetoour purpofe ; and which being weil confidered,much foap and nitre will not wa(h off the (lain of foul rebellion , nor make their fuffering to be of kin with cleanly martyrdom, however this man vain- ly brags thereof, i. The lives of thefe people were not fought upon any termes,only moderat legal penalties were exacted of them for non- attendance upon the external means of Religion, which tended to flat stheifm and highly diilionoured God. They were not,brought to the Jaft and inexorable neceffky of defending their lives againft invafion, out of which cafes,the Author of Lex Rex$ig, 3 27, 3 28, 3 29. faith, that uftng violence againft the Magiftrate or kis ftrvants, is tinlayt- fnL 2. They ufed violence againft the Magiftrate before they did fup- plicat him, ('this alio that Author thinks unlawful) fupplicating with- out fuch combinations and tumults as had been in ufe in the beginning of the troubles, was not forbidden in the cafe of inferior Officers lay- ing on illegal impofitions ; or the fuperior Powers, could, as they faw caufe, give relaxation even of the legal. 3. This Advocate labours to excufe their rifing as indeliberate , yet in a notable contradiction de- fends it m lawful tju ft ^neceftary, holy, exemplary ,and what not ? But he (hould remember, that the godly Ancients never enrolled them among their Martyrs, who by their own raftinefs had occafioned their Own fufterings,*?/*/* (faid they) non divino inftinflnjedtemeritatc atti> iifecerHnt) fee Durham^ Revel, 362* 363. p. But whatfoever is talked (261) of indeliberatntis^ny have thought that ft was 3 contrivance, which God will in his time difcover ; if it was (0 , it was molt wicked and unnatural, to kindle a flame in our own bowel*, when the King and his Kingdoms were engaged in a forraign war againfi three potent Nati- ons* 4, They were tfee firft aggrefiors and invaders of the King and bis Servants; for, Naph, pag. 137, 138- ivxh^that they firjt flew one of the Kings ftrvants, Wounded two, toolqjm chief filar Sir Jsmes Turner pnfoner, referving him to dye , when and where , and how it (hould pleafe them, albeit fome hot-headed men in thc'r Councils urg- ed that he [hould be put to dtatk quickjjy by vertue of the Covenant* 5. 1 Cor. 13. If I give my body to be burnt and have not charity f lam nothing. The Ancients would never own the Novatians and 'Donattfts to be Martyrs , albeit feme times they were drawn to death by perfecutbg Pagan? , under the common notion and name of Chri- ftians, fuch a foul itain did they fee in fchifm , and in uncharitable cut- tings and renting! of the body of drift. How the leaders of thofe people (trove to fix them in a fchifm is known? teichng them, as Napb. doth, that they Were i'difpenftbly tyed by the Covenant, never to hear Aiy of the Alinifiers er.tred by the Hifhops , and were bound thereby to extirpate and drive away ihefe wolves and thievts$lz$\\* pag, 104. 108. So that 1 fuppofing that God fhould remove all their former Mmifters, and in his Providence continue this prefentGoven rr they have taught the poor people, by verttre of the Covenant , to for- fake the Gofpel-miniftry in this Land for ever, ( however able , fruit- ful and well fu*r,i(hed with meet graces and gifts the Miniitry might bej as if the Gofpel fhould rather Fall then the Presbytery. Should not mens hearts tremble to appear before Gods Tribunal with fuch aflertions , which lead the people to atheii'm, and hardens them in it ?. And this Author of Naph. fhews himfelf a wicked, but no witty Sc- phifter, in per fanKn g the poor people unto a perpetual fchifm from tirschriftian and orthodox Church, while, prfg.iop. hebringethaq argument from the Lords abhorring his S^ncluary Recounting i>;cen{e abomination** So that he cannot away ty'ub the calling A$(mblie$ % it is iniquity, even the jolemn Meetings ; to prove that Gods pe. fhould now withdraw from that God bath for fa \ I ac- count it iniquity not to hate that which the Lord hates. Herein is a no- table piece of jagfary to perfwade reparation ; for, becaufe in Scrip- ture- ex preiHons the Lord teftifies his abhorring of the hypccrifie 2nd ineer formality of people h ferving him , as I/a. u and in other places of Scripture; therefore be coccltides, that peop!; tparaic from. ( i6i ) fir n rhc very outward Ordinances themfelves, which csme never in Gods mind nor the mind of any cf bis Prophets, v\ho alwayescx- horted the people in the mod corrupt times, to attend the pubiick Or- dinances of God , and to amend the ill manner of the performance of duties to him, whatever were the corruptions of the Prsefts in theft? times ; much more had it become this m3n (had he regarded the good of the fouls of people , more then his own or his parties private good and credit; to have taught the people not to deftroy their own fouls byfeparation from Gods Ordinances, which he never taught; bur,. fang this Church is itiil a true and orthodox Church , to attend the Miniftery thereof firxereiy and humbly ; efpeciaily fting a door is open- ed to them forgiving in juft complaints againft any who wrong the holy things of God among them > or teach fslfely, or lived itfolutely or not mimltcrial'y. 6. Whatever may be faid of the lawfulness of ufing the defenfive fword againft the Magiftrate, yet their taking of the fword with fuch defigns which this their Advocat faith they had,or sl- Jowerh them to have had was evi(,ftfcV£ Wat to full down ail Authori- ties in the Land for ab fifing their places, to vindicate (as the^ call it) Rcligionjo force their fcllcw-fukjeftj to their [enfe of the Covenant , or elfe to defiroy them^to sccapy and place themfelves in the chair of Au- thority , as if the Covenant had bound them to do fo,to kjd Whom they would as Apoftate^axd fave Whom they Would aiive. And fhould fuch men ( whatever the (tare of their fouls was with God before their death or now, we meddle not with it, as being fealed amonglt his fe- crets) be accounted Martyrs; becaufe in time they were checked, and not fuffered to be murtherers of others ? Why fhould this Libeller ?*£• l l9' fry > l ^ at % ^ e Councils Proclamation againft them Was full cf fury and madnefle} Why 'fhould he labour with frivolous talk to delude the world,faying, pag. 105. that When they were defeat the fcul cf gods turtle dove Was delivered unto the white d , his name to reproach andblafpbemy, and his glory into the enemies hand, (Thus here as elfewhere he vents his ranting humour in Scripture- words, Jike 'Belfhadz.ar ab-ufing the veflels of the Sanctuary in bis drurken compotations , but God will vindicate the glory of his own Word ) Whereas, for all his cry of exemplary integrity '-, piety and zeal, pag. 141. fome of the chief leaders of them have been found flagi- tious men of defperate fortune?,principles and de/igns : and it is known, that many of thefe were through their drunkenneiTe , cheating and falfe dealing, fcandals even to theSouldiers themfelves while abode among them, who did perceive licde of piety in them, but that ( 16 1 > piece cf impious piety, not to hear a conformed Minifter. This is not fr^ken as if there might not be amongft ihofc rhat rofe ver> much good grain and real Saints , though deferred io an hour of tentation to fail into an evil way \ nor dare we pronounce hardly at all upon any of the perfons that fufSred , '-vhom we have referred unto the wonderful mercy of God (but cannot approve their actions ) nor can we count their foffering near of kin to mareyrdom ; and k is great vanity in the Libeller ro compare them with the chief eft Martyrs that have been in the ChriflUn Church , Pref. fol. 7. But now drawing to a clofe, it is fit to con (icier, what defences were made by the empanelled againft the holy Scriptures objected , or what further defence this Libeller makes for them. i. They ftere fofed fthere they had learned, that under pretence of Religion t it is lawful for Subjects to rife in Rebellion againft lawful Autrjoritj\ to this Queree this advocat declines to give a direct an(wcr,whe;e fuch a thing is read or could be inftructed,only he fpeaks bigg words,and faith , it is clearly warrante i both by the word and by the covenant of Cjcd , and if we will not take his word for ft , he will give us no more particular inilructicn forit,whsrethisistoberead,iV i Sam. 15. 23. Rebellion is as the fin of ditcher *ft y was ob- jefted to them ; it is a very poor anfvver , which either others or this Advocatmadeto this , that it was only meaned of rebellion againft God whereof Saul was accufed guilty by S*muet ; for albeit, that high rebellion immediately againit God be principally meaned, yel the Sovereign Magistrate being the Lords Deputy, and bearing the Image of his Soveraignty upon earth, whom he commands to reve- rence and ofoy,afld of whom he hathfaid, Tearegods^ PJal % 82. the defpiferof theSovcraign Magiftrate, andrebel againft him doing his duty,is a rebel againit God. Yea> fuppofe we are never to follow the Magiftrate when his commands are contrary to God (for that were to leave our line of fubordinatiorj to God) yet when he fwerves and goes out of his line , to take the fword againft him is but toftudy to cure his (in by our own , and becaufe the King one way leaves his line of fubordination to God, therefore to leap out of our own line in that fubordination, in another way. 3. Matth, 26. 5 2. was objected , where Chrift reproves Peter for drawing his fword in defence of his perfon , againft the Officers and Souldiers fent to take him , and for ever difcharging private perfons to take the fword without Authority , even though it were in defence of his own perfon ; threatning, Whoever ufyth the fword (God not giving him it in an orderly way ) (ballperi/h by the [word , he fhall either dye by the fword of the Magiftrate , or fome fatal violent way equivalent or worfe. The Libeller anfwers, 1. that that Text wa» fufficiently anfwered by one of the impeached , whom they accounted diftra&ed, who thereto did oppone, Luk- 22. 36. where Chrift at the fame time and to the fame purpofe, commands his Difciples to fell their garments and buy /words* Certainly this Libeller feems not to be far from fome meafure of diftra&ion , while he allows the diftracled mansanfwerasfufficient: who of found judgement will think » that a Scripture is fufficiently anfwered by producing another which feem- eth contradictory thereto ? This is not to foive an argument from Scripture, but to fet the Scriptures by the ears together. 2. The Li- beller aflerts , that the Text doth more confirm then impugn the law- fulnefleof defenfive Arms, which he labours to confirm, not only by that advice given by Chrift to his Difciples , to provide fword* and weapons, but becaufe $ 26. of Matt b, $2, heaflertshis power to call twelve legions of Angels to hisafliftance* which clearly implyes the lawful- ( *«J ) lawfulnefs thereof ( as he faith ) withall he afferts it to be wofi #*> dent % that that command was given and thefe words fpoken by our Lord, only tote ft ifie hit voluntary (ubmiffton , &c. by laying down bis lift* To ail which we fay, i. thepaffage, Luke n. 36. is per- verted by him, for as the chief Interpreters acknowledge, that fpeech is wholly a!legorick;So reverend^*** upon iV*/*/,faith h^hicfermo eft allegoricus, auafi diceret vixtftis adhuc in face commilitbnes^r.unc vero beSum inpat^acerrimum & ceteris rebus ommiffis de verts armis eft cogitandum^anam autemfuntifta arma ipfe/uo exewplo docuit, cum foftea in horto precaretur, & Petrum gladioferientem repreken* deret : In like manner , reverend Diodat concurrs with him, faying, " That by buying of Swords is nothing meaned but figuratively, that " they fhould have fpiritual Wars and Combats , and therefore they " fhould make provifion of Spiritual armour, expseffed under the noti- " od of corporal weapons. To that fame purpofe,judiciQus^»/(r«/»/ fpeaketh > and in very deed it cannot fuftain, that Chrift fhould here enjoyn them to buy fwords of outward mettal , feing it was not Chrifts mind that at that time they fhould ufe fuch fwords, no not in defence of his own peribn. Would he have them fell their cloaths to buy 1 words,and then not ufe them ? 2. It is a Grange reafoning from the Text, that the lawfulness of private mens defenfive armes againft Magiftrates is here confirmed, becaufe Chrift faith, That he could fray to his Father , and he could get twelve Legions to his ajjift an ce y which (faith hej clearly iraplyes the lawfulnefs thereof. iAn[* The queftion is. now anent the lawfulnefs of private mens ufing defenfive % • armes againft all Magiftrates , without any fhadow of Authority,' and to prove this, he alledges,that God by his abfolute power, might fend twelve Legions of Angels to help Chrift • God hath Authority above all Authorities in the World , and he may imploy Angels or men as he pleafetb, and then they have a good warrar.d and authority : But, what makes this for any private mens ufing the fword againft ths Magiftrate,without authority either from God or man ^ It is wonde- rous reafoning from Gods abfolute power, and the efficacy of ChrifU prayer(if we would pray for afliftarxe fromGod)to argue the lawful- nefs of private mens refiftance of the lawful Mtgiftrate , without any warrand from God. 5, Albeit one part of our Lords defign,is to tefti- fie his willing fubmillion to the pleafure of his Father ; yet, that i* not all, for by occafion of this prohibition to Peter , he gives a gene* til rule to all his Difciples being private men, and to all private men* that they fiiouid not take the fword, God not giving them authority* Mm 4^ It. ( *66 ) 4» It is filfe, that it is only un juft and offenfive War that is forbidden ; for fo that fentcnce, he that takfth the (word , fliould not be perti- nently applyed to Meters fact or fault •, for his ufing the fvvord againft thefe who came to apprehend Chrift was defcnfive,and was objectively jutt on his pare , to wit , in defence of his Matter whom they did in« vsde ; yec he is reproved for .ufing the fword againft the Magiftrate, not having la wfulf Authority , the defect of which makes the ufing of the fword againft the Magiftrate finfull, as well as the defect of an lawful! and juft caufe. 5. Whereas he faith , that Chrifts fpeech by its latter parr, tacitly implyes the lawfulnefs and juftnefs both of de- fensive and vindictive armes, the fame being other wayes juftly found- ed , ismoft falfely concluded from Chrifts words, if heraeandefen- (ive and vindictive arms againft the Magittrate, ("which is now our queftion ) for, albeit defenfive and vindictive armes be otherwayes juftly founded , the defeel of a lawful authority in ufing them againft Superior-powers , makes them unjuft and finful , and it is utterly againft Chrifts mind and the fcope of the Text , to allow defenfive as well as vindictive armes againft the Magiftrate ; for, "Peter was de- fending himfelf and his Mafter , and revenging the invafion made by MaUhtu the Magiftrat's fervant upon Chrift , and yet he is reproved for both. 6. The Libeller,?^. 158. is infolenr, while he faith, Thai the j are demented witto flattery > tvho think ** "»** unlawful for Chrifi to have defended himfelf by the ajji fiance of his difciflesjrom thtvilefi of hie creatures rifing againft himjsad it not been that the Scriptures concerning himfiould be accomfli[hed : For,albeit it is true, Chrift as God, could havedeftroyed by himfelf or his inftruments all the vile creatures that rofe againft him ; yet,Cbrift as man,fubmitting himfelf in our nature to fulfill all righteoufnefs,fubmitced himfelf to Magiftra- cy as the ordinance of God,exhorting others to do the farae(aibeit,thc Magiftrates were his own creatures as he is God) he came in the form of a fervant and of a Subject, ( and was made under the Law ) and whatever by Gods Law was unlawful for a Subject to do ( as rebelli- on againft lawful powers is ) the Son of God in the eftate of bis hu- miliation fubmitted , that the fame fliould be unlawfull to him as a roan * he was never found in any act of Rebellion ( albeit the Ma- giftrates were corrupt ) he approved it not in others, but reproved the forwardnefs of others who would aflift him with violence againft the Magiftrates or his fervants , leaving alfo a general admonition to all his followers forever,not to ufurp the fword againft the Magiftrate, intenninatin*, that whofoever fhould do fo, fhould pay dear for ir, he r **7 ) he that taketh *k g fe« r 39. Reftfi not evil, &c. The fcope of which Text is, to (hew the unlaw fuilnefs of privat revenge for injuries done to us , and of retaliation of wrongs received, wherein the Lybeller (heweth himfelf exceedingly guilty, and a man of an unchriftian fpirir, being fo much a murtherer in his heart and in his words , thrifting for the cteftruclion of all forts of perfons that ftand in his way,and inftiga- ting people to be inftrumental in ferving his and his parties lufts there- in : This is the true fcnfe, whatever be his gaudie gloiTes of it, where- in clearly he darkenech knowledge with vain words, and the place will condemn plainly enough violent retaliating the Magiftrate when we think he dot h us wrong,and this Ad vocat doth not diffemble or deny, to r ^9 ) to hive been intended by tb^RcteU s but defends ardjuftifies rftelr purpofes to have puli ed tfovfaalltfte Authorities of the /and: this we accoropt tob-uta'ly unlawful!, and to be thai eviifefflanfe which Cbrifi condemns. O I but /ai:h the Lybelier , pag. 1 50. J60. This prohibition of not reftjiing evil/, dcth not import that voe (hould not refift, but give W«j to aU violence &r,afacriledge y to [ubvtriixg of Re- ligion and righteoft/nefi&c That is true indeed i Bar, who that hath any fenfe will riiafce fuch an inference ? That every m3n in his calling ought to witbftand violence and facriledge to the rubveftiftg of Religi- on and righteoufnefs,it is granted >, Yea, private mm may refift the un- juft violence of private perfons,*nd being under theconducl of the Ma« ^. giftrate,may refift any that ofTereth violence in lefler concernments then f thefeare. But we ft?ll maintain chat this Text forbids all revenge and violent retaliation upon the Magistrate ( though he abufe his power ) for in no cafe admit we of the lawfulnefs of violence of fubje&s againft the fupreme Magiftrate, albeit every man in his place is bound not to give way ( fo far as he can hinder ) to the violent fubverfioa of Religion, but in all wayes competent to fubjffts, withftandthe farae,and yet not run to violf nt wayes againft the Magiftrate ; But this is the prime principle of this mans faith , that any private perfons may violently counteract all Judges and Judicatories when they think they do wrong j and the ultimate refolurion of all ground?, not onely of obedience, but of fubmiiTion to fufTering, refts according to his Doctrine upon the fancies and lufts of private perfons this is the high way to confound Church and State and all ; This Lybelier prefent- ly addeth, That We jhould be perfefl: , as cur heavenly Father it perfett,ar.d he is not one I y good bat righteous \helpeth the opprejfed^and commandeth the ztal of his oV?n glory by the hand of his people to take vengeance of his adverfaries. What is it, after the manner of Sathan, to cheat and abufc men by the holy Scriptures of truth, if this be not ? What ftrange arguing is this , that becaufe God Almighty executetli vengeance upon his adverfaries great and fmail , that therefore private perlons, of whom our queftion is now , (riould follow his perfection in doing the like, albeit they have not' his warrand or command: (hould they not firft queftion who made-them Gods fword- bearers againft the Mag^ftrne ? Bur, O I what a plague is it to be delivered ^■JD to believe the deceitful Doclrines of fuch bicody and deceitful men, Buti heclofes all his perveriions of Scripture, pag t j6o. wkhReveL 13.10. He that leadcth , &c. he that fclltth Vvhh the fword, wttft be Ulted with the [word i Whereupon he would found the confolation tod ( ^70 ) and patience of his party in all former fufltrings, and Wis hope and joy in the faith of the fucceeding delivery* That word, Rev. 1 5. touch- eth not nor threatens the Mag.ftrate in the execution of juftice , but rebel?, who ufe the fword without Gods vyarrand againft the Magi- strate, may read their reward in this Text. And as for his hopes and bis joyes in the faith that the private fword (hall be turned againft the juft ufers of the publick , we truft that God (hall blefTe him with the mercy of a difappointment , and blalt his bloody joyes and hopes, fpreading his gracious prote iion over the King , inferior Rulers and the whole people of the Land. Now j as for his difcourfes anent quarter given tofomeandnot keeped , the Libtlier would ha* e done wtll to cali to mind what quar- ter was given to the Kings party at Pbilliphauch ; his Majtfties wor- thy Secretary, who was known to be no fword-man , and feveral others brave Gentlemen, were put to death after quarter given, not- withftanding of the Kings Authority which was upon their fide ; a practice never heard of before in our Kingdom, that a Parliament or inferior Judges againft the Supieam, did put to death tbofs who were acting by his warrand, whereas he never put to deathany who acted by their warrand taken prifoners by him. Why then {hould the pri- viledge of quarter be pleaded , in behalf of thefe who had no (hadovv of Authority for them 3 but had taken Arras againft al! the Authori- ties of the Land , from the higheft to the loweft ? It was a favour to them for the time to be reprieved from the Souldiers fword, albeit juftice (hould after take place againft them. And although he fcofs at that word that was (poktn , A dverfus hoftes tantum eft bellum, at in yer due lies judicium ; yet it hath more truth in it then he is capable of: and it will not be put off with his jeers, as if in war there may be faith and quarter , but in judgement there ought to be neither truth nor performance - for who will deny , that faith and quarter may be given in war * and that the faith given (hould be performed by them that gave it ? but the Souldier gave only a prefent reprieval from his fword. and fofar as it was in his own power to do • but the publick ] udicatories,together with the King their Head,were to look to what Law required? , and cannot be bound by any Souldiers engagement made to meer Subjects rebelling againft all Authorities, for a pre- fent fparing of them. Now we (hould have reprefented the exceeding arrojancy and pride of this Libeller j according as was propo fed ; but the characters there- of being fo vifible in all the works and writings of this man and his complices* (*7D complices % we (hall fpare the pains of noticing their high and haughty wayes , which every one that runneth may read ; befeeching God both to renew this mans heartland to reclaim him from his evil courfes, and alfo to guard the hearts of his own people againft his peftilent and confounding Do&rines , which tend direct ly to the overthrow of hu- mane Societies. The God of truth, peace and love dwell amongft us, to unite our hearts in himfelf, to lave usfromthefnares of Sathao, and of turbulent and unquiet men , and tcelhblifh our tranquillity in enjoying the Gofpel under the Kings MajVfties Government : He hiffi- felf grant this , for his great Nanus fake. tAmtn. FINIS. ERRATA. Vag. Lint. Far. $• 14. name. 9* 21. after t. \o. 9* upon. 10. 16. is. 21* $h ^ are nor. 7S* **■ faith in **$• 16. that 165. 27*18. fepirate-in, 178. fi- the oath had 180. ll* fin. 187. H- as the. 19*. » 5. XvfiU. 206, a* limited. 208. u« whatever. 210. lh one. 218. 1- devils. ***' 19. or declining 2$6. *$• ufed. Read. name tacitly or cxprefly* affcnt. upon him. as i$ % or not. faith and that Come. feparating. bad the oath been* fign. as there were. *c/W, &C. illimitcd. wherever. in one. devils malice and. nor decline. uttered. That the Order by which, and the phce where, the former Part wa5 printed, were not mentioned , was an efcape.